Instead of focusing on fossil fuels for energy production, focusing on renewable energy would help stop the destruction of ecosystems.
The Ecocide Act is primarily designed to allow business to start producing new products that enhance life and ensure sustainability.
It would ensure that investments were directed in a new direction-to activities that would benefit mankind. It would result in new employment opportunities. It would usher in a new age of innovation. It would ensure that governments would finally focus on providing due diligence as trustees of the earth. It would enhance and protect life on the planet.
Every dollar invested in the fossil fuel industry is a dollar not invested in renewables. Every dollar invested in the fossil fuel industry and every subsidy it receives, delays the adoption of renewables. Every dollar spent on highly polluting fossil fuels diminishes our legacy to future generations.
These innovative win-win examples from India and Oregon show what could become one standard practice for clean, renewable energy generation if we release the brakes applied by our addiction to fossil fuels.
This solar highway in Oregon-America’s first-is breaking records.
Gandhinagar, Mar 31 (IANS): India’s major roads may double up as solar highways, if an innovative proposal by some scientists gets the government’s approval. The proposal is the brainchild of scientists at the Gujarat Energy Research and Management Institute (GERMI) in the state capital.
In a paper just published in the International Journal of Energy, Environment and Engineering, the scientists say highways can be used to generate solar power, if a roof of solar panels was laid over them, across the length of the roads.
The photovoltaic (PV) panels that convert sunlight into electricity is normally spread out on land. “While the price of PV panels is falling day by day, the price of land and its availability are constraints in the development of solar power, especially in India,” says Tirumalachetty Harinarayana, director of GERMI and one of the authors of the paper.
“Our proposal overcomes this obstacle by using the space over the highways for placing the PV panels,” Harinarayana told IANS. “This space can contribute to energy generation without extra land costs.”
The proposal by Harinarayana and co-worker Pragya Sharma is based on case studies they carried out on two highways passing through Gujarat, using computer simulation.
From their computations, they estimate that a PV roof cover over the four-lane 205 km-long Ahmedabad-Rajkot highway can generate 104 MW of power while the Ahmedabad-Vadodara national highway, 93 km long, can generate 61 MW of electricity.
“We can suggest that the same concept can be extended for use on the 52,584-kilometre long national and state highways in India with four lanes or more,” the scientists said.
The four-lane 5,839-km long Golden Quadrilateral Highway, for example, connecting Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, can potentially generate 4,418 MW of power while the North-South-East-West Corridor highway of 7,300 km connecting Srinagar, Kanyakumari, Porbandar and Silchar has 5,524 MW capacity of power generation.
“If having solar panel roof over the national highways proves successful, one can think of using all our rail network as well for solar energy generation,” Harinarayana said.
The GERMI scientists claim that apart from producing power, the solar highway concept, if implemented, can generate jobs for both skilled and unskilled people.
“Additionally, the shade provided by the over-head solar panels would result in improved vehicle efficiency and longer tyre life, besides reduction in road maintenance costs,” Harinarayana said.
“Another benefit of having a roof over the highways is rainwater harvesting at selected locations,” he said.
The scientists point out that the Jawaharlal Nehru Solar Mission (JNSM) launched by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Jan 2010 could not reach its target of 1,200 MW electricity by March 2013 due to various problems.
“Again, there is no roadmap or clear plan to reach its 20 GW target by 2022,” said Harinarayana. He said the solar highway concept has the potential for large-scale generation of electricity with grid connectivity in short time.
“This requires one-time investment for constructing a simple elevated structure covering the national highways,” he said.
According to Harinarayana, Gujarat state is ideally suited to take a lead in implementing the proposal. The state, he said, has already made great strides in harnessing sunlight by establishing a large solar park near Charanka in the Kutch region, launching the five-MW solar roof top programme in Gandhinagar, and also erection of solar panels on a water canal.
He said GERMI would be ready to demonstrate the feasibility of the solar highway through a 1-MW pilot scale project once the government gives approval.<
“All this existing environmental law, it’s not working.”
In the following 19-minute video, Polly Higgins, British activist, lawyer and ardent campaigner for the adoption of ecocide as the 5th UN Crime against Peace explains why she believes that “in my life a law of Ecocide is something worthy of actually giving my life to, to make happen.”
My transcript with added subheadings and hyperlinks follows the video. Copious subheadings will facilitate rapid skimming of a long transcript. Polly Higgins – Ecocide, the 5th Crime Against Peace, published on May 1, 2012 by TEDxTalks TRANSCRIPT
An “Aha!” moment – “Earth has been badly injured and something needs to be done about that”
Seven years ago I was standing in the Royal Courts of Justice in London. I’m a barrister. And it was the very last day of a long-running case where I had been representing a man who had been very badly injured and harmed in the workplace. And I was his lawyer. And I was giving voice on his behalf in court. There was a moment of silence while we waited for the judges to come into the room. And at that moment I looked out of the window and I got thinking. I looked out and I thought: You know the earth has also been badly injured and harmed. And something needs to be done about that.
Earth needs a good lawyer with the right tools to fight for the rights of earth
My next thought actually changed my life. I thought: The earth is in need of a good lawyer. Now that was a thought that didn’t leave me alone. And I went away and I thought about it. I thought well, you know, as a lawyer in court where are the tools that I need to represent the earth in court? And what I realized was that they didn’t exist. So I started thinking about this. What do I need to put in place for this? What if the earth had rights? After all, we as humans have rights. The most important right of all of course is our right to life. What if the earth had the right to life as well? And I spoke to other lawyers about this and they said, “Polly, you’re mad.” Of course the earth didn’t have rights. And after all there’s a whole body of environmental law out there, you know. Why not just use that?
All the existing environmental law is not stopping the mass damage and destruction of the earth
But I said, well there’s a problem here. All this existing environmental law, it’s not working. It can’t be working because we just have to look at the Amazon to see this is not working. We’re looking as mass damage and destruction that’s escalating every day. The existing law is not stopping that.
750 million of earth’s inhabitants get it – Earth should have the right to life
So what I did, I looked around to see who else was thinking like me. And what I discovered was that in fact there are many people thinking like me: 750 million people out there to be exact: 250 million of them are indigenous. They get the idea that the earth has the right to life. They get the idea that life itself is sacred — not just human life, but all life. Also I discovered Buddhists understood this way of thinking as well. That’s another 380 million people: 750 million people the size of Europe already think like me. It’s just that it’s not written down in law.
Then I got thinking further because of course actually with our human rights and our right to life that’s also governed on a one-to-one [basis] by the crime of murder (or in America it’s called homicide), when it’s ourselves and our community it’s called genocide.
Another “Aha!” moment – Make damage and destruction to the earth a crime — the crime of ecocide.
And I was actually speaking to a large audience a couple of years ago – back in 2009 – about earth’s rights when someone in the audience said: “You know we need a new language to deal with this mass damage and destruction that’s happening of the earth, of our ecosystems.” And I thought, you know, you’re right. It’s like genocide and ecocide. And it was one of those lightbulb moments. Literally I felt as if a light had gone on above my head. And I thought: My God, it should be a crime. Is that possible? Could we make ecocide a crime?
Ecocide could be made the missing 5th Crime against Peace
And I rushed home and I went off and I researched this. A few months later I can up for a breath. And I realized that in fact, indeed, not only could we make it a crime but it is a missing 5th crime against peace.
The four existing international Crimes against Peace
Now you’ll see here in this slide…what this sets out here are what are known as the international Crimes against Peace. We already have Crimes against Humanity, War crime, Genocide. They were put in place after World War 2. And they act as umbrella laws to cover the whole of the world. They’re kind of super laws, they supersede everything else. All other laws must come in line with them. Crime of Aggression, that’s the run up to war. That was just put in place in 2010. And I say that actually there’s a 5th crime against peace here, and that is Ecocide.
The missing 5th Crime against Peace — Ecocide
What we have in existence already are laws that protect the wellbeing of life. Actually what they protect is the sacredness of life itself. And I’m saying it’s not just human life but we expand our cycle of concern out and that it’s the wellbeing of all life, of all inhabitants who live on this earth.
This is a diagram of what’s happening in the world at the moment.
We have damage and destruction on a mass scale playing out, which is what I call ecocide. And I’ll unpackage that term in a moment. But it’s leading to amongst other things resource depletion, which leads to amongst other things conflict, which can then lead to war, which of course leads to more damage and destruction, more resource depletion. In fact, what’s happening in the Congo at the moment is a very potent example of this cycle spiralling onwards and upwards faster and faster: conflict leading to more war, more damage and destruction to more ecocide. And so it goes on spiralling onwards and upwards. It’s what Sir David King calls a century of resource wars. That’s what we’re looking at.
An international Law of Ecocide can stop this cycle of damage and destruction to earth’s ecosystems
Well, in fact, I think there’s another way that we can turn this around. We can actually halt it in its tracks. This is now about slowing down this cycle. But it’s actually about stopping it, intervening, and by creating law that actually acts as a disruptor to that spiral as it spirals onwards and upwards. And that’s what law of ecocide can do.
This is the beginning of the legal proposal that I submitted to the United Nations:
Ecocide: The extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.
The law would apply not just to “people” but to all earth’s “inhabitants”
Ecocide is a crime when we cause extensive destruction and damage to a lot of ecosystems. Now every word here is legally weighted. But possibly the most important word here is that word “inhabitants.” You’ll see it’s not just people, but we’re talking about inhabitants. And of course that’s recognition that if we look at any given territory,it’s not just human beings that live there but there are other species as well. It’s also a recognition of the interconnectedness of life itself, ultimately destroy the earth that we stand on and we destroy our ability to live in peaceful enjoyment.
Human-caused ecocide
Now there are two types of ecocide here. Human-caused ecocide is when we see and we’re able to ascertain as a result of our actions we are causing mass damage and destruction. And, in fact, we heard earlier today about how, in human-caused terms, we’re also creating injury in other ways – increasing of greenhouse gases. That’s one outcome of causing mass damage and destruction. I have, in fact, just recently submitted to all governments a concept paper on how we can use this law to close the door to dangerous industrial activity that is causing human-caused ecocide.
Naturally-occurring ecocide and a legal “duty of care” imposed on all nations because we are all in this together
But there is another type of ecocide that I wish to talk to you about today. And that is naturally-occurring ecocide. That’s when we see tsunamis, floods, rising sea levels – anything that causes mass ecosystem collapse. And we can create an international law that doesn’t just govern corporate activity, but more importantly that imposes a legal duty of care on all nations to give assistance when something like this occurs: because at the moment we have the likes of the Maldives standing up and saying, “Help us, we’re looking at going under water with rising sea levels within the next decades.” And governments are saying, “Nothing we can do.” And, in effect, what they’re saying is we don’t have a legal duty of care to give assistance. By creating a law of ecocide we can impose a legal duty of care so that all nations come together and pre-empt this.After all, there are 54 small island states that are looking at rising sea levels. And not just 54 small island states but other countries as well. Bangladesh is looking at not just floods, rising sea levels, but also they have a triple whammy because they have melting ice as well.
By imposing a legal duty of care on nations, the dialog can begin to take place where we decide what we are going to do to give help. And that is very important – that we can move forward together in this — because ultimately at the end of the day, even if they are on the other side of the world, we are in this together.
The principle of Superior Responsibility is the doctrine of hierarchical accountability and a legal duty of protective care for others
But it goes further than that. In international criminal law, we have a principle called “Superior Responsibility”. Yes, this is about taking responsibility, but more than that, it’s about imposing superior responsibility upon those who — if you imagine like a triangle, sit at the top of the triangle, those in a position of command and control – now that means heads of state, ministers. It also means chief executives, directors, heads of banks – those who are in a position to make decisions that can adversely impact on many million peoples underneath, and by imposing legal duty of care upon those individuals we actually create a framework upon which we can make decisions that are based on prioritizing people and planet first. And that’s about closing the door to the dangerous industrial activity.
Two ways of viewing the earth – as a commodity to be exploited or as a living being to be cared for
What this comes down to is two different ways of viewing the earth. View the earth as an inert thing and what we do is we put a price tag on it. We impose a value on it. What we do is we buy it, we sell it, we use it, we abuse it. We commoditize it. That’s all governed by the law of property.
However, there is another way of viewing the earth. And that’s about viewing the earth as a living being. And when we do that it comes from a very different place. In fact, it shifts dramatically how we look into the long term. Because once we see ourselves as trustees, as guardians, we start taking responsibility for future generations.
And this is about realigning the scales of justice. Just now they’re out of kilter, they’re out of balance. And I believe we can do that, we can rebalance that. In fact, we have done this once before in history. And I’d like to take you back 200 years.
Drawing parallels between the struggle to stop the slave trade and the struggle to stop Canada’s tar sands
Two hundred years ago William Wilberforce — who was the parliamentarian here in Britain who took up the mantle for abolition of slavery – when he stood up and said morally slavery is wrong. We must stop this. What he met with was a barrage of objections. Big industry said you can’t do that because it’s a necessity. The public demand it. And what’s more our economies will collapse if we get rid of slavery.
Well those 300 companies that were involved in slavery they came up with different ideas. They said leave it to us to sort out. Voluntary mechanisms: we will self-regulate this. Too many laws already. What’s more, we’ll limit the numbers, if push comes to shove. In fact, we can leave it to market forces to work this out: create a “cap and trade” system, if you like.
Now the interesting thing is that the British Parliament said no to all those proposals. And indeed two days before William Wilberforce died laws were passed which created ripples right across the world in ending slavery.
Now if we look to today what we’re seeing is actually a very similar picture. What’s changed here in the picture? This is of the Athabasca tar sands in Canada. Now when I first saw these pictures my heart stopped. They stopped me in my tracks. I looked at what was going on there and I said really this is a crime. Now what we’re seeing today is that industry is saying exactly the same thing. The difference is that, in fact, we have tried the solutions and we have discovered that they don’t work.
This is not about shutting down an industry; it’s about making the problem into the solution
Now one of the successes that came out of slavery was the fact that it was managed, there was a transition period. Not one of those companies went out of business. And William Wilberforce was governed by something that I’m also very governed by. This is not about closing down big industry. This is about making the problem into the solution. In fact, not one of those 300 companies went out of business after the abolition of slavery. Some of them went on to trade in tea in China. They were given subsidies. Some of them actually became the police of the seas. Because William Wilberforce said three crucial things have to happen: you pull the subsidies, you outlaw the problem, and you create new subsidies in the other direction. And that’s precisely what we’re needing to do today.
It’s about putting people and planet first
But it’s more than that. It actually goes back in the annals of time, of something that’s known as the Sacred Trust of Civilization. Now this is a concept that goes back in written documents as far as I could find to the 16th century. And it’s been enshrined in the United Nations’ charter [Chapter XI, Article 73], which is our first successful international legal document put in place after World War 2. And what that says is that members of the United Nations have a duty, a legal duty to put the interests of the inhabitants — that word again, “inhabitants” – as number one. The primary duty that we have – the duty of care – and that we accept as a sacred trust. Trust. So this is about our being trustees, stewards, guardians. And that we have an obligation to promote to the utmost the wellbeing of the inhabitants. The health and wellbeing provision; it’s about putting people and planet first.
A law of ecocide is a crime against peace, about putting inhabitants above profit
A law of ecocide gives this section in the United Nations’ charter legal validity. And that’s very important. Because an international law of ecocide is a crime against humanity. But it’s more than that. It’s a crime against nature. It’s a crime against future generations. Ultimately, most importantly, it’s a crime against peace. This is about prioritizing people and planet over and above profit. But also a recognition that when we do that, when we open the door to a conflict-free world we can create innovation in a very different direction that actually gives us abundance in many, many ways.
Now I’m not anti-profit – not at all. In fact, I’m very pro it. But what I am is I’m closing the door to that which causes life destruction. And I’m opening the door to that which affirms life itself.
So this takes me back to seven years ago when I started with one very powerful thought, and how it’s really led me on a journey. And it continues to do so. It’s not just about proposing an international law of ecocide. But in fact it’s also beginning to lead me along a journey of examining what is it that we need here – leadership, an adaptive leadership. We have fast-changing times.
Did you know it’s the law for corporations to put profit first?
It’s also led to a book, Eradicating ecocide that sets out this law and explains why law, in fact, has caused the problem. Did you know this? It is the law for corporations to put profit first. A company has a legal duty to maximize its profits to its shareholders. Now that used to serve us well. But unfortunately we didn’t look to the consequences. A law of ecocide would supersede this and impose a piece of legislation that in fact allows us to look to the consequences – a think-before-you-act provision that acts as a great turnkey.
Ecocide is a law that allows us to align ourselves with natural justice. It’s worth giving a life to make it happen
Now in conclusion, I just want to say this. Martin Luther King once said that when our laws align themselves to equality and justice then we will have true peace in this world.When our laws align themselves with a higher understanding then we will have that true quality and justice. Ecocide is a law that allows us to align ourselves with natural justice. And I believe that in my life that is something worthy of actually giving my life to, to make happen.
Thank you very much.
**********
ABOUT TEDx — In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.
‘Real property rights imply the right to say no.’ Regulations give pipeline builders too much power over landowners, says Dave Core of CAEPLA. Pipeline image:Shutterstock
On February 28th Dave Core gave an impassioned presentation about “pipeline company bullies” before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
The media were not there.
But the 58-year-old farmer and landowner, an expert on pipeline regulation, directly contradicted the testimony of National Energy Board (NEB) chairman Gaétan Caron as well as that of Mark Cory, Assistant Deputy Minister of Natural Resources Canada.
Both Caron and Cory reassured the Senate Committee that pipeline regulations were safe and orderly in Canada.
But that’s not what Core, who supports fair pipeline development, has witnessed over the last 20 years.
He told the Senate that the NEB, which is now overseeing the Northern Gateway hearings, is a captive regulator that does not work for Canadians but “protects the interests of pipeline companies.”
He documented oil-pipeline spills that had not been cleaned up in Ontario, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
And he provided evidence that the National Energy Board has left the industry off the hook for multibillion-dollar abandonment liabilities on 70,000 kilometers of federally-regulated pipelines. In other words, pipeline companies can abandon their corroded steel pipes in the ground (a hazard to groundwater and livestock) and walk away.
Core is the founder of the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA) which represents the legal interests of landowners across the country. It is a landowner’s version of Idle No More, the aboriginal movement now contesting the abuse of power by the Stephen Harper’s omnibus bills.
The Ontario-born farmer has been advocating for changes to Canada’s pipeline regulations since 1993. He knows more about the institutional history of the NEB than most of the nation’s reporters.
Here are a few excerpts from Core’s dramatic and timely presentation:
Kitchen table nightmare
“My goal this morning is to bring perspective to the issues of landowners when confronted by pipeline companies. That is, the issues when private property owners, like yourselves, come up against government supported and subsidized corporations that are allowed to come packing with government regulations to take our lands, our rights and leave us with annual risks, liabilities, a duty of care that we do not want, costs and the pipeline junk which includes the resulting safety and liability issues of historical contamination and pipeline collapse when the companies pack up and leave.
“Before I proceed I would like you to pretend you are sitting around a kitchen table with your family and a ‘land agent’ has just left you with a brown envelope with a Section 87 Notice, an NEB Regulatory Notice, stating that a pipeline company is going to put a pipeline in your backyard and the easement agreement and the compensation offer are included.
“The stress has only just begun. Next come teams of land agents, the men trained in profiling and in telling every tale they can to get the deal signed while they sit at your kitchen table drinking your coffee. He/she might even be your neighbour’s son or daughter. It is like you have stepped into a spaghetti western with cowboys coming to your door, not packing a gun, but a big smile, lots of lies and packing government regulations that allow them to threaten you if you question them.
“As can be seen in the transcripts of your previous guests’ presentations to date, pipeline companies have no real accountability to anyone and they haven’t since 1959….The self-admitted ‘industry partner’ Gaétan Caron, chair of the NEB, said nothing to you but that everything is wonderful, safe and sustainable. Well, it is not, and it is time everyone understands what is really going on.”
No spill liability
“Mr. Corey from Natural Resources Canada stated that pipeline companies are fully responsible for cleaning up spills. Then why are there spills and contaminated properties across Canada that have not been cleaned up? As I pointed out at the recent abandonment cost estimates hearing there is contamination in the Enbridge and TransNorthern pipeline corridor just east of Toronto, that has been there for 20 years. And more has recently been uncovered as Enbridge does integrity digs to repair the polyethylene coating disaster on line 9 in preparation for reversal. I also have a letter I read, at the hearing, from a Manitoba resident complaining of an Enbridge spill on her property that had never been cleaned up. I also know of other spills where landowners have signed confidentiality agreements and cannot talk about what was left behind. The NEB regulations and oversight protects companies from having to do due diligence to landowners.”
A revolving door of special interests
“The NEB and the industry have a revolving door when it comes to employees. Brenda Kenny, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) President was a long time employee at the NEB, as were a number of other CEPA people past and present. At the recent abandonment-cost-estimates hearing, two of the regulatory people representing Enbridge had just recently worked at the NEB as regulatory officers….
“Landowners are not just stakeholders. Like you, Honorable Senators, we are property owners. We bought our property as a place to live, a lifestyle choice, an investment, to ranch our cattle, to crop farm or run any other business zoning allowed. We did not request pipelines. We live, raise families and work on these properties, yet we have had pipelines enforced on our backyards, that do not respect our stewardship or legal obligations. Our name is on title and the NEB legislation leaves our future to the whim of pipeline companies and their regulatory partners.”
Expropriation of land without compensation
“In 1988, Section 112 of the NEB Act was created and the legislation was then reworked in 1990 since it was not properly done in 1988. A senator at that time stated that the legislation was questionable from a landowner rights perspective. It created new restrictions to the landowner’s right to farm over the pipelines and also restricted 200 more feet of our land along the pipeline. That is 100 feet on each side of the 60 foot easement. Our original easements gave us the right to farm over the pipelines and stated that the company was to compensate for any land taken for the operation of its pipelines. Those old 60-foot easements are now 260 feet, that is, four-times the width with no compensation.
“Section 112 was created to allow pipeline companies the right to leave pipelines in the ground that are too shallow, corroded, too thin and designed with ineffective protective coatings that compromise safety. These regulations protect the companies and their shareholders from the cost of upgrading its infrastructure and addressing those safety issues. It is easier to restrict the activity of farmers over the pipelines than repair them. Imagine restricting traffic forever rather than upgrading a deteriorating overpass.
“For 20 years we have been asking that regulations be changed to have pipelines buried 6 feet deep and provide thicker pipes in rural areas because we farm over the pipelines and are concerned with our safety and the safety of the pipeline. The CSA standards are only 24” of cover and thicker pipes in highly populated areas. We have pictures at our web site of pipelines with only 1 foot of cover. They should be dug up, replaced and buried deeper.”
Harper’s ‘criminal penalties for farmers’
“In the Omnibus Bill C38 (May of 2012) NEB regulations were changed to put monetary and criminal penalties on farmers if they do not ask permission to cross pipelines; on summary conviction, a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year; on conviction on indictment, a fine of up to $1,000,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years. Too bad the presidents of the pipeline companies do not suffer the same consequences for polluting miles of private property. Instead they get multimillion-dollar pensions.”
Canada’s pipeline abandonment scandal
“In 1985 there were five abandonment regulations that held the companies responsible for removal of pipelines upon abandonment. Mr. Vollman, Past Chair of the NEB, an engineer at the time, was responsible for creating a document called “Discussion Paper on Negative Salvage Value.” It discussed the issue of abandonment, pipeline removal and the collection of funds to finance the process. A year later, in 1986, the NEB gave notice to the industry that it would do nothing with the issue.
“In 2002, CAEPLA invited the NEB to come to Sombra, Ontario to view farming practices and we made a presentation on the abandonment and funding issue. The Chair of the Board, Mr. Vollman, an engineer at the time, and Mr. Gaétan Caron were both present, and Mr. Vollman stated that the issue had been looked at but could not be resolved. He never mentioned the 1985 document.
“CAEPLA accidently came across the document in 2007 and upon research found that the five abandonment regulations that called for the removal of pipelines at abandonment in 1985 had been changed a number of times, and now the regulations state that abandonment can now be approved in place.
“In the meantime, two abandonment hearings and hundreds of thousands of dollars of landowners money later, the NEB has ignored its judicial burden-of-proof at hearings and decided to collect money, 50 years late, for only 20 per cent removal of pipelines. It has ignored the legal evidence provided by landowners that clearly shows pipelines must be fully removed to protect landowners from liability. At one point the Board even changed its 2008 judicial decision that protected landowners (20 per cent removal and 80 per cent maintained into perpetuity) to a scheme of just 20 per cent removal at the behest again of CEPA without a hearing.”
Transferring wealth to pipeline companies
“With the coercive power of expropriation, of forced entry behind them, pipeline companies have landowners over a barrel. An oil barrel.
“But it is an oil barrel that does not truly reflect the real economic costs of bringing it to market. Part of that cost is borne by farmers and ranchers and other rural landowners who are coerced into non-market transactions. Non market transactions that are effectively a transfer of wealth from one group of owners to another. From the owners of farms and ranches to the owners of shares in pipeline companies. A transfer of wealth from rural to urban Canada. A transfer from middle class and often less affluent, to the affluent….
“Real property rights imply the right to choose. The right to say no if need be. The right to freely and voluntarily deal or not deal as you see fit…. Government should not be in the business of facilitating the transfer of wealth from farmers, ranchers, and taxpayers to the shareholders of pipeline companies.”
JONATHAN HAYWARD / THE CANADIAN PRESS ARCHIVES Enlarge Image
Chief Theresa Spence is back home in Attawapiskat and Idle No More has faded from view after an impressive run in the headlines. Another aboriginal movement, however, continues to build toward the biggest First Nations stand-off in a generation — the fight against the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline.
The contentious project — a 1,170-kilometre pipeline that would link the Alberta oilsands with a supertanker port in Kitimat, B.C. — is a major economic and environmental issue. But it also represents the most significant degree of aboriginal resistance this country has seen since 1990 when Mohawk warriors stared down Her Majesty’s Royal 22nd Regiment across barricades at Oka.
Like Idle No More, the pipeline battle is a gut-level expression of aboriginal determination. Unlike Idle No More, it is tightly organized and well defined, with proven staying power and a simple focus: to prevent construction of the $6.5-billion project.
Aboriginal opposition to Gateway is centred in 20 or so relatively small First Nations between Prince George, B.C. and Haida Gwaii (the Queen Charlotte Islands)….
Officially, the project is still on track. If that doesn’t change, Ottawa will be faced with the prospect of fighting numerous First Nations in court — First Nations that have not signed treaties or otherwise ceded their lands, which gives them a stronger legal leg to stand on.
Ottawa will also face the prospect of arresting dozens of respected and articulate aboriginal leaders and elders, along with many more community members, as the world looks on.
That would almost certainly ignite an international swell of support for the First Nations that would make Idle No More look like an opening act. The fact the anti-Gateway movement has a simple objective, established leaders, a geographic centre, reasonable chances of success and appeal well beyond aboriginal circles would likely enable it to mobilize support that would dwarf the rallies of Idle No More. MORE
As the Harper Government continues to aggressively promote Canada’s tar sands, Steve must realize that he is in a race against time. As global carbon emissions continue to rise above safe levels, other countries are seriously developing renewable energy and are carefully examining their energy options.
Part of Harper’s dilemma is that unless tar sands oil is quickly exploited and delivered to market he will find growing international pressure to leave the carbon embedded in the tar sands safely in the ground.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out that stranded carbon poses serious risks for investors and especially Canadian pension funds.
CCPA Senior Economist Marc Lee warns that fossil fuel divestment is necessary in order to avoid a “carbon bubble.”
The report states, “Between two-thirds and four-fifths of known fossil fuel reserves have been deemed to be “unburnable carbon” that cannot safely be combusted without leading to catastrophic climate change.”
On Harper’s watch, Canada has received several Colossal Fossil and Fossil of the Year awards. Obviously he has little respect for the environment. However other countries do.
Falling Gasoline Use Means United States Can Just Say No to New Pipelines and Food-to-Fuel
Freeing America from its dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world is an admirable goal, but many of the proposed solutions—including the push for more home-grown biofuels and for the construction of the new Keystone XL pipeline to transport Canadian tar sands oil to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast—are harmful and simply unnecessary. Gasoline use in the United States is falling, and the trends already driving it down are likely to continue into the future, making both the mirage of beneficial biofuels and the construction of a new pipeline to import incredibly dirty oil seem ever more out of touch with reality.
U.S. motor gasoline consumption peaked at 142 billion gallons in 2007. In each year since, American drivers have used less gasoline. In 2012, gas use came in at 134 billion gallons, down 6 percent off the high mark.
Three trends underlie falling U.S. gasoline use: a shrinking car fleet, an overall reduction in driving, and improved fuel efficiency. The number of registered vehicles in the United States rose rather steadily from 1945 to 2008, when it topped out at close to 250 million and then abruptly changed course. As the economic recession hit, new car sales in the United States fell from more than 16 million in 2007 to below 11 million in 2009. For two years, scrappage exceeded new purchases, causing a contraction in the overall size of the fleet. Even with a rebound in sales to nearly 15 million vehicles in 2012, the days of annual sales exceeding 17 million—as seen through the early 2000s—are likely over. (Seedata.)
The car promised mobility, but in urbanizing communities it instead brought traffic congestion and air pollution. With four out of five Americans now living in urban areas, private vehicle ownership is starting to lose its allure. This is particularly true among younger people, who are readily embracing mass transit and the car-sharing and bike-sharing programs that are popping up in cities around the country. Fewer than half of American teenagers ages 15 to 19 have a driver’s license, a share that has been falling over recent decades as states have tightened restrictions and as socialization patterns have shifted from cruising the streets to cruising the Internet. Retirees also tend to drive less; as the baby boomers retire, more people will be putting away their car keys.
As gasoline prices have risen, private vehicles have traveled fewer miles and public transit ridership has increased. Not only are there fewer vehicles traveling fewer miles on U.S. roads than there were just five years ago, but new cars today can drive farther on a gallon of gasoline. This will soon accelerate: after more than two decades of near-total stagnation, in 2011 the Obama administration increased fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks from an average of 27.5 miles per gallon in 2008 to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. In addition to the technological changes that can improve the fuel economy of conventional vehicles, new plug-in hybrid electric cars and fully electric vehicles use far less gasoline or even do away with it entirely.
Somewhat counterintuitively, falling gasoline use is at odds with the federal mandate to use more renewable fuel. Under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) requires blending increasing volumes of ethanol into the U.S. gasoline supply, regardless of how much gasoline is needed. In 2012, U.S. distilleries produced 13 billion gallons of fuel ethanol, almost entirely from corn. Ethanol accounted for nearly 10 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply. The 2013 requirement for 13.8 billion gallons is likely to go beyond the 10-percent threshold of what can be blended into gasoline and still be used in older vehicles without risking engine damage and voiding warranties.
Furthermore, the RFS requires a growing share of the renewable fuel to come from cellulosic non-food biofuels, yet these have not become economical to produce on a meaningful scale. The increasing production of corn-based ethanol has pitted food use against fuel use, with the unfortunate result of higher food prices. As drought in the U.S. Corn Belt shrank harvests in 2012, corn prices spiked to an all-time high. U.S. corn carryover stocks fell to 6 percent of use in 2012, a historic low. Still, more than 40 percent of the 2012 corn harvest will likely go to fuel cars.
While corn exports from the United States were down in 2012, gasoline exports were up. Higher domestic production and reduced demand allowed the United States to export more oil products than it imported for the second year in a row—after more than six decades of being a net importer. The United States is still a net importer of crude oil, though. Instead of necessarily allowing more gasoline to reach U.S. markets, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would bring the carbon-intensive Canadian tar sands oil closer to Gulf Coast export terminals for easier access to international markets.
A March 2013 report by the National Research Council describes policies and technologies that would allow the United States to cut its gasoline use 80 percent by 2050. Yet the data they used on the distances being driven only went through 2005, missing the recent drop, and many of the social trends that are starting to drive down car use were not incorporated. These trends are important to consider when envisioning energy and transportation policies for the future. This means rethinking mobility beyond private automobiles. And putting a price on carbon to encourage powering the cars still on the roads with carbon-free wind-sourced electricity can help move the United States beyond ecologically disruptive false solutions that raise food prices and further destabilize the climate.
This photo from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shows crews at the scene of a Canadian Pacific train derailment that spilled thousands of gallons of crude oil near Parkers Prairie in western Minnesota on Wednesday, March 27, 2013. (AP Photo/Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)
(Reuters) - A mile-long train hauling oil from Canada derailed and leaked 30,000 gallons of crude in western Minnesota on Wednesday, as debate rages over the environmental risks of transporting tar sands across the border. MORE
