Calgary Herald, July 16, 2010

Edmonton Journal July 18, 2010

Regarding the billboard ads urging Americans not to visit Alberta this summer, B.C. conservation groups might want to take a page from U.S. environmental organizations and adopt a similar campaign urging British Columbians to “rethink” travelling to Alberta.

As the Alberta government, oilsands industry and Enbridge Inc. attempt to shove the Northern Gateway pipeline down our throats in B.C., maybe it’s time we launched a boycott of our own. Why should British Columbians be willing to put our magnificent north coast at risk so that Alberta can reap profits from shipping “the world’s dirtiest oil” to Asian and American markets?

And sorry, we’re not falling for the full-page hyperbole-filled Enbridge advertisements in newspapers across B.C. trumpeting how Northern Gateway will solve unemployment, build sustainable communities and even make B.C.’s rocky north coast safer for all marine traffic.

Chris Genovali,

Sidney, B.C.

Re: The billboard ads urging Americans not to visit Alberta. B.C. conservation groups might want to take a page from U.S. environmental organizations and adopt a similar campaign urging British Columbians to “rethink” travelling to Alberta.

As the Alberta government, oilsands industry and Enbridge Inc. attempt to shove the “Northern Gateway” pipeline down our throats in B.C., maybe it’s time we launched a boycott of our own.

Why should British Columbians be willing to put our magnificent north coast at risk so Alberta can reap profits from shipping “the world’s dirtiest oil” to Asian and American markets?

And sorry, we’re not falling for the full-page hyperbole-filled Enbridge ads in newspapers across B.C. trumpeting how Northern Gateway will solve unemployment, build sustainable communities and even make B.C.’s rocky north coast safer for all marine traffic.

Chris Genovali

Raincoast Conservation

Sidney, B.C.

Guest comment by Chris Genovali

Many Canadians have been anxiously following the unfolding Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster and are experiencing a deep sense of unease as they scan the daily media reports.

Such foreboding is clearly understandable as one can’t help thinking this might be a nightmarish peek into one possible future for British Columbia as federal and provincial political “leaders” here in Canada lay the groundwork to transform our Pacific coast into an “energy corridor.” They dream of seismic testing, off-shore drilling, pipelines from the tar sands and oil tankers plying our rocky coast.

Carl Pope, former chairman of the Sierra Club in the United States, has dubbed the British Petroleum catastrophe “America’s Chernobyl.” U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, not exactly known as being a fervent environmentalist, describes the potential outlook for the Gulf Coast oil spill as “a very grave scenario.”

In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, federal opposition parties are calling for emergency hearings before the Commons Natural Resources Committee to discuss the need for more stringent safeguards against oil spills in Canada’s Arctic. But the public needs to be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs with regard to proposed oil development and transport for the B.C. coast as well. Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s recently released report, “What’s at Stake -– The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast,” is designed to do just that; available on the Raincoast website.

Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of B.C. means we could see supertankers on the coast transporting oil to offshore markets. This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine and terrestrial species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of First Nations and coastal communities.

It was fascinating to recently read in the Financial Post how Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel is advocating for what amounts to a national corporate welfare initiative as he flogs his company’s “Northern Gateway pipeline” project, tossing out empty platitudes like “we’re doing it … for Canada.”

Daniel’s suggestion that Canadians will need to massively subsidize the transport of tar sands crude through a series of confiscatory tax mechanisms in order to make it viable is transparently ironic.

However, his assertion that tar sands development and the Enbridge pipeline, as well as the attendant oil tanker traffic that will put B.C.’s coastal environment at great risk is at heart an egalitarian crusade to help poor energy-starved developing countries is cynical beyond belief.

The FP’s Terence Corcoran was spot-on when he wrote that what Enbridge “appears to be looking for is not so much a National Energy Strategy as a national regulatory system to codify massive transfers of wealth from one energy source to another, from consumers to the oil sands.” But more than that, in effect Enbridge wants to socialize the cost of the inevitable oil tanker accident on B.C.’s coast, while privatizing the profit of course.

Glib statements regarding the risk of a catastrophic oil spill on the B.C. coast if his company’s pipeline is approved and constructed are likely cold comfort to most British Columbians, the majority of who would prefer an oil-free coast according to polling on the issue.

Enbridge has made much of the fact that double hull tankers would be used to transport tar sands crude from the north coast terminal in Kitimat.

But double hulls have their own set of problems. In an article for the Prince Rupert Daily News, Jennifer Rice delineated several of those issues, including this one: “When double-hulled tankers are traveling at low speeds and a collision occurs, only the first hull is punctured preventing the oil from spilling out. At higher speeds the extra hull has done little to prevent oil spills. In reality, the speed at which both hulls can be pierced is surprisingly low – as little as three knots depending on the strike angle.”

Blind faith in modern technology is often misplaced; only 18 days before the Gulf Coast disaster, in justifying his position on off shore drilling, President Barack Obama asserted “oil rigs today don’t generally cause spills as they are technologically very advanced.”

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is an impossible task.

Who will pay? If history is any indication, it likely won’t be the corporate entities responsible for the disaster. The cost of the Exxon Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid $1 billion, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. Further, does that even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life?

Chris Genovali is the executive director of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Monday Magazine

Many Canadians have been anxiously following the unfolding Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster and are experiencing a deep sense of unease as they scan the daily media reports. Such foreboding is clearly understandable as one can’t help thinking this might be a nightmarish peek into one possible future for British Columbia as federal and provincial politicians here in Canada lay the groundwork to transform our Pacific coast into an “energy corridor.”  They dream of seismic testing, offshore drilling, pipelines from the tar sands, and oil tankers plying our rocky coast; this is what passes as visionary in the age of government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Carl Pope, former chairman of the Sierra Club in the United States, has dubbed the British Petroleum catastrophe “America’s Chernobyl.” U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, not exactly known as being a fervent environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, describes the potential outlook for the Gulf Coast oil spill as “a very grave scenario.”

In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Canadian federal opposition parties are calling for emergency hearings before the Commons Natural Resources Committee to discuss the need for more stringent safeguards against oil spills in Canada’s Arctic. But the public needs to be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs with regard to proposed oil development and transport for the B.C. coast as well; Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s recently released report, “What’s at Stake: The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast,” is designed to do just that; we encourage you to go to the Raincoast website and download the report.

Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of B.C. means we could see supertankers on the coast transporting oil to offshore markets. Enbridge proposes to construct and operate two pipelines—1,170 kilometers in length—between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, B.C. One of the pipelines will carry crude oil west to Kitimat and the other line will carry condensate east to Bruderheim. This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine and terrestrial species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of first nations and coastal communities.

It was fascinating to recently read in the Financial Post how Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel is advocating for what amounts to a national corporate welfare initiative as he flogs his company’s “Northern Gateway Pipeline” project, tossing out empty platitudes like “We’re doing it . . . for Canada.”

Daniel’s suggestion that Canadians will need to massively subsidize the transport of tar sands crude through a series of near-confiscatory tax mechanisms in order to make it viable is transparently ironic. However, his assertion that tar sands development and the Enbridge pipeline, as well as the attendant oil tanker traffic that will put B.C.s coastal environment at great risk, is at heart an egalitarian crusade to help poor energy-starved third world countries is cynical beyond belief.

The FP’s Terence Corcoran was spot on when he wrote that what Enbridge “appears to be looking for is not so much a National Energy Strategy as a national regulatory system to codify massive transfers of wealth from one energy source to another, from consumers to the oil sands . . .” But more than that, like their industry brethren Exxon and BP, Enbridge wants to socialize the cost of the inevitable oil tanker accident on BC’s coast while privatizing the profit.

In another related news item in the Globe and Mail, Daniel was quoted as follows: “But can we promise there will never be an accident? No. Nobody can.” Glib statements regarding the risk of a catastrophic oil spill on the BC coast if his company’s pipeline is approved and constructed are likely cold comfort to most British Columbians, the majority of who would prefer an oil-free coast according to polling on the issue.

Enbridge has made much of the fact that double hull tankers would be used to transport tar sands crude from the north coast terminal in Kitimat. But double hulls have their own set of problems. In an article for the Prince Rupert Daily News, Jennifer Rice delineated several of those issues, including this one: “When double-hulled tankers are traveling at low speeds and a collision occurs, only the first hull is punctured preventing the oil from spilling out. At higher speeds the extra hull has done little to prevent oil spills. In reality, the speed at which both hulls can be pierced is surprisingly low—as little as three knots depending on the strike angle.”

Blind faith in “modern technology” is often misplaced; only eighteen days before the Gulf Coast disaster, in justifying his position on off shore drilling, President Barack Obama asserted that “oil rigs today don’t generally cause spills as they are technologically very advanced.”

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is an impossible task. As the Wall Street Journal is reporting, the blame game in the Gulf of Mexico has begun as BP is claiming “this was not our accident.” Who will pay? If history is any indication, it likely won’t be the corporate entities responsible for the disaster. The cost of the Exxon Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid $1 billion, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. Further, does that even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life? M

Chris Genovali is the executive director of the BC-based Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Many Canadians have been anxiously following the unfolding Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster and are experiencing a deep sense of unease as they scan the daily media reports. Such foreboding is clearly understandable as one can’t help thinking this might be a nightmarish peek into one possible future for British Columbia as federal and provincial politicians here in Canada lay the groundwork to transform our Pacific coast into an “energy corridor.”  They dream of seismic testing, offshore drilling, pipelines from the tar sands, and oil tankers plying our rocky coast; this is what passes as visionary in the age of government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Carl Pope, former chairman of the Sierra Club in the United States, has dubbed the British Petroleum catastrophe “America’s Chernobyl.” U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, not exactly known as being a fervent environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, describes the potential outlook for the Gulf Coast oil spill as “a very grave scenario.”

In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Canadian federal opposition parties are calling for emergency hearings before the Commons Natural Resources Committee to discuss the need for more stringent safeguards against oil spills in Canada’s Arctic. But the public needs to be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs with regard to proposed oil development and transport for the BC coast as well; Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s recently released report, “What’s at Stake — The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast,” is designed to do just that; we encourage you to go to the Raincoast website and download the report.

Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of BC means we could see supertankers on the coast transporting oil to Asian and American markets. Enbridge proposes to construct and operate two pipelines, 1170 kilometers in length, between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, BC. One of the pipelines will carry crude oil west to Kitimat and the other line will carry condensate east to Bruderheim. This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine and terrestrial species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of First Nations and coastal communities.

It was fascinating to recently read in the Financial Post how Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel is advocating for what amounts to a national corporate welfare initiative as he flogs his company’s “Northern Gateway Pipeline” project, tossing out empty platitudes like “We’re doing it…for Canada.”

Daniel’s suggestion that Canadians will need to massively subsidize the transport of tar-sands crude through a series of near-confiscatory tax mechanisms in order to make it viable is transparently ironic. However, his assertion that tar-sands development and the Enbridge pipeline, as well as the attendant oil tanker traffic that will put BC’s coastal environment atgreat risk, is at heart an egalitarian crusade to help poor energy-starved third-world countries is cynical beyond belief.

The FP’s Terence Corcoran was spot on when he wrote that what Enbridge “appears to be looking for is not so much a National Energy Strategy as a national regulatory system to codify massive transfers of wealth from one energy source to another, from consumers to the oil sands…” But more than that, like their industry brethren Exxon and BP, Enbridge wants to socialize the cost of the inevitable oil tanker accident on BC’s coast while privatizing the profit.

In another related news item in the Globe and Mail, Daniel was quoted as follows: “But can we promise there will never be an accident? No. Nobody can.” Glib statements regarding the risk of a catastrophic oil spill on the BC coast if his company’s pipeline is approved and constructed are likely cold comfort to most British Columbians, the majority of whom would prefer an oil-free coast according to polling on the issue.

Enbridge has made much of the fact that double-hull tankers would be used to transport tar-sands crude from the north coast terminal in Kitimat. But double hulls have their own set of problems. In an article for the PrinceRupert Daily News, Jennifer Rice delineated several of those issues,including this one: “When double-hulled tankers are traveling at low speeds and a collision occurs, only the first hull is punctured preventing the oil from spilling out. At higher speeds the extra hull has done little to prevent oil spills. In reality, the speed at which both hulls can be pierced is surprisingly low – as little as three knots depending on the strike angle.”

Blind faith in “modern technology” is often misplaced; only eighteen days before the Gulf Coast disaster, in justifying his position on offshore drilling, President Barack Obama asserted that “oil rigs today don’t generally cause spills as they are technologically very advanced.”

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is an impossible task. As the Wall Street Journal is reporting, the blame game in the Gulf of Mexico has begun as BP is claiming “this was not our accident.” Who will pay? If history is any indication, it likely won’t be the corporate entities responsible for the disaster. The cost of the Exxon-Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid $1 billion, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. Further, does that even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life?

Chris Genovali is the executive director of the BC-based Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

CHRIS GENOVALI FOR BUZZFLASH

By Josh Paterson, Jen Lash, Nikki Skuce, Gerald Amos, Pat Moss, Eric Swanson, Ian McAlister, Jennifer Rice, Julia Hill and Chris Genovali.

Federal studies have repeatedly concluded that oil tankers must be prohibited in some sensitive marine areas because of the severe risks.

The Campbell government was quick to respond to the unprecedented coastal first nations declaration on March 23, which banned oil tankers carrying oilsands crude oil through the waters of their territories on the central and north Pacific coasts, and surrounding Haida Gwaii.

In effect, the government said that first nations -and the 75 per cent of British Columbians who support a ban on oil tankers -can’t say no to the catastrophic risks that come with oil supertankers crossing through our inside coastal waters.

Instead, everyone should wait and see what the federal government’s environmental assessment process has to say -a process, incidentally, that approves more than 99 per cent of all the projects submitted to it. The federal government, by ignoring the coastal first nations declaration altogether, has sent the same message.

We don’t think we need to spend millions of dollars in a process to tell us something that British Columbians and first nations have been sure about for 40 years -that oil tankers should not be permitted in the coastal waters of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound -the ancestral territories of coastal first nations between Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii, and southern Alaska.

The risk of oil tankers in these dangerous waters has been studied and reported on over and over. Nearly 40 years ago, in 1972, the federal government declared a moratorium on oil tankers travelling through these waters because the risk of accidents was seen as being too severe.

Three other federal reports over the years have stated that the extreme risks were simply too great to bear, from the perspective of Canada’s most eminent scientists, first nations, and British Columbians in general. Moreover, the coastal first nations have now imposed their own unequivocal ban to prohibit oil tankers carrying Alberta oilsands crude.

They’ve been studying the issue closely since Enbridge first proposed this project more than five years ago, including the risks, and the potential benefits. It is not a decision that they took lightly.

Nothing in the last 40 years, and nothing in this project, has raised new information that suggests that crude oil super tankers ought to be allowed for the first time in our northern coastal waters.

In fact, what we have seen only points to the need to maintain and strengthen the commitment to protect the coast.

The tragedy of the Exxon Valdez 21 years ago showed us all exactly what the risk of oil tankers and oil spills means in real life: communities torn apart, coastal economies destroyed, and untold numbers of dead fish, marine mammals and other wildlife. To this day, the beaches remain as toxic in some areas as they were just after the spill, and many fish and wildlife populations have never recovered. Despite advances in shipping technology, oil spills continue at an alarming rate around the world.

There is no technology in the world that can provide full protection against human error, equipment failure, and resulting oil spills.

With such catastrophic and lasting consequences if even a single oil tanker spill occurs, it was perfectly reasonable to make an informed decision not to allow any oil tankers on the north coast and to stand by this decision today.

Given that British Columbians and first nations have worked to protect the coast from oil tankers for decades, the real question here is not whether the Enbridge pipelines and tankers project should go ahead.

What needs to be asked is whether we should be considering allowing oil tankers at all, in light of the long-standing status quo, and the more recent coastal first nations ban.

By launching its review process the federal government has ignored this essential preliminary question.

Instead of ignoring the coastal first nations declaration banning oilsands crude-oil tankers, and telling them to wait for the outcome of a federal review process that approves almost every single project it considers, both the Canadian and B.C. governments should listen to what they have to say.

First nations have spoken as loudly as ever in provincial history. They have exercised their ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities to protect the lands and the waters of their territories.

If governments ignore their decision, it is virtually certain that first nations will take steps to enforce their declaration under their own laws and in the courts. Governments should not let it come to that.

If our governments are truly listening to first nations -and to the 75 per cent of British Columbians who support a ban on oil tankers in coastal waters -they should show leadership and protect the north coast by recognizing the coastal first nations ban, and by enshrining the ban in federal law.

We don’t need years of further process to do what British Columbians have always known is right.

Josh Paterson is staff counsel with West Coast Environmental Law; Jen Lash is executive director of Living Oceans Society; Nikki Skuce is senior energy campaigner with ForestEthics; Gerald Amos is with the Headwaters Initiative; Pat Moss is with Friends of Wild Salmon; Eric Swanson is corporate campaigner for the Dogwood Initiative; Ian McAllister is with Pacific Wild; Jennifer Rice is the energy campaigner for the North Coast, T. Buck Suzuki Foundation; Julia Hill is with the Skeenawild Conservation Trust; and Chris Genovali is with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Click here to view the story as it appeared in the Vancouver Sun

Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, April 2 – 4, 2010
By Chris Genovali, Paul Paquet and Misty MacDuffee

In this part of the world the month of March is, to borrow a phrase from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one that will live in infamy; it is the anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster that took place in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989.Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of British Columbia, Canada, means we could see supertankers, like the Exxon Valdez, in BC waters transporting oil to hydrocarbon-hungry markets abroad. The two pipelines would run 1,170 kilometers (about 727 miles) in length, between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia.

This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of First Nations and coastal communities.

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine ecosystems is an impossible task. The cost of the Exxon Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid $1 billion, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. But does that even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life?

The BC coast is a fragile archipelago with a boundary between land and ocean that changes by the hour, by the season and over millennia. The fragmented island and inlet nature of this ecosystem, nourished by the waters of the North Pacific, has fostered more diversity of plants and animals than occurs anywhere else in North America. The assembly of iconic animals like whales, dolphins, wolves and bears makes the BC coast qualitatively different from most other exceptional places in the world. Distinctively, all these mammals, together with another 120 species of birds, are tied to the sea.

Your support makes this work possible! Click here to support the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

However, the very thing that has fostered this rich diversity also makes it fragile. British Columbia’s coastal ecosystem is an ecological treasure of species that can be lost in a blink of an eye. Twenty-seven thousand kilometers of labyrinthine seaboard place this web of diversity much more at risk than its 900-kilometer length (as the crow flies) would suggest.

One hopes the Obama administration decision to open up, as AP reported, “a huge swath of East Coast waters and other protected areas in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico” to off shore oil drilling, is not a harbinger of things to come in other coastal regions of the continent.

Canadians may eventually conclude that an oil corridor on the BC coast is more important than the health of our environment, or the well-being of the flora and fauna that live there. The public, however, should be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs; Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s just-released report, “What’s at Stake – The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast,” aims to do just that, because if the powers that be get this wrong, the penalty will be costly.

Coastal First Nations Executive Director Art Sterritt summed up the threat posed by oil tankers: “The minute there is tanker traffic, there is damage to a way of life.” If the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is constructed, oil tankers at least as big as the Exxon Valdez would ply BC’s rocky coastline daily. Twice a week, over 500,000 barrels of the world’s dirtiest

oil would be shipped out and condensate shipped in. This prompts the question, is the benefit to Alberta and the shareholders of Enbridge Inc. from supplying Asian and American markets with oil worth the gamble, even if it means subjecting the BC coast to the risk of a catastrophic spill?

Not surprisingly, the ocean, the near shore environments and the coastlines of BC have been degraded by human activities. Many marine mammals, land mammals and seabirds that rely on the marine environment for their livelihood are already burdened by petroleum-based pollutants. Some of these stressed species (e.g., certain whale species) are already genetically compromised; the result of being driven to near extinction by a century of commercial exploitation and persecution. With lowered genetic diversity (from bottlenecking), the ability of coastal species to respond or adapt to additional disturbance is greatly reduced.

Add to this the implications of a rapidly disappearing food base, resulting from overfishing, destruction of habitat and a warming ocean. Alarmingly, these changes are occurring faster than we can understand them, although it is clear that further disruptions could be disastrous, especially when combined with a major oil spill. By themselves, these cumulative trends have serious consequences, but ongoing climate change is creating further and unpredictable disturbances.

Ocean environments might already be approaching a threshold where established ecological systems lose their resiliency and begin to unravel. Climate change could be the catalyst that tips the already fragile balance.

Ironically, the choice to lift the oil tanker moratorium and approve the pipeline would only end up contributing to the disruption.

Given the diminished and fragile condition of our coastal environment, we need to begin treating the ocean as an unhealthy patient in desperate need of care. We know that the primary problem is chronic unsustainable use and abuse, so our focus now must be to halt, slow and reverse destructive activities, while eliminating the possibility of any new threats. The bottom line is that the 35-year-old “now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t” federal moratorium on oil tanker traffic must be legislated and codified into law.

In this same vein, changes to fisheries management and securing habitat protection could rebuild the region’s more than 2,500 salmon runs. Using an ecosystem perspective, these salmon runs could then be managed to sustain terrestrial species, such as coastal grizzly bears and wolves, that earn part of their living from the sea. Although the debate over salmon management in this province is complex and contentious, the discussion could be rendered moot in the event of a major oil spill. Alaska’s Prince William Sound had the “advantage” of salmon populations that were trending upward when the Exxon Valdez disaster hit; the coast of British Columbia faces a preset disadvantage with salmon populations in decline.

Our concerns are not new, nor are the environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and pending threats that have precipitated them. They are, however, a powerful argument in favor of urgent action to counter these perils.

Changing the way we manage humans and their activities might be enough to give our tired maritime environment the reprieve needed to recover and become healthy again. We are poised at a crossroads. Polling on which direction to follow shows that for most British Columbians, the preferred path is an oil-free coast. The question remains, however, whether those within government who will determine the fate of BC’s coast recognize exactly what’s at stake. Maybe more importantly, do they care?

Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Paul Paquet is its senior scientist, and Misty MacDuffee is a biologist with Raincoast’s wild salmon program.

In this part of the world March 24 will, to borrow a phrase from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, live in infamy; it’s the anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster that took place in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989.Enbridge Inc’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of British Columbia means we could see supertankers, like the Exxon Valdez, in our waters transporting oil to hydrocarbon hungry markets abroad. The two pipelines would run 1,170 kilometers in length, between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, BC. This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of First Nations and coastal communities.

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine ecosystems is an impossible task. The cost of the Exxon Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5billion, of which Exxon paid $1billion, with US taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. Does even that gigantic sum begin to cover the value of a pod of killer whales driven to extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life?

The BC coast is a fragile archipelago with a boundary between land and ocean that changes by the hour, by the season and over millennia.  The fragmented island and inlet nature of this ecosystem, nourished by the waters of the North Pacific, has fostered more diversity of plants and animals than occurs anywhere else in North America. The assembly of iconic animals like whales, dolphins, wolves, and bears make the BC coast qualitatively different from most other exceptional places in the world. Distinctively, all these mammals, together with another 120 species of birds, are tied to the sea.

However, the very thing that has fostered this rich diversity also makes it fragile. BC’s coastal ecosystem is an ecological treasure of species that could be lost in the blink of an eye. Twenty-seven thousand kilometres of labyrinthine seaboard place this web of diversity much more at risk than its 900 kilometer length (as the crow flies) would suggest. Canadians may eventually conclude that an oil corridor on the BC coast is more important than the health of our environment, or the wellbeing of the flora and fauna that live there. The public, however, should be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs; Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s just released report ‘What’s At Stake—The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast’ aims to do just that, because if the powers -that-be get this one wrong, the penalty will be costly.

Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt summed up the threat posed by oil tankers: ‘The minute there is tanker traffic, there is damage to a way of life.’ If the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is constructed, oil tankers at least as big as the Exxon Valdez would ply BC’s rocky coastline daily. Twice a week, over 500,000 barrels of the world’s dirtiest oil would be shipped out and condensate shipped in. This prompts the question, is the benefit to Alberta and the shareholders of Enbridge Inc from supplying Asian and American markets with oil worth the gamble, if it means subjecting the BC coast to the risk of a catastrophic spill?

Not surprisingly, the ocean, near-shore environments, and coastlines of BC have been degraded by human activities.  Many marine mammals, land mammals, and seabirds that rely on the marine environment for their livelihood are already burdened by petroleum-based pollutants. Some of these stressed species such as certain whale species are already genetically compromised; the result of being driven to near extinction by a century of commercial exploitation and persecution. With lowered genetic diversity (from bottlenecking), the ability of coastal species to respond or adapt to additional disturbance is greatly reduced.

Add to this the implications of a rapidly disappearing food-base, resulting from overfishing, destruction of habitat, and a warming ocean. Alarmingly, these changes are occurring faster than we can understand them, although it is clear that further disruptions could be disastrous, especially when combined with a major oil spill.

By themselves these cumulative trends have serious consequences but ongoing climate change is creating further and unpredictable disturbances. Ocean environments might already be approaching a threshold where established ecological systems lose their resiliency and begin to unravel. Climate change could be the catalyst that tips the already fragile balance. Ironically, the choice to lift BC’s oil tanker moratorium and approve the pipeline would only contribute to the disruption.

Given the diminished and fragile condition of our coastal environment, we need to begin treating the ocean as an unhealthy patient in desperate need of care. We know that the primary problem is chronic unsustainable use and abuse, so our focus now must be to halt, slow, and reverse destructive activities, while eliminating the possibility of any new threats.

The bottom line is that the 35-year-old ‘now-you-see-it- now-you-don’t’ federal moratorium on oil tanker traffic must be legislated and codified into law.

In this same vein, changes to fisheries management and securing habitat protection could rebuild the region’s more than 2,500 salmon runs.  Using an ecosystem perspective, these salmon runs could then be managed to sustain terrestrial species, such as coastal grizzly bears and wolves, that earn part of their living from the sea. Although the debate over salmon management in this province is complex and contentious, the discussion could be rendered moot in the event of a major oil spill. Alaska’s Prince William Sound had the ‘advantage’ of salmon populations that were trending upward when the Exxon Valdez disaster hit; the coast of BC faces a preset disadvantage with salmon populations in decline.

Raincoast’s concerns are not new, nor are the environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and pending threats that have precipitated them. They are, however, a powerful argument in favour of urgent action to counter these perils.

Changing the way we manage humans and their activities might be enough to give our tired maritime environment the reprieve needed to recover and become healthy once again. We are poised at a crossroads.  Polling on which direction to follow shows that, for most British Columbians, the preferred path is an oil-free coast. The question remains, however, whether those within government, who will determine the fate of BC’s coast, recognize exactly what’s at stake.  Maybe more importantly, do they care?

Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Paul Paquet is its senior scientist, and Misty MacDuffee is a biologist with Raincoast’s wild salmon program.

Your support makes this work possible! Click here to support the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Fragile Ecosystems

Judith Lavoie, Financial Post Tuesday, March 24, 2010

Conservation group states case against pipeline, coastal shipping

Calgary Herald

By Judith Lavoie, March 24, 2010

VICTORIA — Whales, wolves, bears and birds would be devastated by an oil spill in the waters off Vancouver’s coast, says an extensive new study released a day before the anniversary of one of the world’s most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.The findings of a five-year study by a dozen Canadian, Scottish and U.S. scientists was released by the Victoria-based Raincoast Conservation Foundation Monday — just one day before the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

An alliance of nine B.C. First Nations also marked the calamitous date Tuesday by vowing to fight a proposed multibillion-dollar pipeline slated to carry petroleum from oilsands in central Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., a small community on the inland edge of Queen Charlotte Sound.

“We will protect ourselves and the interests of future generations with everything we have, because one major oil spill on the coast of British Columbia would wipe us out,” Gerald Amos, director of Coastal First Nations, said in a media statement.

Debate over the dual-pipeline project from Edmonton to Kitimat — a distance of 1,170 kilometres — is heating up as Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines prepares for an application to a federal joint-review panel. The company hopes to start building the pipeline by 2012.

The Raincoast report — entitled What’s at Stake: The Cost of Oil on British Columbia’s Priceless Coast — adds fuel to the ongoing controversy over the prospect of supertankers picking up oil at Kitimat and sailing through treacherous areas north of Vancouver Island, such as Hecate Strait and Douglas Channel.

Documenting animal and bird populations in the area, it paints a grim picture of how fragile B.C. ecosystems could be destroyed by a spill thatwould affect land-based animals as well as those in the ocean.

And spills would be inevitable, said Chris Darimont, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of California, one of the report’s authors. “Scientists have examined dozens of these catastrophic oil spills over the last decades and are able to predict the rate above a certain threshold,” he said.

The coastline has thousands of islands and dozens of inlets; along 900 kilometres of coast, there is 27,000 kilometres of shoreline, Darimont said.

Your support makes this work possible! Click here to support the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

That means the problem would extend far beyond whales and seabirds because oil would contaminate areas where land meets the ocean, where land-based species forage, Darimont said.

“The oil would penetrate into terrestrial systems (and affect) everything from deer mice to flagship species like wolves and bears,” he said.

While the company is promising double-hulled ships, custom-built supertugs and experienced pilots, Darimont said the problem is almost always human error. He pointed to the fate of the BC Ferries vessel Queen of the North, which ran aground and sank in the area, despite having the most modern navigation and safety equipment.

Fragile ecosystems along the north and central coasts are already struggling, with disappearing salmon runs and whale and sea otter populations just starting to recover after being hunted to the verge of extinction, the report says.

“The proposed tanker route goes directly through an area that has been proposed as critical habitat for (threatened) northern resident killer whales,” said Chris Genovali, of Raincoast.

“Both the risk of ship strike and of chronic oiling or a catastrophic oil spill need to be considered when evaluating whether or not we allow the oil and gas industry to expand.”

Meanwhile, a coalition of 150 groups and individuals — including such prominent Canadians as David Suzuki, Margaret Atwood and Neve Campbell — also took aim at Enbridge Tuesday by commemorating the Exxon Valdez disasterin a full-page ad in the Globe and Mail.

A caption over a photo of the infamous spill read: “This was Exxon’s gift to Alaska. B.C. can expect the same from Enbridge.”

Theresia Lee, an Enbridge spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the company is not granting media interviews right now because it is in the final stages of preparing its application to the joint-review panel.

“The appropriate forum for us to respond to views or opinions will be through the joint-review panel process,” she said.

jlavoie@tc.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

By Chris Genovali, Paul Paquet and Misty MacDuffee

SPECIAL TO VICTORIA TIMES COLONIST, March 23, 2010

Today is March 23. In this part of the world March 23 is, to borrow a phrase from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a day that will live in infamy. It is the anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989.

Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to the north coast of British Columbia means we could see supertankers, like the Exxon Valdez, in our waters transporting oil to hydrocarbon-hungry markets abroad.

The two pipelines would run 1,170 kilometres, between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alta., and a marine terminal near Kitimat. This presents a significant threat to coastal marine species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of First Nations and coastal communities.

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine ecosystems is an impossible task. Canadians may eventually conclude that an oil corridor on the coast is more important than the health of our environment, or the well-being of the flora and fauna that live there. The public, however, should be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs.

If we get this wrong, the penalty will be costly.

Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt summed up the threat posed by oil tankers: “The minute there is tanker traffic, there is damage to a way of life.”  If the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is constructed, oil tankers at least as big as the Exxon Valdez would ply B.C.’s rocky coastline daily. Twice a week, more than 500,000 barrels of the world’s dirtiest oil would be shipped out and condensate shipped in.

Is the benefit to Alberta and the shareholders of Enbridge from supplying Asian and American markets with oil worth the gamble, even if it means subjecting the B.C. coast to the risk of a catastrophic spill? Polling indicates most British Columbians would respond with a resounding no.

Not surprisingly, the ocean, near-shore environments, and coastlines have been degraded by human activities. Many marine mammals, land mammals, and seabirds that rely on the marine environment for their livelihood arealready burdened by petroleum-based pollutants.

Some of these stressed species are genetically compromised, the result of being driven to near-extinction by a century of commercial exploitation and persecution. With lowered genetic diversity, the ability of coastal speciesto respond or adapt to additional disturbance is greatly reduced.  Add to this the implications of a rapidly disappearing food base, resulting from overfishing, destruction of habitat and a warming ocean.

Alarmingly, these changes are occurring faster than we can understand them, although it is clear that further disruptions could be disastrous, especially when combined with a major oil spill. By themselves these cumulative trends have serious consequences, but ongoing climate change is creating further and unpredictable disturbances.

Ocean environments might already be approaching a threshold where established ecological systems lose their resiliency and begin to unravel. Climate change could be the catalyst that tips the already fragile balance. Ironically, the choice to lift the oil tanker moratorium and approve the pipeline would end up contributing to the disruption.

Given the diminished and fragile condition of our coastal environment, we need to begin treating the ocean as an unhealthy patient in desperate need of care. We know that the primary problem is chronic unsustainable use andabuse, so our focus now must be to halt, slow, and reverse destructive activities, while eliminating the possibility of any new threats.

The bottom line is that the 35-year-old “now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t” moratorium on oil tanker traffic must be legislated and codified into law. In this same vein, changes to fisheries management and securing habitat protection could rebuild the region’s more than 2,500 salmon runs.

Although the debate over salmon management is complex and contentious, the discussion could be rendered moot in the event of a major oil spill.  Alaska’s Prince William Sound had the “advantage” of salmon populations that were trending upward when the Exxon Valdez disaster hit; the B.C. coast faces a preset disadvantage with salmon populations in decline.

Our concerns are not new, nor are the environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and pending threats that have precipitated them. They are, however, a powerful argument in favour of urgent action to counter these perils. Although easy to confuse value with price, the question remains: Is Canadiansociety willing to sacrifice the integrity of B.C.’s coastal environment for the sole ambition of monetary profit?

Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation. Paul Paquet is its senior scientist and Misty MacDuffee is a biologist with Raincoast’s wild salmon program.

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

The AT1 Alaskan transient killer whales were in Prince William Sound during Exxon Valdez oil spill. 13 members of the 22 member pod died after the spill and more the following years. photo KH/LB-L

By Judith Lavoie, Victoria Times Colonist, March 23, 2010

Whales, wolves, bears and birds would be devastated by an oil spill in the waters north of Vancouver Island and off Haida Gwaii, says an extensive new study.

What’s at Stake: The Cost of Oil on British Columbia’s Priceless Coast, a five-year study by a dozen Canadian, Scottish and U.S. scientists, was released yesterday by Raincoast Conservation Foundation on the eve of the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The report, which documents animal and bird populations in the area, paints a grim picture of how fragile B.C. ecosystems could be destroyed by a spill that would affect land-based animals as well as those in the ocean.

Debate over a proposed multibillion-dollar pipeline from Edmonton to Kitimat is heating up as Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines prepares for an application to a federal joint review panel. The company hopes to start building the pipeline by 2012.

The report adds fuel to ongoing controversy over the spectre of supertankers picking up oil at Kitimat and sailing through treacherous areas such as Hecate Strait and Douglas Channel.

There would inevitably be spills, said Chris Darimont, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, one of the report’s authors.

“Scientists have examined dozens of these catastrophic oil spills over the last decades and are able to predict the rate above a certain threshold,” he said.

The coastline is unique in having thousands of islands and dozens of inlets. Along 900 kilometres of coast, there is 27,000 kilometres of shoreline, Darimont said.

That means the problem would extend far beyond whales and seabirds because oil would contaminate areas where land meets the ocean, where land-based species forage, Darimont said.

“The oil would penetrate into terrestrial systems [and affect] everything from deer mice to flagship species like wolves and bears,” he said.

While the company is promising double-hulled ships, custom-built supertugs and experienced pilots, Darimont said the problem is almost always human error. He pointed to the fate of the B.C. Ferries vessel Queen of the North, which ran aground and sank in the area, despite having the most modern navigation and safety equipment.

Fragile ecosystems along the north and central coasts are already struggling, with disappearing salmon runs and whale and sea otter populations just starting to recover after being hunted to the verge of extinction, the report says.

“The proposed tanker route goes directly through an area that has been proposed as critical habitat for [threatened] northern resident killer whales,” said Chris Genovali of the conservation foundation.

“Both the risk of ship strike and of chronic oiling or a catastrophic oil spill need to be considered when evaluating whether or not we allow the oil and gas industry to expand.”

Theresia Lee, Enbridge spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the company is not granting in-depth media interviews because it is in the final stages of preparing its application to the joint review panel.

“The appropriate forum for us to respond to views or opinions will be through the joint review panel process,” she said.

The AT1 population of Alaskan transient killer whales were in Prince William Sound at the time of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 13 members of the 22 member pod died after the spill and more in the following years. Photo: K.Heise

By Nicholas Read, Special To The Sun March 22, 2010

British Columbia killer whales could become extinct in the long term if an oil spill similar in scope to that from the Exxon Valdez occurred off the coast of B.C., says a conservation biologist with the Universities of Calgary and Manitoba.Paul Paquet, one of the lead scientists on a five-year, 14,000-kilometre survey of marine mammals and sea birds along the coast between 2004 and 2009, says the health of B.C. killer whales is already so fragile thanks to pollution and over-fishing that a major oil spill could devastate them.

“The consequences for the population as a whole could be catastrophic, meaning that that population could be pushed over the edge and into a long-term slide to extinction,” Paquet said in an interview. “Given the small population of killer whales and as a population biologist, I don’t think that’s an over-statement. And it is something we should be prepared for.”

Paquet made his remarks to coincide with the release today of a report called What’s at Stake: The Cost of Oil on British Columbia’s Priceless Coast, published by the Raincoast Conservation Society to mark the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Sound, Alaska.

The report, which was written by 12 scientists from Duke University, the University of California Santa Cruz, and the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland in addition to Paquet, identifies more than 120 species of sea birds and 27 different species of marine mammals along B.C.’s coast, including harbour seals, sea lions, and humpback, and grey whales.

It says if an oil pipeline is built between Alberta and Kitimat, and the coast is opened up to oil tankers, resulting spills could have a calamitous and possibly irreversible effect on several marine mammal populations including already rare fin, sei and blue whales; on salmon and herring fisheries; and on some terrestrial species such as grizzly bears and coastal wolves that depend on autumn salmon runs as a food source.

A big spill could also deal a potentially lethal blow to B.C.’s killer whales, says Paquet, because populations are already at biologically perilous lows thanks to insidious and chronic poisoning by industrial waste and to over-fishing of salmon, a key killer whale food source. It would depend on where the spill occurred, the time of year and the weather (high winds could spread the oil), but a big spill could kill off significant numbers of killer whales immediately and have dire long-term consequences for the rest.

“These animals are already in jeopardy,” said Paquet. “It’s like they’re standing on the edge of a cliff and [an oil spill] could be the push.”

He and his fellow scientists also believe if a pipeline is built between Alberta’s oilsands and Kitimat, and oil tankers begin collecting oil from a proposed Kitimat port, a spill of Exxon Valdez proportions is inevitable.

“It’s almost a certainty that we’d have a spill,” Paquet said. “It’s only a matter of time. Industry will argue that they’ll use double-hulled ships, but that won’t necessarily preclude a spill from happening.

“I think this is a very high-risk game particularly given the coastline because it is not easily navigated.”

Craig Matkin, a killer whale biologist for the North Gulf Oceanic Society in Homer, Alaska, says studies of killer whale populations following the Exxon Valdez disaster, bears Paquet’s forecasts out. He says a killer whale population directly affected by the 1989 42-million-litre spill still hasn’t recovered from it and probably never will.

“We lost 13 out of 22 animals at the time of the spill,” Matkin said. “Others died later.”

Since then, says Matkin, as older animals have died off, the population has seen no reproduction whatsoever to the point that it now consists of only seven animals.

“When you lose females, you lose the ability to reproduce. And that’s especially hard on killer whales because they can’t pump out calves like a mouse. Their gestation period is 17 months so it takes a long time to respond to disaster like this.”

Kathy Heise, a Vancouver Aquarium marine biologist who also contributed to the report, says of particular concern is the fact that tankers likely would have to travel through Caamano Sound, an area identified by some researchers as potentially important to killer whales as Johnson Strait is. It is also of great biological significance to fin and humpback whales, she said.

And while Heise wouldn’t go as far as Paquet in predicting that a big spill could affect all B.C. killer whale populations, she said a major spill in the Strait of Juan de Fuca could wipe out the southern resident population, which is the population of orcas most familiar to BC Ferries passengers travelling between Vancouver and Vancouver Island.

“If a spill occurred in the southern resident population, it could significantly affect the long-term viability of that population,” Heise said. “It could lead to the eventual die-off of the southern residents if it was a large spill and all the southern residents were together at the time.”

Re: A climate of denial (Dec 2009)

All the credible evidence vetted in countless scientifically peer-reviewed papers shows the primary cause of climate disruption is anthropogenic. Further, the scientific community agrees that global warming poses severe risks to humanity and requires immediate action to limit carbon emissions.

Yet doubters continue their desperate efforts to defy reality and sway public policy. Current climate denying tactics are reminiscent of malicious efforts by the tobacco industry to obscure the undeniable proof associating smoking with lung cancer. The denier sect is relatively small, but has the advantage of being bankrolled by greenhouse gas producing industries.

NASA climate scientist James Hansen has stated that we have already passed what is considered the threshold for “maximum permissible concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” A study by the Pentagon suggests the impacts of climate change could be disastrous. According to the Climate Institute, “the study raises the possibility that global warming could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism. Among potential consequences, if climate change occurs abruptly or at the high end of scenario projections, might be catastrophic droughts, famines and riots.”

As the Focus article’s author Briony Penn insightfully concludes, “While the social scientists and lawyers are beginning to follow the path forged by the physical scientists, the political realm seems to be waiting for a sign from heaven.”

Chris Genovali, Executive Director
Raincoast Conservation

Re: The scare tacticians: ‘Scientists’ should face criminal prosecution, Dec. 18

David Warren’s paranoia-ridden anti-science polemic reads like something Sarah Palin would have penned. Come to think of it, she recently wrote an article in the Washington Post peddling the same kinds of fringe theories on climate change.Contrary to Warren’s unsubstantiated conjecture, there is incontrovertible evidence of human-caused climate change. According to his logic, institutions that have articulated the need to address climate change, such as NASA, the Pentagon, the CIA, the Catholic Church and the United Nations, are involved in a massive socialist conspiracy to fleece industrialized countries. Warren’s McCarthyite contention that climate scientists should be subject to prosecution is a true measure of the deniers’ extremist nature.

Chris Genovali
Executive Director, Raincoast Conservation, Sidney