Trudeau Must Show Leadership and Reject anti Pipeline Politics

[J0E]

Trudeau's gotta show leadership by trying to stop being so nice. Enough of it!

The election's over. He's gotta man up.

He's in this public image mode schtik.

Quit tryin' ta win a popularity contest and get on with governing.



But if you look at world leaders who get a lot of respect, many people don't like them.



ie - Vladmir Putin, The PM of Israel, The Prime Minister of Iran.



They're all considered assholes. sonofabitches actually.



Trudeau's gotta do what he's gotta do, otherwise he risks being devoured in the political arena.

[J0E]

Anyways, Justin's Dad, PET, was a sonofabitch.



The people in Alberta hated him for his National Energy Plan.

Many people in Quebec hated him for brutally putting down the FLQ & putting Rene Levesque in his place.



Yup, he was one sonofabitch - but that's what kept him in power for 16 years.



Junior should learn some of his Dad's moves and Machiavellian methods of governing.

[Anonymous]

There will not be new pipeline in the ground before the next federal election. The tens of billions of dollars in revenue, and the thousands of good paying jobs from the construction phase will not materialize. Eastern Canada will continue to import oil from places like Nigeria because our inept PM cares more about regional IOU's than the national interest.



It's time for Alberta to start exploring different options including joining the US.

Canada doesn't need a more transparent pipeline review process. It has one of those already.



What it needs is politicians with more courage to push through projects that receive approval from the National Energy Board (NEB).



On Wednesday, federal Liberal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr released some interim measures for reviewing the Trans Mountain and Energy East pipeline projects. They won't help a bit to get needed pipelines built.



Carr's six interim guidelines are reminiscent of British Columbia's five hoops through which Alberta and oil companies must jump to get permission to build a pipeline to the West Coast.



I have called the B.C. criteria, introduced in 2012 in connection with the Northern Gateway approval process, the "moving goalposts."



The conditions were designed intentionally so they could never be satisfied. Whenever Alberta or Gateway's owners, Enbridge, got close to meeting one or more of the conditions, the B.C. government could change the requirements slightly and never have to say "yes."



The federal Liberals' interim measures are very similar.



British Columbia required a comprehensive environmental review, full participation by and benefits for First Nations and a "fair share" of fiscal and economic benefits for their province.



Carr insists Trans Mountain and Energy East may only move forward after there have been "deeper consultations with Indigenous peoples," better analysis of environmental impacts and appointment of "a ministerial representative to engage communities ... potentially affected by the project" and ensure those communities are happy.



B.C.'s conditions were political cover and so are the Trudeau government's. They are so broad and so ill-defined that the Liberals could easily use them to deny construction permits to Kinder Morgan (Trans Mountain) and TransCanada (Energy East), no matter how many conditions the companies satisfy.



Public opinion polls, not technical or scientific reviews, will determine whether the pipelines Alberta needs will proceed. If loud environmentalists and trendy editorialists continue to oppose pipelines out of alarmism over climate change, Carr, Trudeau and the Liberals will simply say "sorry, our conditions haven't been met. You can't have your pipelines."



This is all about politics and nothing about "restoring public confidence in the environmental review process" as the prime minister and Natural Resources minister claim.



The Northern Gateway review was the most extensive in the history of Canadian pipelines. After nearly three years of review and nearly 2,000 public submissions, the NEB approved the project to carry Alberta bitumen to a tanker port on the B.C. coast – with 209 conditions attached.



But that wasn't good enough for the goalpost-moving B.C. government or for the extremely well-funded environmental activists opposed to the project. So even without a Parliamentary motion, back in November Trudeau effectively killed Northern Gateway by directing his Transportation minister to impose a tanker ban on the West Coast.



Gateway might get built, but the oil couldn't go anywhere. So it is unlikely investors would ever spend the money to construct it.



No matter what the Liberals do to change the NEB process, some provinces and most eco-activists will remain opposed to every pipeline. It's not the possibility of a pipeline leak or a tanker spill they're truly worried about. They're opposed to what's in the pipeline – oil, a carbon-based fuel that they worry will cause dangerous climate change.



There is no way any review process can satisfy these extremists.



That's why Carr's and the Liberals' interim measures are a fraud. So long as Quebec and B.C. remain opposed to pipelines (and so long as the Liberals want votes there more than in Alberta), all the new measures do is give Ottawa a convenient tool to kill the projects.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/01/27/new-initiatives-are-so-ill-defined-the-liberals-could-deny-permits-no-matter-how-many-conditions-are-met">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/01/27/n ... ns-are-met">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/01/27/new-initiatives-are-so-ill-defined-the-liberals-could-deny-permits-no-matter-how-many-conditions-are-met

[Anonymous]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12642893_1641982562718905_1586839440996194602_n.png?oh=c740283c86fa4673141388d77e0feb9b&oe=57354BD6">

[Anonymous]

New climate tests for pipelines are unnecessary

The federal government is about to roll out new regulatory requirements for Canada's energy industry. e new rules will require the environmental reviews of pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals— critical energy infrastructure projects—to consider the greenhouse gas (GHGs) e ects of those projects.

The move to have pipelines and LNG terminals pass climate change tests raises many questions. How will the tests be conducted? What will be the standards that proposed projects must pass? Will the tests result in "social license" for projects?

But most importantly, are these new regulatory requirements necessary? Do pipelines and LNG terminals increase emissions enough to realistically effect climate change? The answer to these last two questions is no.

Contrary to much of the environmental ire levelled against Canada's oilsands, the GHGs produced by extracting oil from them represents but a sliver — 0.1% — of global emissions.

Even expansion of the oilsands would likely have a minimal impact on GHGs. In 2014, when the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that oilsands production would increase by more than three million barrels a day over the next 25 years, the now executive director of the IEA said, "the emissions of this additional production is equal to only 23 hours of emissions of China—not even one day."

And that was probably an understatement. According to recent reports, China has been burning up to 17% more coal a year than had been thought, with early estimates indicating that China likely released about 900 million metric tons more CO2 from 2011 to 2013. To put this into perspective, Alberta recently placed a cap on oilsands emissions equivalent to 100 million metric tons.

Given that the total impact of the oilsands on emissions is relatively low, the effects of any one pipeline would be even smaller. Climate scientist Paul Knappenberger gives us a sense of just how small of an impact a single pipeline would have on emissions.

For his congressional testimony on the Keystone XL pipeline, Knappenberger used estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the additional emissions that may result if the pipeline gets built.

Using a climate model developed with the support of the EPA, Knappenberger calculated that "the average temperature rise works out to less than 0.00001 C per year. That is 1/100,000 of a degree."

In fact, transporting oil by pipeline may actually lower GHG emissions. In its review of Keystone XL, the U.S. State Department found that, depending on the scenario (only rail, rail/pipeline or rail/ tanker), transportation alternatives to Keystone XL could increase annual CO2 emissions from transport by 27.8% and 41.8%.

It's not only pipelines that will be subjected to climate change tests, so too will LNG terminals. British Columbia's LNG industry has already been hampered by costly regulatory delays, which may result in the province forgoing export revenues of $22.5 billion per year in 2020, rising to $24.8 billion per year in 2025 if the industry does not get o the ground. The new regulatory requirements may only further the delays.

Again, the irony here is that natural gas has the potential to significantly reduce GHGs by displacing coal-fired electricity in places such as China, which consumed more than 50% of global coal consumption in 2014. In the United States, switching from coal to natural gas for electricity is estimated to be responsible for 19% of the reduction of CO2 emissions that has taken place in the U.S. since 2007.

[Anonymous]

The anti-science True Dope regime.

Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau loves to pontificate about how his government intends to respect the regulatory process when it comes to new pipelines from Western oil elds to refineries and ports on the East and West Coasts.

He insists that in order to "rebuild the public confidence" needed to "get new pipeline construction approved," Canadians "have to have faith the National Energy Board (NEB) is considering all the facts."

More importantly, governments have to respect that when the NEB says no, that means no. His government would never disrespect the regulatory integrity of the board by approving a pipeline the board had rejected.

Hmm. But isn't the flipside equally true?

If, as Trudeau has claimed, it is nothing but "playing politics" for a government to override the NEB and push through a pipeline against the regulator's objections, wouldn't it be equally disrespectful of the process for the Liberals to reject a pipeline that has been approved by the board?

If Canadians are to have their faith in the impartiality of the NEB restored, isn't Trudeau bound to accept its conclusions one way or the other?

During his swing through Alberta this week, the new PM was asked time and again whether his government would approve the Energy East pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick if the NEB greenlights it. And each time, Trudeau refused to give a straight answer.

He insisted he didn't want to undermine the NEB's work. But Trudeau wasn't asked whether he would approve Energy East regardless of what the NEB concludes.

Taking a stand right now one way or the other about the line — either in favour or against — might be interfering with the assessment process.

But simply stating that his government will accept whatever recommendation the NEB eventually dispenses would seem to show exactly what Trudeau claims to want — complete faith in the unbiased, independent review process based on fact.

To have the NEB approve Energy East or Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver and then have the Liberals reject the lines would be based every bit as much on politics as Trudeau claims the former Tories' pro-pipeline stances were.

If the regulatory process is to be truly independent, Trudeau has to say now that his government will abide by whatever decision the NEB ultimately makes.

That is the question he failed to answer during his Alberta swing.

So excuse Albertans if they fail to have any more faith in the regulatory system under Trudeau than Liberal voters claimed to have under the Harper government.

Cabinet's biases and Liberal party re-election calculations will ultimately decide whether vital pipelines get built or not, which means the regulatory process is as meaningless under the Liberals as Trudeau insists it was under the Tories.

Perhaps that's why a Mainstreet Research/Postmedia poll of over 3,000 Albertans on Wednesday found 68% of provincial residents think Trudeau is doing too little to get the new pipeline approved. (Fifty-one per cent say the same thing about the provincial NDP government.)

Maybe other Canadians nd Trudeau's psychobabble reassuring. But forgive Albertans for being skeptical.

[Anonymous]

A good editorial about True Dope's waffling on Energy East(as well as several other things) at a difficult time.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces a simple question he still hasn't answered.

Does he think it's good for Canada to be able to get its landlocked oil and natural gas resources to global markets or not?

We think it's obvious it's a good thing, important for the Canadian economy and thus a necessary thing that any responsible federal government would support.

But what does Trudeau think? at's crucial.

If he thinks it's important, then whatever regulatory regime he establishes for approving pipelines — such as Energy East — will have the ultimate goal of ensuring they are as e cient, safe and responsive to community concerns as possible. But if he doesn't believe it's important for Canada to be able to get its natural resources to world markets, then he'll create a regulatory process where it's impossible, in realistic terms, to get any pipeline approved.

In our view, that would be an insane public policy.

It would amount to Canada willfully shooting its own economy in the foot.

Trudeau had an opportunity to clear this up last week during his meeting with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, where he announced a federal aid package for that hard-hit province.

Trudeau was asked by the Calgary Sun's Rick Bell if his cabinet would approve the Energy East pipeline if it receives a green light from the National Energy Board, after meeting all its conditions and environmental assessments.

Trudeau's answer wandered all over the map without ever answering the question.

That means we still don't know how he views the key issue of using pipelines to get Canada's oil and gas resources to market.

By contrast, U.S. President Barack Obama has made it crystal clear he approves of pipelines — save for the Keystone XL, but that's another editorial entirely.

Obama has publicly boasted that since he became president, the United States has laid enough new oil and gas pipeline to more than encircle the Earth and that it still needs a lot more to get all the new oil and gas production his policies have helped to develop to market.

America's president, at least, understands the importance of pipelines to the U.S. economy.

It's worrisome that our prime minister doesn't seem to understand this about Canada's economy.

[Romero]

Suncor Energy CEO Steve Williams said the meeting was "very encouraging" and Trudeau listened to industry concerns about the price cycle of oil and market access during the roundtable, which included senior executives from Shell, Husky, Cenovus and other major firms, along with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr.



Trudeau was also well-received at the second roundtable, which included representatives of the companies that provide goods and services to the oil and gas companies.



"It was a very good meeting. Informative on both sides, and I see the prime minister ... understands the importance of the oil and gas industry to Canada, not just Alberta," said Ian McConnell, a vice-president at Core Laboratories.



"Getting access to markets is important and he understands that. From what he told us today, he's in favour of pipelines because it benefits all of Canada."



The head of the the Petroleum Services Association of Canada says Trudeau seems prepared to act as the champion for getting Alberta's oil to market.



"He appreciates it, he knows that it's not an easy task, but he's going to take it on for us. So we really appreciate that," he said.



Alberta will get nearly $700 million in federal infrastructure money "immediately." Ottawa also plans to grant the $250 million requested by Alberta under the fiscal stabilization fund.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/trudeau-oil-gas-executives-calgary-meeting-prime-minister-1.3433311">//http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/trudeau-oil-gas-executives-calgary-meeting-prime-minister-1.3433311

[cc]

Does that one have an ISIS-held area IP?

[Anonymous]

^^That's all fine and good that our pm exchanged pleasantries with industry heavyweights, but an answer to this simple question would be the best assurance he could give not only industry, but the Canadian economy as a whole.

As for caring? You decide.



Question to the pm: If the National Energy Board green-lights the Energy East pipeline, will your cabinet approve it?



PM's answer:



"We're in a situation where we're not going to predict or shortcut any of the processes going through," Prime Minister Trudeau tells us.



More stickhandling, but no answer after that. It's good that he is fast tracking the $700 million for infrastructure the previous government set aside, but Canadians need to know if he will respect the scientific findings of the NEB.