Skip to Content
vo-banner.jpg

All the oil pumped down Enbridge's North B.C. pipeline will be spilled

(Page 2 of 2)

Meanwhile in B.C., our government passed a law requiring our citizens and businesses to cut climate damage by 33 per cent in the next decade. That is going to take a lot of hard work and money to pull off. To help meet our goal we pay $25 for every tonne of CO2 we spill into the atmosphere. But this one proposed pipeline across BC would wipe out all our climate efforts more than eight times over. Not only does it wipe out our efforts but neither the private oil companies nor China plan to pay a carbon tax on it like we have to.

In fact, we could literally stop using all fossil fuels in B.C. -- turn off the heat in all buildings, abandon all vehicles, ships, planes and close every factory and industry and fossil fuel power plant – and not come close to offsetting the climate damage that will be spilled from this proposed pipeline.

Will our BC Premier Christy Clark approve a project that makes a complete mockery of the very climate efforts her government requires of its own citizens? Will there be a double standard where she gives the thumbs up for China to dump as much of our Crown-carbon that they want without even paying any carbon tax, but make it illegal for British Columbians to do the same? Will her recent hiring of a former Enbridge lobbyist as her new chief-of-staff bias her decision? Will foreign interests get a better deal than BC citizens on our own nation’s oil?

The 150 MtCO2 of new climate damage guaranteed to be spilled as a result of the proposed ENGPA will wipe out all efforts by all Canadians to cut climate pollution.

Game over.

The world’s most important climate scientist, James Hansen of NASA, said that this plan by private oil corporations to radically expand extraction of climate damage out of the tar sands will mean “game over” for our climate. The staid International Energy Agency says that we need to stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure or bring on a climate “catastrophe”.

Despite the clear threat, a few private oil corporations, with the aid and blessing of the Harper and Alberta Governments, are already actively pushing two more gigantic pipelines across BC in addition to Enbridge’s “Northern Gateway Pipeline to our Atmosphere”.

The Enbridge documents show that private oil corporations operating in Alberta plan to ratchet up the climate damage they extract from the tar sands to a staggering one billion tonnes of CO2 per year by 2035. That is double the climate damage from all fossil fuel burning for everything else in Canada. It will overwhelm every effort by every other part of Canadian society to stop climate change.

These private oil corporations will also need to build the equivalent of fifteen more pipelines the size of the one existing pipeline (foreign-owned Kinder Morgan TMX) that currently crosses B.C.

Along the way every single one of those additional billions and billions of gallons of tar sands oil will get spilled into our environment…one way or the other.

Related articles:

(6) Comments

David January 18th 2012 | 12:12 PM

Thanks for revealing the contradictions that most politicians and citizens don't want to accept.

Joseph Fournier January 18th 2012 | 7:19 PM

It is so simple. I wish! Every day the world consumes the equivalent of 225 million barrels of oil equivalent in total energy. Say no to Canadian Oil? Okay. People do not want hydro electricity? Okay. People do not want 100,000's of massive wind mills in their backyards. Okay. People do not want to have to pay 3x more for solar electricity. Okay. People do not want coal power. Okay, say good bye to 50% of our electricity in Canada and the US. It is so simple, people want to all move to the equator so we consume no electricity, natural gas, and oil so stay warm, light our homes, produce our basic materials for clothes, our homes, and the automobiles that will get us all to the equator from way up here in Canada! Sounds like a plan! Keep on writing, excellent work here!

Smalltown hick January 19th 2012 | 9:09 AM

They start projects like this and look at the current impact.  They need to look at the lifelong impact though.  Not just now, but until the pipe is out of the ground.  Are they going to dig it back up - or will it be spilling for decades after they are done using it. 

That in conjunction with the mess now of producing and burning it should be enough to offer much further reflection on the viability.

Joseph Fournier January 19th 2012 | 9:21 PM

Abondonement of pipelines? If pipeline is abonded, we are not going to leave hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil in it at $100 per barrel. Seepage from residual oil is required by Canadian law to be remediated and there is an entire industry that responds to deal with these sites. Same policy applies to gas stations when they are sold and the zoning perscriptions for the land change. In these instances the law requires the soil to be cleaned. I hope this answers your question?

Barry Saxifrage January 19th 2012 | 10:22 PM

Joseph Fournier, nobody is saying "no to Canadian Oil." People are saying "no" to a radical expansion of the tar sands. The reason is that it is so big and so dirty a source of energy that radical expansion of it threatens the prosperity of future generations. People are saying we have enough oil production in Canada, we need -- like the IEA says -- to transition to alternatives that don't destabilize our climate to the point of "catastrophe".

We most certainly are going to leave millions of barrels of oil in the ground. We don't have a choice unless we repeal the laws of physics and chemistry. The only question is how big a carbon bubble we are going to inflate before we are forced to pop it.

Richard Campbell January 21st 2012 | 5:17 PM

The energy released by the burning of the oil is also deadly to people and animals. 1.2 million people are killed per year in motor vehicle collisions and pretty much all of these vehilices are powered by oil. Hundreds of millions of animals are also killed. I calculated that the oil spilled by BP in the gulf could have killed more animals if it was not spilled and burnt in motor vehicles instead. 

http://every1forever.blogspot.com/2010/07/road-kill-vs-oil-spill-oil-in-...