“Quite simply, this Bill will allow oil and gas exploration inside a National Park and drilling, including fracking, underneath Sable Island itself, said May. “I’m disappointed that this has already passed the Nova Scotia Legislature, but we will absolutely not support S-15 until these provisions are removed.”

Oversight for Sable Island is divided between Nova Scotia and Ottawa. Both levels of government have introduced identical legislation to create a national park on this wild, iconic island. Nova Scotia’s bill received Royal Assent in early May and the Harper Conservatives have introduced time allocation to make S-15 law before the summer recess.

After years of negotiation, ExxonMobil agreed to give up its decades-old rights to drill on the island, but it insisted on keeping its horizontal drilling rights to natural gas below the island one nautical-mile away and beyond. It would also retain the right to do seismic testing on the island.

Furthermore, Bill S-15 would give the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, whose mandate is to expand oil and gas production, unprecedented power to make regulations inside a National Park, setting a dangerous precedent and undermining the integrity of our entire national parks system.

“Local environmentalists and the general public are against oil and gas exploration and extraction on Sable Island, especially once it’s a National Park,” said May. “We all want to see Sable Island protected, but it is tortured logic to think that we would protect this rare and pristine area by allowing oil exploration. We must get this legislation right.”

There is pressure to establish a new identity for Sable lsland because the Canadian Coast Guard is withdrawing its services and there is no other government agency to replace it. As a national park, Sable Island would come under the jurisdiction and protection of Parks Canada which has been weakened by the Harper Conservatives.

The post Bill S-15 Would Allow Oil and Gas Activities inside Sable Island National Park Reserve appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[tRI70SbvqTY]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that under no circumstances will the federal government become the aggressive and hostile government that approves a project as long British Columbians say no?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the project in question, of course, is subject to a joint review panel process. Obviously, we believe in the rule of law and, in adjudicating these things based on scientific and policy concerns, the government will obviously withhold its decision on the matter until we see the results of the panel and its work.

Related: Sign the petition for an oil-free coast.

The post Question Period – Northern Gateway Pipeline and Provincial Rights appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Over a period of the last million years, CO2 never exceeded 280 ppm (based on actual readings of atmospheric chemistry from Antarctic ice-core data.) The last time greenhouse gases reached 400 ppm was three million years ago. Put simply, humanity has now changed the chemistry of our atmosphere to replicate pre-historic levels—a time when no humans existed.

Related: Sign a petition for a National Cimate Strategy

Concentrations of GHG are a very different measurement than emission rates. Concentrations have a very long lag-time and will not be able to be decreased except over centuries, while emission rates can go down overnight. It is critical to start reducing emissions, because existing concentrations mean that we will see warming over the next 100 years from today’s emissions.

CO2 levels are monitored daily at Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii. When the monitoring station was set up in 1958, CO2 levels were at 317ppm. The rise to 400ppm was not expected so soon. Meanwhile, the Canadian government has joined in a global commitment to hold concentrations of greenhouse gases to levels that would avoid allowing global average temperatures to rise by 2ºC. Scientists have marked that wide red hazard line in a band between 425-450 ppm.

Avoiding 2ºC is critical because it represents a danger zone. Some refer to it as a point of no return—or a ‘tipping point to self-accelerating global warming, the so-called ‘runaway greenhouse effect.’ The actual tipping point might be 2.5º, or it could be 1.5º. Two degrees represents a consensus of scientists, but no scientist I know is sanguine about 2 degrees. It is certainly not a safe zone.

The most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook includes some number crunching. If all the world’s known reserves of fossil fuels were to be used, the climate would move the world to a non-habitable state.

In fact, the IEA has said that to avoid an increase of 2ºC, at least two-thirds of known fossil-fuel reserves must stay in the ground until at least 2050.

The Over-rated Fossil Fuel Economy

This finding has led to a new and potentially powerful financial calculation. A major new report from the UK, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital And Stranded Assets, engaged the talents and expertise of Sir Nicholas Stern through a collaborative research project involving Carbon Tracker and the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and Environment.

The result is a new concept—the ‘carbon bubble.’ The essence of their work is this: a great deal of the stated value of stock exchanges around the world is in unburnable fossil fuels. The level of capital expenditure in developing those reserves over the next decade would amount to $6.74 trillion in wasted capital—developing reserves that simply cannot be burned.

The report calls for ratings agencies to update their approach to verifying the financial health of stock markets and individual companies. If assets being used to offset liabilities are assets that can never be used, then large parts of the economy—now seen as credit-worthy—are over-valued.

The consequence for financial markets is obvious. Meanwhile, the report notes that the carbon intensity of the New York and London stock markets is actually increasing; New York by 37% over 2 years and London by 7% over 2 years.

The creative notion that Moody’s and other credit raters might be able to do through financial valuations what governments have so far failed to do–bring Big Oil to its senses–is certainly tantalizing. What is encouraging is the extent to which the notion of a ‘carbon bubble’ as financial risk is catching on.

Perhaps that’s what we need—a clear financial consequence our brains can comprehend. Maybe we should keep the focus on the financial threat, while acknowleding the irony that it may be easier to provoke change through large multinationals and stock exchanges than through thoughts of our children’s dismal future.

The post 400 ppm appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Dr. Hansen is not just someone who used to work at NASA. He was NASA’s top climate scientist. Thursday, I found this tribute to James Hansen that will give Canadians who do not know much about Dr. Hansen (and I guess that means Mr. Oliver, at least) a sense of his stature south of the border and globally. This tribute was written by another Joe — Joe Romm (1).

I don’t think I can improve upon it, and I ask you to read it. Joe Oliver said James Hansen should be “ashamed” for urging the President to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. He said Dr. Hansen has been “crying wolf.” Whatever your views on any particular pipeline, I ask you to read this. And then ask yourself how long we will tolerate having our highest ranking Canadian officials embarrass internationally by attacking the most courageous of scientists? It is we who are ashamed — of our government.

A Man For All Seasons: James Hansen Wins The Ridenhour Courage Prize
James Hansen was awarded the Ridenhour Courage Prize today. The Prize is “presented to an individual in recognition of his or her courageous and life-long defense of the public interest and passionate commitment to social justice.”

I was given the great privilege of introducing Hansen. This is what I prepared:
James Hansen is being honored today in part because he told Congress: “The global warming now is large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.”

The courageous part isn’t what he said, it’s when he said it — 25 years ago, during the sweltering summer of 1988. It was the first high-profile public statement by a US government scientist alerting the country to this grave threat.

Jim embodies the Ridenhour Courage Prize. When he was still NASA’s top climate scientist, he blew the whistle on government efforts to silence him — and others — on climate change.

Jim is a modern day Paul Revere … if Paul Revere’s midnight ride had taken place in 1750 and the message was, “The British are coming, The British are coming — in 25 years.”

Yes, climate change is a challenging story to tell. And Jim has actually been telling it publicly since 1981, when he published his first warning that led to a major New York Times story, headlined, “Study Finds Warming Trend That Could Raise Sea Levels.”

And yet carbon pollution has kept rising. We live in a spineless world, where being scientifically right for over 30 years gives you no more credit with the national media than being a professional disinformer funded by the fossil fuel industry.

How spineless is this world? If a doctor used the best science to diagnose a smoker as having early-stage emphysema and the doctor did NOT urge the patient to start quitting cigarettes, he’d be charged with malpractice.

But if a climatologist uses the best science to diagnose an entire planet as having early-stage climate change, and he urges the world to start quitting fossil fuels, well, then he is labeled an alarmist or an extremist by industry-backed groups.

The truth is we all should be alarmed by the great moral crisis of our time. By destroying a livable climate we are stealing the future from our children and grandchildren and countless future generations.

To save this spineless world from itself, supplying the truth isn’t enough. You need to supply the spine, too. You need to be courageous. And so Jim has been forced by the times — and by his moral convictions — to become an activist.

There is a saying that applies to Jim, “One man with courage is a majority.”

How many scientists have spawned an entire movement?

Five years ago Jim explained that “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted,” we need to return carbon dioxide levels back to 350 parts per million. That led to Bill McKibben founding the group 350.org.

Then Jim said burning the tar sands would be “game over for the climate” — and that led to the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline — and the biggest protests and civil disobedience the climate movement had ever seen.

And because Jim has the courage of his convictions he has had the courage to be convicted himself — he’s been arrested 5 times during peaceful protests.

Fifty years ago this month, another great moral crusader was arrested for protesting — and he wrote a letter from his jail cell in Birmingham explaining why. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” wrote Martin Luther King Jr. on April 16, 1963. “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”

Now more than ever, we are “tied in a single garment of destiny,” cloaked as a species in a protective climate that we are in the process of unraveling. And so the need for activism, the need for courage, the need to speak out, is as great as ever.

As King put it, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”

It is my singular honor to give you a man who will not have to repent, a man for all seasons, literally — the winner of the 2013 Ridenhour Courage Prize, Dr. James Hansen.

(1)From Wikipedia: Joseph J. Romm (born June 27, 1960) is an American author, blogger, physicist[1] and climate expert[2] who concentrates on methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming and increasing energy security through energy efficiency, green energy technologies and green transportation technologies.[3][4] In December 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In March 2009, Rolling Stone magazine named Romm to its list of “100 People Who Are Changing America”.[5] In September 2009, Time magazine named him one of its “Heroes of the Environment (2009)”, calling him “The Web’s most influential climate-change blogger”.[6]

Romm is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he writes and maintains their climate blog, Climate Progress. In 2008, Time magazine named Romm’s blog one of the “Top 15 Green Websites”.[7] In 2009, Thomas L. Friedman, in his column in The New York Times, called Climate Progress “the indispensable blog”,[8] and in 2010, Time included it in a list of the 25 “Best Blogs of 2010”.[9] Romm also writes regularly for several energy and news websites.

In the 1990s, Romm served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. Romm has published several books on global warming and energy technology. Technology Review wrote that his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, “provides an accurate summary of what is known about global warming and climate change, a sensible agenda for technology and policy, and a primer on how political disinformation has undermined climate science.”[10] Romm’s 2010 book, Straight Up, released in April 2010, is a selection of his blog postings since 2007.

The post Canadian Officials Should Be Ashamed For Attacking Scientists appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Debate has been about how best to export raw, virtually unprocessed bitumen — as much as possible and as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, the eastern half of Canada depends on imports of foreign oil from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and Norway. As Gordon Laxer of the Parkland Institute tried to point out to a Parliamentary committee (before the Conservative chair ordered him to stop talking and stormed out of the room), Canada has no energy security.

I feel some responsibility for this shift in debate, as I was the first political leader to point out that there was something wrong with the picture.

RELATED: Sign the petition for an oil-free coast.

Unlike the US, we have no Strategic Petroleum Reserves. If there was a blockade of foreign oil or an economic embargo, those in Eastern Canada would have to wait for tankers to bring them bitumen for processing through the Panama Canal and up the eastern seaboard. As bizarre as that sounds, it was the solution offered by a Suncor executive when asked in committee about the vulnerability of eastern Canada to embargos.

Oppositional Canada

The irony is that the dividing line of foreign oil to the east and Alberta oil for the west was the result of deliberate government policy—aimed at helping the Alberta oil and gas sector. Back in 1961, the National Oil Policy decreed that eastern Canadians (east of the Ottawa River) would only receive imported oil while those in the West had to purchase Alberta product. By deliberate policy, Eastern Canadians became dependent on foreign oil, while Alberta oil was consumed by those in western provinces and exported to the US. Now it is time to think like a country.

The Solution: Shipping East?

However, the current proposal also makes no sense. Former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna has proposed shipping unprocessed bitumen to St John, New Brunswick, to put it in tankers to export it from there. Others are proposing refining it in New Brunswick.

The first decision point is Enbridge’s application to reverse its Number 9 pipeline. This pipeline was built in the 1970s and had originally flowed west to east. It was reversed in the 1990s as the markets favoured cheaper foreign oil.

Now, Enbridge is applying to reverse it once again, running a different product, dilbit, from west to east. The request to the National Energy Board is being considered in two stand-alone applications; Line 9A (Sarnia to North Westover) and Line 9B to Montreal.

From there the bitumen would likely go south through New England. When I was in Washington DC, I heard from quite a few Congressmen and Senators that they do not want those pipelines over their territory.

Bitumen

The nature of bitumen and diluents in pipelines is a critical issue in why the Green Party oppose pipelines of unprocessed product to either coastline. So, before talking about the direction of pipelines, we need to talk about the product.

Even after the extensive and intensive process of extracting the viscous material known as bitumen from the soil in which it is found (generally about 10% by volume), it is still not processed to even the level of crude oil. Crude oil can flow. Bitumen cannot. It has the consistency of peanut butter, so needs to be mixed with something else to flow. That something else is called ‘diluent’—a mix of undisclosed chemicals. The most commonly used diluent is a natural gas condensate, similar to Naptha. The public does not know the make-up of any particular diluent. Some have more benzene than others—benzene is a well-documented carcinogen.

The resulting so-called dilbit product is about 30% diluents and 70% bitumen. We do know a lot more about dilbit than we used to. And we did a lot of that learning through the 2010 Enbridge dilbit spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. We know it both floats and sinks; that it is far harder and far more expensive to clean-up than unprocessed conventional crude. The Kalamazoo spill is still not cleaned up.

Meanwhile a debate rages about whether dilbit is more likely to cause pipeline failure. Cornell University found that between 2007 and 2010 pipelines carrying dilbit had a spill-rate three times higher than pipelines carrying conventional crude. Oil sands products have a higher sulfur and a higher acidic content than conventional crude and those properties could explain its increased corrosive nature.

This finding led to the Department of Natural Resources to commissioning a study by a group called Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (ATIF). That study compared dilbit and conventional crudes and concluded the types of corrosive compounds between the two products were comparable. So we have labwork versus the real life rate of spills in US pipelines. At the moment, despite what Harper’s Cabinet ministers claim, the science on the corrosive nature of dilbit is not settled.

Meanwhile, if local residents along the Number 9 pipeline wish to speak before the NEB hearings, or even submit a letter, they are required to fill out a 10-page form, and are also encouraged to submit references and a resume! This is an NEB effort to meet the new requirements imposed by the horrific overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that took place last year in the Omnibus Budget Bill (C-38).

Unlike the previous CEAA, which was premised on a fundamental commitment to rights of public participation, the Harperized CEAA restricts access to only those ‘directly affected’. The NEB has made this restriction even worse by demanding that any citizens who want to make comments, fill out the forms and apply within a two-week period—which will close before this article will be in print.

Refineries In Alberta

So, what should be done? The best environmental, economic and climate outcome would be to slow down the boom-and-bust cycle of constant expansion in the oil sands. What the late Peter Lougheed used to describe as the ‘traffic jam’ of feverish expansion in the oilsands prevents the construction of ancillary infrastructure, like upgraders and refineries.

The hyper-inflationary bubble that sits on northern Alberta is what makes it cheaper for Big Oil to build a $7 billion pipeline to Texas, rather than build facilities in Alberta. Any reasonable carbon plan would set a level of managed growth for oil sands production—say 2 million barrels of oil a day (more than the current 1.7 million barrels, but less than Harper’s goal of 6 million barrels of oil a day). That level of production could cool down the capital and labour markets enough to build upgraders and refineries near the resource. Then, we could be talking about shipping—by pipeline, truck or train—a finished product whose properties are better understood. Shipping a product with a far lower risk of environmental impact in the event of spills.

If we are thinking like a country, we should get Alberta oil to Eastern Canada, but we should not ship bitumen + diluents.

The post Pipelines to the east? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The really stunning aspect of the announcement was that the media largely fell for it – as though something serious was being announced.  The event that went unreported at the time, that one of the emergency response vessels for tanker spills, scheduled to be part of the press conference backdrop, ran aground on its way.  It is the perfect metaphor for a large non-event.

The March 2012 budget had actually included almost everything re-announced a year later in March 2013.  It included pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations.  Not only was the announcement duplicated in the 2012 budget the new measures were repeatedly cited as though they were part of the budget omnibus bill C-38.  Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment… As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.”

None of this was in C-38.  It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013.  I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.

The only new aspect of the announcement was of an expert panel to review tanker safety and to study the specific risks of a spill involving bitumen and diluents.  As the entire Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing has been dealing with a product it does not plan to ship  — crude oil – it is certainly worthwhile finding out how bitumen and diluents will behave.

At the Vancouver press conference, Oliver and Lebel trumpeted that they had tabled for First Reading  the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act.  I sought it out to read it.  Its introduction for First Reading had been splashless. Once again, I was underwhelmed.  The bill is merely a series of housekeeping measures. The “safeguarding skies” piece deals with aviation and aeronautics, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities.  There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component.  Then there are the amendments related to “seas.”  The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act.  The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea.   So, nothing about double-hulled tankers.

The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee, (“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that year.  None were allowed in North American waters.

Do double hulls eliminate the risk of oil spills?  Not actually.  Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers.  Their use has not ended the risk of accidents and oil spills.  Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of millions of litres in ports around the world.  Double hulls can be sliced open and oil spills out.

The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement, with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.

Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

• Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.
• In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast….
• A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or movement.

In fact, the 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along BC’s north coast.  That was a federal-provincial moratorium.  Most readers will not notice the subtlety of the website reference to the “federal moratorium.”   Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or ceases to be underway. Underway is defined as a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.”  And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers.   In 2011, the total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82.  None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.

In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.

Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Reality check on Transport Canada’s claims for tanker safety appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In March of last year, Budget 2012 promised more pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations. Then ministers claimed the new measures were in the budget omnibus bill C-38. Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment… As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.”

None of this was in C-38. It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013. I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.

The only really new announcement was of an expert panel to review tanker safety and to study the specific risks of a spill involving bitumen and diluents. That is worth doing, as the entire Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing has been dealing with a product it does not plan to ship — crude.

Yesterday Harper’s ministers announced we would find these new measures in Bill C-57, the just tabled for First Reading Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act. I have read C-57. This now takes top honours in the on-going competition for most over-hyped legislative title. I have read it and it is essentially a housekeeping act. It deals with the skies, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities. There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component. Then there are the amendments related to “seas.” The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act. The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea. So, nothing about double-hulled tankers.

The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee, (“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that year. None were allowed in North American waters.

Has the virtual removal of single-hulled tankers ended the risk of oil spills? Not actually. Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers. Their use has not ended the risk of accidents and oil spills.

Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of millions of litres in ports around the world. Double hulls can be sliced open and oil spills out.

The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement, with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.

Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

• Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.
• In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast….
• A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or movement.

I think most readers will not need any help from me debunking that bunk. The 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along BC’s north coast. Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or ceases to be underway.

Underway is defined as “a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.” And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers. In 2011, the total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82. None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.

In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.

The post New and Improved Oil Spills! appeared first on Elizabeth May.

9:30 a.m. – Green Leader Elizabeth May will held a press conference to report on her visit last week to Washington, D.C., where she met US government and elected officials to discuss climate change and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Room 130S (Charles Lynch Theatre), Centre Block
Ottawa, Ontario

The post MEDIA ADVISORY: Elizabeth May Press Conference appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Transcribed by Janet Eaton

KN: Green party leader Elizabeth May was in Washington the day that new Secretary of State, John Kerry and our Foreign Affairs minister, John Baird held that key meeting on the pipeline decision. Ms May thanks for joining us. How do you read the tea leaves there -does the pledge by new US Sec State to provide his answer to keystone in the near term- do you think that means this pipeline is heading for approval ?

EMay: I think it’s too soon to say – I’ve been talking to members of the Senate and the Congress here in Washington during my visit over the last number of days and there’s a lot of increased enthusiasm about what President Obama said in his inauguration address about the need for the US to seize leadership on the climate issue, to embrace clean tech, to do much much more to bring down green house gases. And John Kerry
was, before being appointed Secretary of State, a prominent critic of the XL pipeline. So I think we’re a long way from knowing which way this is going to go.

KN: So you’re saying Secretary of State, Kerry, can’t stay true to himself and approve this pipeline.

EMay: Well, that’s a good way of putting it- I mean John Kerry has been on his own for years, I’ve seen him in climate negotiations when he had no other reason to be there except that he was concerned and committed. He showed up in Copenhagen, he showed up in Bali. This is a man who understands the climate issue and now he’s led by a President who’s says the United States is going to take the lead because we owe
it to our children we owe it to our grandchildren and the United States is not going to stand by and watch other countries seize the technologies that get us past fossil fuels. I don’t see John Kerry being at all happy with the prospect of approving Keystone XL – particularly when we know there will be, next weekend, a large demonstration in Washington DC, opposing the Keystone pipeline. It is not going to be a decision that
will sit well with John Kerry if he ends up feeling that he needs to approve it.

KN: But you know – I’ve been reading a couple of recent quotes from the Washington Post e.g. who recently in an editorial said “ignore the activists who have brazenly chosen to make Keystone XL a line- in-the -sand issue” and then there’s a publication Nature-which I think we can both agree is a pretty substantive magazine with scientific peer reviewed findings and it says “The administration should face down critics of the project, ensure that environmental standards are met and then approve it.” Now those are progressive publications. Doesn’t that give Obama some political cover?

EMay: It gets hard to do that when Canada doesn’t have a real climate plan. If Canada was coming – I go back to when Mulroney was the architect of an acid rain plan that worked and the approach was come to the US with clean hands, show the US that we’re taking the appropriate steps in Canada and then asking them to do the same.

In this case what Stephen Harper’s done is to destroy most of our environmental laws, cancel our commitments under Kyoto, behave as a rogue nation in world, and actually have no domestic plan to meet even the weak target that Stephen Harper has set. So how then do we tell Barack Obama- Accept our bitumen crude- We’re going to be good actors on climate. We don’t have credibility to say that which actually undermines the case that the keystone XL pipeline should be approved.

KN: Alright Elizabeth May – thanks for being with us.

EMay: Thank you so much.

The post CTV’s Kevin Newman Interviews Elizabeth May in Washington on the Keystone Pipeline appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May discusses her position on the Keystone pipeline while in Washington, D.C.

The post Elizabeth May on CTV’s Power Play, Discussing the Keystone XL Pipeline appeared first on Elizabeth May.