Showing posts with label Bad Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad Government. Show all posts

Thursday, November 7, 2024

THE COMMANDER-IN-THIEF RETURNS

How sad it must be - believing that scientists, scholars, historians, 

economists and journalists have devoted their entire lives to 

deceiving you - while a lying, racist, misogynistic, perverted 

traitor is your only beacon of truth and honesty. 

(Neil deGrasse Tyson, paraphrased.)

Thursday, October 24, 2024

Alberta UCP to vote on celebrating CO2 - not recognizing it as pollutant

CANADA’S NATIONAL OBSERVER


A proposal to stop labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant and instead celebrate it as a "foundational nutrient for all life on Earth” will be up for debate at the United Conservative Party’s annual general meeting in November. Story here.

Friday, August 30, 2024

ODE TO PIERRE POILIEVRE

Sounds like the leader of the Cynical Party of Canada sure knows how to win friends and influence people! In trying to persuade the NDP leader to abandon his pact with the Liberals, our country's Top Cynic called him "Sellout Singh." Then he suggested Mr. Singh is only in politics for the pension! What will YOU do for the people, Mr. Cynic? Get us free dental care? Free pharmacare? Oh, right. Mr. Singh has already done that for us! What a parliamentarian you are! What a leader! So you've offered to turn your own pension over to charity then, have you? You, Sir are a menace! A sad, Trump-like, hate-filled demagogue-in-waiting. May you never get within whiffing distace of the PM's office.

L.P.

Thursday, August 29, 2024

Tailings spill fine not even close to maximum allowed, despite regulator's claims

By

When the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) announced Imperial Oil had to pay a $50,000 administrative penalty, it said this was the maximum base amount allowed under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. 

This statement is “misleading” and “clearly wrong,” Nigel Bankes, an emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary, told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview. Bankes is an expert in environmental and natural resources law. 

The regulations state the maximum administrative penalty is $5,000 per day for major contraventions such as this one. The AER used the maximum daily amount, but applied it on a monthly basis, which reduced the penalty by more than 95 per cent, Drew Yewchuk, a former staff lawyer with the University of Calgary’s public interest law clinic, told Canada’s National Observer

“That's extremely weird,” said Yewchuk, who likened it to staying at a hotel for 10 months and they decided to instead charge you for 10 days. 

Last year, it came to light that toxic tailings had been seeping from Imperial Oil’s Kearl site for nine months and downstream communities were not properly notified. It took a massive spill of 5.3 million litres in February for the long-term seepage, which Imperial Oil first noticed in May 2022, to be made public through an environmental protection order. The AER’s investigation is still ongoing, this penalty only addresses the seepage that began in 2022.

“Administrative penalties are carefully evaluated by the AER to ensure they are fair and proportionate to the severity of the contravention,” an AER spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Canada’s National Observer. The spokesperson reiterated the press release’s statement that $50,000 was the maximum base penalty allowed under the regulation.

“It's absolutely not the maximum,” Yewchuk said.

When @AER_news fined Imperial Oil $50,000 over a tailings leak it said that was the maximum penalty allowed. That is "misleading" and $50k is "absolutely not the maximum": environmental law experts @DrewYewchuk and @NdbYyc1305 told @NatObserver

The AER’s decision said applying the daily maximum would have resulted in “a disproportionate high response … especially in light of the fact that the actual known environmental impacts of the contravention, to date, appear minimal.” 

The regulations consider the potential for adverse effects — not the actual impact.

The decision goes on to say the $50,000 penalty serves as sufficient deterrence to both Imperial Oil and the industry in general.

“That's not enough reasoning to justify a 95 per cent reduction compared to what the table calls for,” said Yewchuk.

The regulations state that the regulator also has the option to assess and collect a separate, one-time amount if the company might have obtained an economic benefit by not complying with the rules. The AER chose not to do this.

Yewchuk said it's rare for the regulator to impose this one-time payment for economic benefits, but not unheard of. Earlier this year, the regulator handed a one-time administrative penalty to Tallahassee Exploration Inc. for failing to monitor and report its methane emissions, he pointed out.

“The AER calculated what it would have cost for them to do the methane measuring that they were supposed to,” Yewchuk explained. The result was a $191,885 penalty.

In the case of Imperial Oil, the AER could have calculated an economic benefit penalty based on what it would have cost to pay enough staff to do more checks and routinely monitor tailings areas, install more monitoring wells or use better materials, Yewchuk said.

Additionally, the AER charged Imperial Oil with two acts of noncompliance, but only fined it for one. For the other incident, the regulator gave Imperial Oil some homework: the company must produce a “lessons learned” report to share with other oilsands operators, as well as “a plan to ensure tailings seepage mitigation and monitoring processes are completed” by Nov. 1. After that, Imperial Oil must also develop a research plan to study the environmental impacts of oilsands tailings water.

“This is the work that Imperial is supposed to be doing, just to run the mine,” Yewchuk said. “They're supposed to be monitoring it. They're supposed to be researching what to do about the tailings … ways to deal with the tailings, to get rid of them, to decontaminate them, to stop expanding tailings areas, and they haven't done it.”

The 40-page decision indicates the AER suggested a $51,000 penalty even before receiving Imperial Oil’s submissions, and ultimately removed the extra $1,000.

“That's odd to me,” said Yewchuk.

“I would have thought that they were going to suggest something higher and have Imperial convince them to walk them back.”

This summer, Laurie Pushor, president of the AER, announced he will not return to his role when his contract expires in April 2025.

Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer

Monday, March 18, 2024

Danielle Smith drops ‘uncertainty bomb’ on Alberta’s clean energy future

CANADA'S National Observer

By John Woodside | News, Energy, Politics | February 29th 2024


Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces new measures for renewable energy development.

Alberta’s seven-month pause on renewable energy development is coming to an end, but new rules promise to restrict the sector even further, experts say.

Among the new rules Premier Danielle Smith announced Wednesday is a ban on new wind projects within a 35-kilometre buffer zone of protected areas and other “pristine viewscapes” chosen by the province. Other projects in the buffer zone could be subjected to a “visual impact assessment” before securing approval.

Smith also said the Alberta Utilities Commission, which regulates energy projects, will take an “agriculture first” approach, meaning crops and livestock will take priority over renewable energy proposals unless it can be demonstrated that the project can coexist with agricultural uses. Renewable energy developers will also be required to put money aside for reclamation; an environmental measure frequently shirked by oil and gas companies that has resulted in the province facing $33 billion worth of liability from inactive wells.

“Growing our renewable energy industry must happen in well-defined and responsible ways,” Smith said. “We need to ensure we're not sacrificing our future agricultural yields, or tourism dollars, or breathtaking viewscapes to rush renewable developments through.”

Simon Dyer, Pembina Institute deputy executive director, told Canada’s National Observer that Wednesday’s announcement will hamstring the renewable energy sector and raises more questions than it answers.

“If you put a 35-kilometre buffer on all protected areas in southern Alberta, that covers 76 per cent of the landscape,” he said, adding that the Alberta government hasn’t provided concrete details about how projects will be evaluated going forward. “I mean, if I was a wind developer and 76 per cent of that land [is affected], I'd be very concerned and ask for clarification.”

Smith said renewables have a place in the province’s energy mix, but stressed gas power will remain the cornerstone indefinitely. She described a “parallel process” that would see renewable energy added to the grid only with an “equivalent amount” of gas power to ensure gas can meet demand at all times. She said this was an important step to take because renewable energy is typically intermittent, and she wants to avoid blackouts, pointing to a cold snap in January that led to the province’s electricity system operator issuing alerts to residents to conserve power.

In fact, the reason for the power shortage was natural gas plants being offline. Renewable energy helped ease the strain on the system, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator.

“The province was the undisputed renewables capital of Canada... Now Alberta is undermining its own success, making it one of the only jurisdictions in the world trying to frustrate the deployment of cheap, clean, renewable electricity."

Speaking to reporters from Parliament Hill, Liberal MP George Chahal didn’t mince words. He said Smith is “continuing her ideological crusade against renewables” and is telling investors that Alberta is “closed for business.” He also noted Smith’s moratorium seven months ago on renewable energy development affected more than 100 projects, representing $33 billion worth of investment and 24,000 jobs.

“Danielle Smith is killing an industry and making life more expensive,” he said.

“Today, she essentially announced that with the new 35-kilometre rule, and layers of restrictions, the vast majority of Alberta is off limits,” he said. “The temporary moratorium has now become permanent.”

Chahal, who represents the riding of Calgary Skyview, also accused Smith of scapegoating renewable energy during January’s cold snap.

“All this begs the question: Where has this mismanagement got us? Under Jason Kenney and Danielle Smith's watch, electricity rates have quadrupled since 2019,” he said. “Smith's unfair treatment of renewables would only make things worse.”

Dyer said the new rules will negatively impact renewable energy development in the province.

“Some of these rules seem patently unfair and target an industry that supports reliable and low-cost electricity,” he said. “Many of these restrictions do not apply to other industries or land uses.”

By “inventing” new concepts like “pristine viewscapes” to restrict potential renewable energy projects, Dyer said Alberta appears to be using a double standard since other industries like coal mining or logging don’t face the same rules.

“It does appear to come from a bias around renewable energy… If you don't like renewable energy, I guess looking at renewable energy upsets you,” he said.

Other environmental think tanks and business groups were quick to criticize Alberta’s announcement.

Evan Pivnick, Clean Energy Canada’s clean energy program manager, said Albertans stand to lose the most from the new rules. He described Smith’s announcement as an “uncertainty bomb” for investors.

“Until last year, the province was the undisputed renewables capital of Canada, securing over $4.7 billion in new investment and bringing thousands of new jobs to the province since 2019,” he said in a statement. “Now Alberta is undermining its own success, making it one of the only jurisdictions in the world trying to frustrate the deployment of cheap, clean, renewable electricity.”

Clean Energy Canada research also suggests decarbonizing the province’s power grid could save $600 per household in utility costs because electricity generated from wind and solar is cheaper than gas. That’s an important affordability concern given Albertans pay higher electricity bills than residents of any other province.

Jordan Dye, Business Renewables Centre-Canada director, said in a statement that industry will need much greater detail from the province, saying they are missing from “just about every regulatory area they’ve announced new rules on.”

“By introducing three new regulatory frameworks without details, investors and developers are left wondering what this actually means for their projects,” he said. “While details are needed across all categories, particularly concerning is the continued vagueness of the viewscapes requirements.

“Any project that’s even close to a protected area, or what might be considered a protected area, can’t move forward until there’s certainty from the provincial government.”


Wednesday, January 10, 2024

"Planet in Peril" blogger accuses Manitoba’s Minister of Agriculture of lying.

Since the individual Minister at the heart of this story is back in his job after an absence of a dozen-or-so years, I feel it appropriate to re-post my blog story from 2014. After all it's now been well over a decade, not just a couple of years, since he made me the promise he never kept. 


by Larry Powell


 

Manitoba's Minister of Agriculture, Ron Kostyshyn, (below), lies.

Way back in September of 2012 (now more than 1 1 years ago), Kostyshyn promised he would read a peer-reviewed article I had co-authored. Entitled "Field of Nightmares," it appeared in the well-respected Canadian journal "Alternatives - Canada's Environmental Voice." It documented much of the research which has been done, linking the popular herbicide "Roundup" to adverse effects on the health of livestock, wildlife, crops and even humans. It also placed the official position of the Government of Canada on the record, which was, it was "aware of the research, but, it did not raise immediate risk concerns that would have triggered regulatory action.”


So my story concluded that "Ottawa was letting corporate seduction trump the scientific evidence"


Since Roundup is used in oceanic amounts on crops everywhere, including Manitoba, I was naturally curious. Was Mr. Kostyshyn aware of the evidence? If not, why not?


If so, is his inaction due to the fact he simply does not believe the science? If he does why isn't he doing something? It's not as if he were powerless. The Government of Manitoba regulates the sale, use, transportation, storage and disposal of pesticides. 


So I emailed him a link to my story, asking him why nothing is being done. 


No answer.


When I had a chance to interview him later, in person, he said he had been busy and had not seen my email. So I made him promise (on tape) to read my article and get back to me. He said he would! 


Following more weeks of silence, I tried to reach him by 'phone, but was kept from talking to him by a staffer in his office, who gave me a lecture for not following proper protocol for interviewing a Minister.


As a result, after all this time, I still haven't heard from him and feel fully justified in now declaring that he lies. 


For the record, I don't give a damn that it was my byline on the story in question. That's not the point. The story was important because, of the thousands that had been written about Roundup, it was the only one I've seen that summed up in one place the points I've outlined above.


By refusing to answer my questions, Mr. Kostyshyn clearly feels no obligation to be either accountable or transparent to the people of this province. Meanwhile, both Manitoba and Ottawa continue to embrace prodigious Roundup application without bothering to explain why. 


What are we to conclude when a Minister of the Crown so flatly refuses to engage in the least bit of intellectual discussion that might shed some light on where he is coming from? 


Might we conclude that there is collusion of some sort between our elected officials and the huge, rich, ruthless, powerful and unelected Agribusiness corporations who manufacture these products? 


I am not saying there is. What I am saying is, Mr. Minister, if it isn't collusion, then what the Hell would you call it?

THE COMMANDER-IN-THIEF RETURNS

How sad it must be - believing that scientists, scholars, historians,  economists  and journalists have devoted their entire lives to  decei...