The pipeline extending between Alberta and northern BC has been under discussion for several months now, but on Tues. Nov. 5, BC and Alberta premiers announced that a tentative agreement has been reached.
The governments of BC and Alberta, led by Christy Clark and Alison Redford, struck a deal wherein BC will join Alberta in the Canadian Energy Discussions. This deal is dependent on the meeting of BC’s five conditions, as outlined by The Globe and Mail: environmental review, marine oil spill response, land spill prevention, aboriginal concerns and economic benefits for BC.
These conditions demand the “successful completion of the formal environmental review processes,” the implementation of “world-leading marine oil (as well as land) spill response, prevention and recovery systems,”the assurance that all Aboriginal issues of legality and treaty rights will be addressed, and that the project will benefit Aboriginal people. Additionally, it is required that the province and its citizens receive a fair share of the economic benefits as befits the “risk borne” by BC.
That is just silly.”
– John Axsen, SFU assistant professor
Jonn Axsen, SFU assistant professor in the department of resource and environmental management, says that these conditions do not alleviate any environmental concerns. He told The Peak, “Clark’s framework completely ignores climate change impacts, [and] even having a ‘world class’ response system will not eliminate the risk of having a large scale marine oil spill, especially in isolated, ecologically sensitive regions.”
While there is a bare-bones structure to the agreement, Axsen believes the conditions lack detail and since they are so vague, “it may be easy for the BC government to eventually argue that the conditions have been satisfied.”
He said that the pipeline would double or even triple the operations of Alberta Oilsands, resulting in a great increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would “further handicap our country’s ability to meet our stated emissions reductions targets.” For Axsen, creating a “world-class” set of policies for BC while aiding in Alberta’s expansion of greenhouse gas emissions would be nonsensical. “That is just silly,” Axsen said.
Both Clark and Redford stressed the importance of provinces working together in their press announcement, but Axsen argues that Clark is not accurately representing her constituents. “My survey data shows the BC citizens are more likely to oppose the pipeline than to support it.” Axsen also feels that Clark is not acting in the best interest of the citizens of BC as the environmental risk just isn’t worth the potential economic and fiscal benefits.
The aim of the project is to make Alberta crude oil available to a larger market, particularly the Asian markets, which would be more accessible with the pipeline in place. BC stands to profit for its part in the transportation and the associated risks. However, Axsen feels that, oil spills aside, the consequences of climate change “will most likely lead to a net loss for society.”
Despite the current agreement, the future of the pipeline is still undecided. While there are strong advocates, corporate and federal, for the pipeline’s going ahead, Axsen believes it will be met with “a very strong resistance in BC, likely resulting in civil disobedience if construction begins.”
