On Tuesday June 17, the federal government approved Enbridge’s proposal for the Northern Gateway pipeline, subject to further talks with aboriginal communities and 209 conditions as recommended by the National Energy Board.

Despite Stephen Harper’s approval, both Tom Mulclair, leader of the NDP, and Justin Trudeau, leader of the federal Liberal Party, have said that they would reverse the approval if they were elected in the next election.

The pipeline still needs to be approved by the provincial government, but four of BC’s five conditions for heavy oil projects remain unsatisfied. According to BC environment minister Mary Polak, the federal decision does not affect the provincial government’s stance on the project. “Our position remains unchanged: It is no,” Polak said.

The pipeline has been met with much resistance, not only from environmentalists, but the majority of British Columbia’s residents. Several of British Columbia’s municipalities and First Nations groups have passed resolutions opposing the pipeline, as have both the provincial government and major NGO’s within the province.

Tom Gunton, director of the Resource and Environmental Planning program at SFU, has been examining the potential environmental risks of moving forward with the pipeline over the past few years. He told The Peak that this outcry is not surprising, considering that 65 per cent of BC residents disapprove of the pipeline, according to recent polls.

“The federal government called critics of the Northern Gateway Pipeline radicals supported by foreign interests, and of course 65 per cent of of British Columbians oppose the Northern Gateway Pipeline,” Gunton said. “You sort of can’t consider 65 per cent of British Columbians radicals. The British Columbia government opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline, and it’s hard to define them as radicals!”

Although support and opposition to the pipeline is split more evenly across the country, Gunton explained, “It’s largely because of a lot of Canada won’t suffer the consequences and the bills associated with the Northern Gateway Pipeline.”

Opposition to the pipeline is largely due to the high risk of oil spills as well as the overwhelming cost of the project, according to the report. Communities in BC have hosted a number of petitions and protests since the pipeline was proposed and even more have emerged since its approval.

The announcement has also elicited reactions from the SFU community. The City of Vancouver and SFU’s Centre for Dialogue held an open discussion on June 24 so that people could exchange ideas and learn about the project.

On June 25, Jessie Russell, member relations officer on Sustainable SFU’s board of directors and secretary for SFU 350, approached Council, a monthly cross-campus dialogue composed of representatives from each department and SFSS constituency group, to recommend to the board of directors that they take an official position against both the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan proposed pipeline projects.

A group of academics, led by SFU ecologist Wendy Palen, has already taken a stand against the projects. On June 19, they wrote in the British journal Nature that Canada and the US should halt project approvals until oil sands developments are consistent with the government’s commitments to cut carbon pollution.

For Gunton, the reactions from the community are what he would have expected: “It’s one of the most significant projects ever proposed in British Columbia in terms of size and potential impact. Secondly, it’s going to result in major controversy in BC with court cases and protests.

“Consequently it’s going to have major repercussions, both provincial and national, and likely international issues,” he concluded.