Lac Mégantic a grim warning for Hamilton

Federal rail safety deregulation means city has to look after itself

By Ken Stone

Since the Lac Mégantic tragedy, Hamiltonians have grown increasingly worried about crude oil shipments by rail. And well they should! The tankers that exploded in Lac Mégantic may have passed through Hamilton. They were apparently filled with fracked oil from North Dakota, which contain highly flammable chemicals. Trains probably also carry bitumen from the Alberta tarsands through Hamilton. If bitumen-carrying tankers derailed and ruptured close to Hamilton watercourses, bitumen could sink to the bottom, poisoning our water, as occurred when Enbridge's pipeline ruptured in Kalamazoo, Mich. A billion dollars and four years later, it still has not been completely removed.

Regrettably, shipping dirty fossil fuels from fracking and from the tarsands is growing enormously by pipeline and by rail. There's been a 28,000 per cent increase in volumes of oil shipped by rail during the past five years. The Canadian Railway Association forecasted about 140,000 oil tankers to be shipped in Canada in 2013, up from only 500 carloads in 2009. And railroads plan to continue this exponential expansion.

Triggering this vast increase is the reckless plan to quintuple the output of the tarsands and to introduce fracking all across North America. These plans to exploit dirty sources of oil are motivated by profit-seeking corporations owned mainly by foreigners. Yet, the projects have the solid backing of the Harper government. Ordinary Canadians are left to live with the negative economic, social, health and environmental costs of this rapid plundering of Canada's finite natural resources.

For the Hamilton 350 Committee, the question of rail versus pipelines for shipping oil misses the point. We hold that two-thirds of all fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground. Climate change is happening and it's already hurting Hamilton with extreme weather, such as floods and ice storms. Unless Canadians reduce their use of fossil fuels, we're heading for ecological disaster.

But why should city councillors be concerned about rail safety during budget deliberations? The answer is liability. In Lac Mégantic, the MM&A Railway had $25 million in insurance and declared bankruptcy when it became clear the cleanup would cost hundreds of millions. What steps has Hamilton taken to avoid financial catastrophe should an oil-bearing train derail in Dundas and ignite? Has Hamilton done its due diligence on defects in hundreds of aging DOT-111 tankers passing daily through Dundas? These tankers make up 70 per cent of North America's rail-tanker fleet. Yet, their propensity to rupture is well-documented. CP Rail's CEO Hunter Harrison recently declared the DOT-111's should be "removed from the rails tomorrow." Let's take him up on that call. Unionized workers at National Steel Car, where many were built, would be working three shifts and a lot of overtime for years to come to retrofit or replace them.

What about other safety factors such as better track maintenance, slower train speeds, in-cab cameras, and automatic stopping systems? Since the Lac Mégantic inferno, Transport Canada has instituted a weak hazardous-materials reporting regulation. The railways themselves instituted some voluntary new safety rules.

However, weak and voluntary measures won't adequately protect Hamilton from an oil tanker spill. Why? Because the Lac Mégantic tragedy was the direct result of deregulation of rail transport. The federal government has, for decades, been cutting resources to Transport Canada while placing increasing reliance on railways to police themselves. This move is akin to placing the fox in charge of the proverbial chicken coop. For example, just weeks before the Lac Mégantic catastrophe, the Canadian Railway Association formally asked Transport Minister Lisa Raitt to permit them to stop railway inspectors from examining brake, axle, wheel and car components. The request was quietly withdrawn after the tragedy. The regulatory downsizing of train crews was also a factor in the catastrophe. The MM&A train that destroyed Lac Mégantic's core had a one-person crew, a far cry from decades ago when trains had much larger crews plus a caboose for them to stay in.

Because of lax federal regulations, city councillors must budget staff time to investigate what measures to protect itself from train wrecks a municipality can undertake on its own or in concert with other municipalities.

But even the best safety rules for trains (and pipelines) can't prevent all accidents, since people make mistakes. The best long-term protection against oil spills from trains (and pipelines) is to reduce and eventually eliminate the shipment of such hazardous materials.

This brief was originally delivered by Ken Stone to the General Issues Committee of Hamilton city council during its 2014 budget deliberations, on behalf of the Hamilton 350 Committee.

Hamilton Spectator, March 6th, 2014

National Energy Board Decision on Line 9

It has been announced that the National Energy Board (NEB) decision on Line 9 will be released late Thursday afternoon (March 6, 2014). In response, the Hamilton 350 Committee has called a rally for noon Friday, anticipating that approval will be granted to Enbridge’s controversial plan to expand the flows in the Sarnia to Montreal pipeline and include bitumen in the products being shipped through it.

It’s already clear that the NEB decision won’t address many of our most significant concerns including the effects on climate change of increasing both the extraction and transport of fossil fuels, and the economic impacts on manufacturing of additional oil exports.

In the Line 9 review and hearings, the NEB categorically refused to even consider “the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil [tar] sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline.”

So the climatic effects of the expansion of flows in Line 9 have not been considered by the NEB. The climatic and other environmental impacts of expansion of the Alberta tar sands to supply the bitumen being sent through Line 9 have also not been examined.

And while the current federal government claims to be focused on the economy, not even the economic impacts of exporting more oil were examined. The increasing reliance of Canada on the export of fossil fuels has already done great damage to manufacturing, especially in Ontario and Quebec, by driving up the exchange rate of Canadian currency and making export of manufactured goods less competitive.

It is clear that we must wean our society off fossil fuels. The minimum first step is stop making things worse. When you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. Therefore, at minimum, no increase in the extraction or transportation of fossil fuels should be contemplated.

The science is beyond doubt. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed that human burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global climate change. Great harm has already resulted and even the best case scenarios promise much greater damage ahead. We are very likely seeing some of that harm here in Hamilton in the form of extreme events such as torrential rain, ice storms, flooding and other increasingly unusual and disruptive weather.

The NEB is incapable or unwilling to deal with these key issues. In addition, its requirement that individuals and organizations apply in writing to even hope to obtain permission to submit written reviews is clearly undemocratic.

The transparency of this so-called regulatory agency must also be questioned after it quietly approved expanded flow in an Enbridge pipeline parallel to Line 9 without even requiring notification of the affected First Nations or municipalities including Hamilton, or the individuals across whose private lands the pipeline runs.

Join us on Friday, March 7, 2014, at 12-noon at Hamilton City Hall for a Line 9 rally.

Hamilton 350 Blog

What does it take for Canada to act?

Typhoon Haiyan has devastated the Philippines with almost four thousand confirmed dead and tens of thousands more injured.

It is irresponsible to discuss this natural disaster without mentioning COP 19 — the United Nations Climate Change Conference, on now in Warsaw, Poland. It is at COP19 that the world is supposed to be working on solutions to climate change.

At this conference, the Philippines delegate, Yeb Sano, announced he "will voluntarily refrain from eating food during this COP, until a meaningful outcome is in sight." As part of his tearful speech, he pleaded: "What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness, the climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness right here in Warsaw."

Traditionally, scientists shy away from linking specific weather events with climate change. Instead, they tend to say things like "more intense storms like Typhoon Haiyan are the types of weather events we can expect more frequently as a result of climate change."

Canada’s performances under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s leadership at climate talks such as COP19 have been absolutely shameful. For the last six consecutive years, the Climate Action Network has declared Canada the most obstructive nation at each annual conference.

These types of comments should be enough to inspire action. If the global community wants to avoid storms like Typhoon Haiyan, then we need to do something about global warming.

Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the Australian National University and a climate change expert, has made an even stronger link between climate change and Typhoon Haiyan. He is quoted as saying: "Once (cyclones) do form, they get most of their energy from the surface waters of the ocean. We know sea-surface temperatures are warming across the planet, so that's a very direct influence of climate change on the nature of the storm."

Hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons are not the only reasons we need to combat climate change.

There are frightening conclusions just released via a leaked draft version of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report called "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability." IPCC publications are the most diligently vetted scientific documents ever produced.

There are many concerns worth noting, but just to give a scope of the potential damage consider these points:

•"Climate change indirectly increases risks from violent conflict in the form of civil war, inter-group violence, and violent protests by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks."

•"Throughout the 21{+s}t century, climate change impacts will slow down economic growth and poverty reduction, further erode food security, and trigger new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger."

We often think of climate change as a faraway problem. The image of a polar bear clinging to a small block of ice in the Arctic generally comes to mind. What we are learning through IPCC research publications is that climate change can be linked to and exacerbate serious, deadly problems that have major impacts on people across the planet.

Annual international climate change conferences like the one in Poland are the only opportunities the international community has to come together and develop an agreement to slow the rate of anthropogenic climate change.

Canada's performances under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's leadership at climate talks such as COP19 have been absolutely shameful. For the past six years, the Climate Action Network has declared Canada the most obstructive nation at each annual conference.

Our prime minister is currently offering condolences and aid money to the Philippines. However, in addition to condolences, Canadians should be offering our apologies. Canada has offered the Philippines $5 million and deployed our emergency response team to the ravaged nation. Instead of calling our financial support "aid," we should be calling them "reparations" for our reckless behaviour.

Above all else, Canadians have a moral duty to the world to remove Harper from power and replace him with a prime minister who has a competent strategy to solve this problem.

Hamilton 350 Blog

A Withdrawal that could change the Weather

Climate action group promoting credit unions over big banks

CARSON

Cathie Coward,The Hamilton Spectator

Dave Carson of Hamilton 350

nextplay/pausepre1/4

ByMeredith MacLeod

A Hamilton climate change action group is urging consumers and institutions to take their money out of Canada's big banks.

Hamilton 350 is joining 350.org and OurClimate.ca in declaring Nov. 5 Move Your Money Day. The campaign is aimed at universities and colleges, municipalities, religious organizations and individual investors and targets 200 oil, natural gas and coal companies.

Dante Ryel, a member of Hamilton 350, says the same tactic worked to undermine apartheid in South Africa.

But it's not just a moral stance but a sound economic argument too, said a group of Hamilton 350 representatives who spoke to The Spectator's editorial board Tuesday.

The World Bank, the International Panel on Climate Change and other investment groups have said there is more "carbon in the ground than we can afford to burn if we're going to survive," said member Dave Carson.

"But those assets are valued into the companies' stock prices. If they are stranded, that bubble would burst."

The International Energy Agency calculates that the fossil fuel industry will need to leave about 80 per cent of their reserves of coal, oil, and gas in the ground in order to meet targets set for global warming. It's estimated the reserves are worth about $20 trillion.

Consumers, communities and institutions should invest in credit unions, which are member-owned, invest in community development and don't directly invest in fossil fuel holdings, says Ryel.

About 40 schools, local governments and churches have committed to divesting from oil, gas and coal in the United States, according to 350.org. They include Seattle, San Francisco. Portland, Ore., and Ann Arbor, Mich.

The impact could be huge if widely adopted. It's estimated the top 500 university endowments alone hold nearly $400 billion in investments.

Ryel, an energy systems engineering student at Mohawk College, says he has reached out to Mohawk, McMaster and the City of Hamilton to talk about bank divestment. Ryel says his calls and emails aren't returned.

"I think the biggest roadblock is Canada's culture. The influence of the fossil fuel industry has on every single aspect of Canadian culture is incredible."

The Move Your Money Day campaign began in the United States out of the Occupy movement and resentment over the bailout of big banks.

There are ethical and green investment funds but Ryel says so far there isn't one that filters out fossil fuel companies.

350.org says giant oil, gas and coal are profiting while environmental damage climbs.

"If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage," has become a mantra.

The 350 in the organization's name refers to the measurement of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in parts per million. Leading climate scientists have determined that 350 parts per million is a safe level for the earth. But each year, the needle climbs a little so that it sits at about 390 ppm today.

That will mean rising temperatures and sea levels, increased frequency of extreme weather and famine and drought, local 350 members warn.

"We believe climate change is not an issue, it's the issue," said Carson. He accused a number of institutes funded by big oil companies of disregarding the science of climate change and spreading misinformation.

"The International Panel on Climate Change determined that it is 95 per cent certain that climate change is happening and that it's caused by human activities," echoed Ryel.

"That's the same level of certainty that cigarettes are bad for human health."

mmacleod@thespec.com

905-526-3408 | @meredithmacleod

A Line in the Sand

Headwaters to streams and rivers leading to Lake Ontario

There is an increasingly polarized but submerged dynamic in Canada which revolves around pipelines, resource extraction, First Nations, and climate change. Sometimes the tensions rise to the surface and more awareness is created. This is what is happening right now in Ontario, Canada, in areas traversed by the “Line 9” pipeline.

Enbridge Inc. currently uses a 38 year old pipeline (Line 9) to transport petroleum from Montreal to Sarnia. Thirty-eight year old pipelines are not thick: this one is ¼ inch thick, and it measures 30 inches in diameter. Replacement pipes are ½ inch thick.

Enbridge is proposing to reverse the flow of this pipe (so that “product” runs from west to east), increase the volume of flow by 25%, and run diluted bitumen through it to Montreal, then to Portland Maine, where it can be refined and exported.

Years ago, the notion of running diluted bitumen through such a pipe would not have been considered. Not only does diluted bitumen (dil bit) have the consistency of peanut butter, but it contains abrasives such as pyrite and quartz. The flow creates friction, which raises the material's temperature, and makes it more corrosive. Additionally, cancer-causing condensates such as benzene, toluene, hydrogen sulphide, n-hexane, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons must be added to the toxic mix.

New pipelines dedicated to the transport of diluted bitumen are ¾ of an inch thick. They are coated outside for corrosion, and inside for abrasion, and they are 36 inches in diameter.

Normally, such a reckless proposal would at least trigger a federal Environmental Assessment with full public disclosure; however, now that Omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45 have been passed, the company is only required to request a National Energy Board (NEB) hearing (scheduled for August). Unfortunately, though, the NEB process is akin to a “rubber stamp” process, since public access to the hearings is restricted by an onerous application protocol, and the findings of the hearing can be overturned by the federal government.

An important impediment for Enbridge is the fact that the pipeline runs through unceded Mohawk Territory. According to the Canadian Constitution (1982), projects such as this that cross First Nations territories must first secure Free, Prior, and Informed Consent from First Nations, and this has not been secured.

Enbridge, likely anticipating that there would be resistance to its project, engaged in what could accurately be defined as "influence peddling" in communities through which the pipeline runs. In Hamilton, for example, Enbridge donated money to the police. Near the pumping station in Flamborough, home to the Beverly Swamp, ( a Class 1 protected wetland, and headwaters to streams and rivers feeding Lake Ontario), they provided funding for a baseball diamond.

Some may be fooled, but Enbridge’s track record is not exceptional. Between 1990 and 2010, they had 804 reportable spills in North America. If/when Line 9 leaks or bursts, the air will be contaminated by cancer-causing toxins, and the land and waters will be contaminated by diluted bitumen, which sinks to the bottom of wetlands, rivers, etc. A recent spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan bears all the hallmarks of what a spill will look like here.

It is in this context, and with late night construction crews working on reversing the lines at the North Westover Pumping Station BEFORE securing NEB approval, that a tipping point was reached which triggered a blockade and occupation of the station.

The protestors included First Nations peoples and a diverse contingent of peaceful (and well-informed) activists. Police made a number of arrests, and the blockade/occupation is now over, but the activism has already created a pause for reflection and awareness.

Awareness sometimes means debunking corporate myths. For example, people who support pipelines often mention jobs, but pipelines are largely self-sustaining once installed, and alternate sources of energy offer far more jobs. Additionally, increased reliance on a rip and ship extractive economy creates a high petro dollar which eliminates rather than creates jobs.

Others think of tar sand pipelines as a “necessary or lesser evil”, but why choose evil? The global atmospheric levels of carbon are now at 400 parts per million (ppm), and climate change is already wreaking fatal and expensive havoc throughout the world.

Discussions also involve First Nations issues. Increasingly, Canadians are learning that First Nations issues and their issues are intertwined. Canada’s neglect of its peoples and its environment are interconnected issues that are tarnishing our country and our international reputation.

Many of us are no longer willing to settle for Canada’s diminished stature, and many more are becoming aware of the imperatives of science-based policy-making, and the need to transition away from fossil fuels.

The blockade at Flamborough is a sign of our discontent, and a sign of our need for progressive change.

Mark Taliano

MarkTaliano is based in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Report Credibility

Alberta Floods

A simple message to Albertans and all Canadians: Connect the Dots

Tar sands oil releases carbon into the atmosphere...

.... Global Warming ...

... Climate Change ...

... Severe Weather...

... Catastrophic Events...

... This:

Hamilton 350 Blog

Fighting Pipelines is not Enough

For the first time in three million years our planet has approached 400 parts per million(ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere. CO₂, as many people know, is the most important greenhouse gas (GHG) emission particle contributing to the dangerous environmental crisis we know as climate change. For reference, many scientists suggest that the safe level of GHG emissions is 350 ppm. For those of us concerned about climate change, and the future of our species, 400 ppm is a significant landmark, prompting reflection on Canadian climate change policy and environmentalist strategy.

One of the most significant threats to climate change mitigation in Canada is the expansion of the carbon-intensive tar sands industry. Environmentalist organizations and concerned citizens across North America are trying to prevent the expansion of tar sands extraction by blocking pipelines. To the south of Alberta there is the battle over Keystone XL, to the west there is the Northern Gateway pipeline and to the east there is the reversal of the Line 9 pipeline. Blocking these pipelines is an essential part of climate change mitigation, but it is also important to consider the bigger picture.

People trying to address the problem of climate change are on the defensive. If our atmosphere were a bathtub, then we could say that Canada is cranking open the tap at a time when the tub is already about to overflow. Pipeline activists are focused on opening the tap less quickly when our society needs to be draining the tub. The rate at which GHG emissions are pumped into our atmosphere should be decreasing at this point in history, not just increasing less quickly.

Nothing will address the root cause of climate change more effectively than putting a significant price on C0₂. With a price on carbon we can make polluting so expensive that emitting massive amounts of GHG emissions is no longer an economically viable option. A price on carbon targets all sources of GHG emissions in one fell swoop, including but not limited to tar sands’ diluted bitumen pipelines.

Gone are the days when Conservative fear-mongering around a price on carbon can sway voters. In the recent BC provincial election the debate was not about whether there should be a price on carbon but instead on how high this price should be.

At the federal level things might seem less hopeful. Peter Kent, our environment minister, recently said that the five consecutive “fossil” awards Canada has received for obstructing progress at international climate change conferences are “worn with honour.” While Conservatives are flaunting their incredibly immoral climate change policies, and in the process undermining the interests of the majority of Canadians who are desperate for climate change action, their popularity is suffering as a result.

It is only a matter of time before Canada, and the world, adopts a price on carbon. Citizen’s Climate Lobby Canada is attempting to lubricate this process by promoting one of the most exciting carbon pricing options available. They call it the carbon fee and dividend. This policy mandates that the government collects money from polluters who emit GHG emissions and that this revenue is dispersed back to the public in equal amounts in the form of a dividend. Unlike other carbon taxes, this revenue neutral strategy would financially benefit poor and middle class Canadians who live a low carbon lifestyle.

For those of us who are serious about combating climate change, we need to speak out in favour of a price on carbon while we are also speaking out against tar sands pipelines.

Hamilton 350 Blog