Keeping Up with the Conservation-ians

by Gerald Singh

A feast of crab with Tom Sisk and Gerald Singh

At the International Congress for Conservation Biology in Baltimore, Maryland last week, I caught up with two conservation scientists associated with CHANS lab: Tom Sisk and Brett Dickson. Sitting down for a crab feast with Tom Sisk. Tom had some exciting news to tell me.


Tom produced a website with his colleague, photographer/writer/geologist Michael Collier, on the environmental, economic, and social impacts of oilsands development in Alberta and pipeline proposals in BC. With the prospect of oilsands exploitation in Utah, near their home in Flagstaff Arizona, they traveled up the proposed route of the Northern Gateway pipeline, from the coast to Ft. McMurry. It's a website full of awe-inspiring aerial photos (shot from Collier's tiny Cessna), and touching and thought-provoking excerpts from interviews with local residents, scientists, corporate spokespeople and conservation leaders. In Tom's words,

"We wanted to present the narrative as it emerged from a personal journey, exploring a bunch of interrelated issues from a scientifically grounded perspective. And we wanted it to be an aesthetic experience, not just a bunch of facts and spin." 

Check it out to learn a bit more about what underlies all the controversy:

www.OilSandsExperience.com

Brett Dickson - who wouldn't
want to partner with this guy?

At the meeting I also caught up with Brett Dickson, a quantitative conservation biologist who has set up the Conservation Science Partners (CSP), an NGO established to be simultaneously a hub in a network of conservation researchers, and a legitimate research entity in its own right. The Conservation Science Partners is always interested in forming new connections with conservation researchers and practitioners. In Brett's words,

"We established CSP to raise the bar for conservation science and present a new paradigm for doing applied work in all sectors of society. We seek to enlist great minds to help us address some of the most pressing issues in conservation. Our core science staff also is available to serve the needs of our broader community of researchers where the capabilities that we offer can be of service."

Learn more about the Conservation Science Partners and see if you can connect with them:

http://www.csp-inc.org/

And if you like these links, please share them far and wide.

"Seas will rise no more than 69 centimetres by 2100"--Wait, What??

When Science Media Coverage Fails Us

by Kai Chan
A recent NewScientist article claimed in its headline, "Seas will rise no more than 69 centimetres by 2100". Along with this rather spurious claim, the article is mute on the potentially dire implications of global mean sea-level rise of much less than 69 cm. To read the article is to immerse oneself in a bath of relief; the article starts with "It's not as bad as we thought." This kind of treatment of uncertainty (that is, suggesting there isn't any) and implications (omitting them)--especially in a highly reputable Science news outfit like NewScientist--calls for serious scrutiny of the media coverage of science.

This article covers a report from Ice2Sea that does discuss uncertainties and implications. The Ice2Sea report clearly states that their analysis is largely based on one global emissions scenario (A1B, "business as usual"), the uncertainty of which is discussed. The report includes an alternative expert-based approach to estimating uncertainty, based on which the report says, "there is only a low (1-in-20) likelihood that the ice sheets will contribute more than 84cm to sea-level rise by 2100." Critically, it it also says, "The collective opinion is that whilst high rates [of sea level rise] are unlikely, at present no absolute upper-bound can be put on the rate of sea-level rise by 2100." (italics added) The comparison with the NewScientist claim that sea level will rise by no more than 69 cm is stark, and problematic.

The 69 cm upper limit seems to be sum of the highest modelled outputs for each of the components (the Greenland Ice Sheet, West and East Antarctic Ice Sheets, etc.). What's missing from the Ice2Sea report is a clear expression of the uncertainty and how to interpret it, which has surely contributed to science journalists mistaking such a range of model outputs as the range of possible realities (a mistake that should be deeply troubling to most modellers).

Every model makes many assumptions that complicate the use of model outputs as truth, assumptions that are not represented in the range of uncertainty. In the Ice2Sea models, the level of greenhouse gas emissions is but one of many such assumptions. The Ice2Sea failure to represent these assumptions clearly and comprehensively in the interpretation of model output is not unusual. But it should be: as scientists, we need to be much better at communicating the bounds of our knowledge.

The focus of the NewScientist article on science overturning science (without discussion of the implications of the new projects for human suffering and upheaval) is also problematic. The article has no mention how much of the human-inhabited land would be uninhabitable with even 30 cm sea-level rise. it doesn't provide a basis for readers to compare the projected sea-level rises with recent historic ones (which have been much smaller). And it says nothing about the fact--well documented in the Ice2Sea report--that what  matters is not only mean sea-level rise, but also the storm-surge levels that will be exacerbated in other ways by climate change. Instead, the science-overturning-science theme risks over-inflating in readers' minds the lack of knowledge and the upheaval of understanding, which provides ample fodder for climate change deniers and skeptics. In covering science, researchers and journalists alike should remember that scientists are not the only audience. We should always ask ourselves, "How would a lay person take this? How could climate deniers, etc., use this?" With climate deniers being common in some circles including North American legislators, one can imagine this article's a "not so bad" theme serving as an excuse for further inaction on climate change.

Although I'm worked up about this NewScientist article, there's really nothing unusual about it. There are countless but critical ways that normal media coverage of science misrepresents uncertainty and distorts the societal implications of science. Research from students in my recent course reveals that when journalists report on events (like floods) that are, according to the best available science, expected to increase due to climate change by the best available science, these climate-change connections are rarely stated.

Science reporting must change. In its quest for novelty and brevity, science reporting must retain the context for readers to connect the news to its relevance and significance. There are three key ways this can be achieved. First, science that has major societal implications must never be reported without those implications. Second, events (like floods) or processes (like antibiotic resistance), should, if possible, always be connected to the likely underlying drivers (like climate change, and prophylactic use of antibiotics). Third, never say 'Never': natural science is not exact enough to support such certainty.

[This isn't the last you'll hear about these issues of modelling and uncertainty or media coverage of science. Students working with me (e.g., Edward Gregr, Natascia Tamburello, Devon Deckant) are working hard to explore these topics and identify solutions. So please watch this space, e.g., by subscribing to this blog and following @KaiChanUBC on Twitter.]

Kai Chan is an Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair at UBC. He wrote the Eco-Minded column in the Vancouver Metro for 3 years.

What do Epigenetics have to do with Conservation? (And what are epigenetics?)

by Adrian Nel - visiting PhD student from the University of Otago, brief bio at end of post.

I have an interest in both false dichotomies and non jokes (what has two paws and hangs from a tree? – a paw paw (papaya)). Both of these came together in an article in Discover (May 2013) which got me thinking. It began...

Darwin and Freud walk into a bar. Two alcoholic mice — a mother and her son — sit on two bar stools, lapping gin from two thimbles. The mother mouse looks up and says, “Hey, geniuses, tell me how my son got into this sorry state.”

“Bad inheritance,” says Darwin.

“Bad mothering,” says Freud.

The Discover article proceeds to lay out that for over a hundred years, those two views — nature or nurture, biology or psychology — have offered dichotomous explanations for the development and persistence of behaviours, not only within a single individual but across generations. Two scientists from from McGill University — Moshe Szyf, a molecular biologist, and Michael Meany, a neurobiologist (they fittingly met in a bar) — have bust open the nature vs. nurture debate through their study of epigenetics. Epigenetics explores how methyl group 'cookbooks' attached to DNA tell nuclei which genes to transcribe. The two explored that these epigenes can be changed not only during foetal development, but during a lifespan, and, importantly passed from parent to child. They hypothesise for instance that children of holocaust survivors inherit not only the retold memories of traumatic experiences but their epigenetic emotional scars; more positively, they speculate that you may benefit from a boost if your grandmother was loved as a child.

“Like silt deposited on the cogs of a finely tuned machine after the seawater of a tsunami recedes, our experiences, and those of our forebears, are never gone, even if they have been forgotten. They become a part of us, a molecular residue holding fast to our genetic scaffolding. The DNA remains the same, but psychological and behavioural tendencies are inherited” (Hurley, 2013). Basically, it’s not nature vs. nurture, it’s both, and interestingly intertwined ways, and as the Discover article concludes  “if the genome is the blueprint for life, then the epigenome is life's etch-a-sketch 'shake hard enough and you can wipe clean the family curse”.

How does this apply to my research and what brought me here to IRES?

The analogy of nature-nurture does not translate directly to carbon forestry in Uganda, or other conservation interventions. But let us assume for argument’s sake, that the 'nature' here relates to what practitioners perceive as the historical context of forestry governance. These are the 'experiences of our forbears', and practitioners are often wrong to assume they are mere 'context', as the epigenetics analogy shows, within which Nurture then unfolds. Let us assume also that the 'nurture' in this light relates then to the current interventions, those of the individual carbon forestry PES projects I study, framed as technical activities to address the specific, codified problems of deforestation and climate change through carbon sequestration.

The problem arises when the interventions are implemented relying solely on the 'Nurture', without seeing how the historical context (‘nature’) shapes the current program design and the context within which it interpreted and framed (‘nurture’). For example, often overlooked is the relationship between forestry and the colonial state, and the displacement and disposession that accompanied its processes of internal territorialisation.

Take a project on a protected area, as an example, in which the design of the project involves a simplistic acceptance, on the part of the private implementers leasing the land for the purposes of reforestation (which incidentally includes a carbon offset component), of the de-jure boundary of the area. The reality is however that 90% of protected areas in Uganda are contested and 'encroached', for a variety of complex reasons, and include historically unresolved and contested land claims by people in the area.

In project design documentation, these sorts of issues – and the current institutional structure – is simplistically taken as an unquestioned given, an a priori 'context' which is removed of any immediacy. This Achilles heel often ends up exacerbating existing conflicts during project implementation, and undermining the projects themselves, despite the (mostly but not always) best of intentions. There is thus an apparent disjuncture between the rationality within the system, and the irrationality of the system of contemporary forestry governance in the country.

A current interest, which has very much been spurred through interactions with CHANS lab is thinking through how my own research can be translated for practitioners in ways that draw in and make sense of socio-natural histories and 'contexts' more deeply when thinking about projects and policies. While critical studies of conservation have succeeded in establishing a dialogue with ecology and conservation biology, this intellectual production is not influencing conservation policies, design, and management in the field, and antagonisms between policies and local peoples persist (Vacarro 2013). Critical political ecology thus has much to contribute to the design of contemporary interventions in places such as Uganda, where high population growth rates and an already contested land politics repeatedly complicate conservation practise.

Adrian Nel is in the process of writing up his PhD dissertation from the University of Otago (New Zealand) on carbon forestry and forestry governance in Uganda, and is an enthusiastic visitor of the CHANS lab this summer.  He likes the fact that it is summer here, and that the inside of the house is warmer than the inside of the fridge (not so in Dunedin). 

References

Hurley, D. (2013) Grandma's Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes. Discover. May Issue 2013. Available: http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes#.UcH0GpxO2B4

Vaccaro et al. (2013). Review: political ecology and conservation. Journal of Political Ecology Vol 20:264. 

Message to MLA candidates: Don't let BC species at risk slip through the cracks

by Kai M. A. Chan

Inspired by an SFU letter to MLA candidates, Sally Otto and I sent the following email to a long list of candidates, picking up where we left off with a Vancouver Sun op-ed from 2010 (no progress since then!).

Dear MLA candidate,

A female sea otter (a federally listed species at risk) with her
her pup, seen in Kyuquot Sound, northern Vancouver Island.

We are writing today, Earth Day 2013, to urge you to protect species at risk in British Columbia, should you be elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Most citizens of BC are unaware that our province lacks legal protection for the vast majority of species at risk on provincial land.  While Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA) covers species on federal lands, most territory in BC is in either provincial or private hands and not covered by SARA.  We have called upon the BC government to act to legislate protection for those species most at risk of extinction and extirpation (see here) and urge you to make this a priority issue in your term, should you be elected.

We note that BC has recently released a draft five-year plan for species at risk in the province (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/5_yr_plan/).  This draft is somewhat vague about the measures to be undertaken, but we are encouraged to see that one of the proposals is to:

"Analyze opportunities for and make recommendations regarding changes to existing or new policy and legislation to address gaps in legal protection for species at risk, ensuring input from stakeholders and the public is considered prior to making any changes (starting in 2013)."

Addressing the huge legislative gaps with respect to species protection is critical.  Without such legal protection, most endangered species in BC are increasingly at risk.  The federal species at risk act has extremely limited application and was intended as a complement to provincial legislative protection.  We have already seen sage grouse, white-tailed jackrabbit, and the pygmy short-horned lizard extirpated from our province, with spotted owls soon to follow (the latest data records only two pairs of breeding birds remaining in BC).  BC has incredible natural landscapes and biological heritage that are worth protecting.  They have earned this province its “super natural” reputation, a reputation that can be protected if we act together in a manner that is scientifically sound as well as socially and economically responsible.

We would be more than happy to help serve as a resource if you wish to discuss these issues further.

Sincerely,
Sally and Kai

Dr. Sarah (Sally) Otto, FRSC
Director, Biodiversity Research Centre
Department of Zoology
University of British Columbia
6270 University Blvd.
Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4

Dr. Kai M. A. Chan
Assoc Prof & Tier 2 Canada Research Chair (Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services)
Graduate Advisor, RMES
Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability
2202 Main Mall, 4th floor
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC  V6T 1Z4

Carbon taxes and sustainability in British Columbia: What IS a sustainable carbon tax?

by Kai Chan

Tuesday evening (Apr 2), I wrote to my candidate MLAs in BC to request that they campaign for a strong, effective carbon tax. The Better Future BC Fund is organizing a letter-writing campaign, and as a supporter, I jumped on. I also forwarded the email to colleagues at IRES. John Robinson, head of the UBC USI and Associate Provost for Sustainability, pointed out that a sustainable carbon tax might actually be one that doesn't invest the proceeds into clean energy projects.



The Better Future BC Campaign asks for several very reasonable developments, including closing loopholes that allow some businesses to avoid paying the carbon tax, and increasing the carbon tax rate so that the tax provides a meaningful incentive for corporations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But John takes issue with the third component, which is to "invest in solutions". Sounds great, doesn't it--how could a sustainability advocate argue against this?

Well, see for yourself. Below, I've copied John's email to me (with permission), which lays out a compelling reason why the carbon tax should not be tied to green investments. In short, because doing so makes the carbon tax desirable only to governments that truly own 'green investment', whereas having carbon tax revenues go into tax rebates makes the tax invaluable to all governments, 'green' or not. And the carbon tax, if strong enough, is already an effective incentive for green development (in the reduction of greenhouse gases).

I have been arguing for some time with Matt Horne and other colleagues that it is a mistake to argue for using carbon tax revenues to fund green investments. My reasoning is very simple. The most important goal must be to preserve the tax. Using the tax revenues to fund green activities removes the greatest protection that the tax has, which is that since all the tax revenues are now used to reduce other taxes, eliminating the carbon tax would require a major tax increase in other areas to make up the lost revenues. In BC at the present this would mean that eliminating the carbon tax would create a need to raise other taxes to the tune of about $1.2 billion, as I recall.

In fact, I believe that this is the only reason we still have a carbon tax in BC. It was clear that Christy Clark was not interested in having this tax when she came into office but the political pain of having to create new taxes was too great and prevented her from eliminating the carbon tax. In fact it would prevent even the most ideologically opposed government from eliminating the tax, I believe.

I think our first goal should be to protect the tax, and recognize that its main effect, in environmental terms,  is not to generate revenue but to penalize carbon intensive activity. That is, the behavioural consequences of carbon taxation is the main reason to have such a tax. Using the revenue for green purposes would be a good secondary purpose, if it did not make the tax vulnerable. Unfortunately, killing the tax is easy if there is no tax increase penalty in doing so. Note also that more right wing governments would consider reducing a carbon tax and also reducing green subsidies as both good things. But they are probably the least inclined to reduce a carbon tax, which, in the case of BC, has become more or less invisible to residents,  if it means increasing other taxes.

I think if we direct carbon tax revenues to green investments, we are likely to sound the death knell of that tax.

John convinced me: the sustainable tool for a sustainable relationship between BC and the Earth's biosphere is a carbon tax that provides revenues for tax rebates(1). As a citizen, I remain an ardent supporter of a stronger, tighter carbon tax.


(1) Ideally these would address distributional consequences for the poor, who--according to another esteemed colleague Hadi Dowlatabadi--are commonly less able to shift their behavior in response to energy taxes. The BC carbon tax's associated rebates do seem to be somewhat structured this way already.

Building a Global Socio-Eco Movement?

Paige Olmsted and Kai Chan

When it comes to the environment, we tend to be surrounded by bad news.  Species loss, extreme events tied to climate change, food crises or anticipated water shortages. Most people care, but it’s hard to imagine what you can REALLY do about it.  Change to more efficient light bulbs? Recycle?  Carry your own shopping bags? These are great steps to take, but arguably they barely scratch the surface of these monumental global problems.  It’s too big and too complicated. 

What if there was an easy, enjoyable and effective way for normal people to help support meaningful change?

This is exactly what was proposed today as Kai spoke as part of a symposium we organized at the AAAS meeting in Boston, along with distinguished panelists Jane Lubchenco, Jonathan Foley, David Wilcove, Steven Katona, and Simon Levin.  

The idea? For now it’s called C3... or "C3 dot 3", which stands for Community of Conscientious Consumption, Production...(and everything else). [Ed.: We now call it CoSphere for a Community of Small-Planet Heroes (ecologically regenerating economies)--see our new site.]

Think of it as a community that will make it simple to take responsibility for your social-ecological impacts--the impacts that you have on the environment that have knock-on effects on the lives and well-being of countless people, often on the other side of the world.

Think of it as a structure for connecting your once-yearly payment to a series of mitigation and adaptation actions in the places that are affected indirectly by your actions.

Think of it as a mechanism for you to put leverage on businesses, producers, and governments, and for each of them to coordinate their management of social and environmental risks using the best available science.

Finally, think of it as a social-ecological movement towards sustainability, one in construction with several needs that you can start to fill right now. Too often environmental initiatives are about what you can’t do.  This is about what you can. First, and simplest, we need pledges from future community members who want to take social-ecological responsibility. Sign up by emailing 'subscribe' to community.sphere@gmail.com.

Who can be involved?  Everybody. The idea is still evolving and implementation plans still underway, so it’s a perfect time to get involved and put your two cents in.

• Join as a consumer. (Pledge to) take responsibility for your social-ecological impacts
• Be a messenger. Spread the word, via social media using buttons below, word of mouth, etc.
• Be an enabler. Get your organization/company to join.
• Be a co-constructor: Help build structures …
• For synthesizing our understanding of environmental impacts (environmental scientists, etc.)
• For tracking 'footprints' of goods & services (technologists, engineers, applied scientists, etc.)
• For relating the social importance of on-ground social-ecological impacts (social scientists, etc.

See Kai's slide show (with the associated notes) from yesterday to better understand the concept, and this slide show from earlier (which has more detail). If you can help on the knowledge-structures needed, or you can provide key contacts, or if you've got ideas for design, email with 'co-constructor' in the subject line to C3dot3@gmail.com.

Join us! 

Or tell us what you don't like. Or start something else entirely. Co-sphere may or may not be a viable initiative, but we hope it can provide intellectual fodder in the form of a concrete example—a straw man if you will—to inspire a mental exercise in pinpointing how academic research, professional experience, and associated understanding can inform the design of a bold integrative sustainability movement.

David Boyd's statement to Joint Review Panel

David R. Boyd is one of Canada’s leading environmental lawyers and an Adjunct Professor in Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. He also gave a statement to the Joint Review Panel regarding the Enbridge Pipeline, and has been kind enough to share it here. In the transcript below, David offers his personal convictions as supported by extensive research and analysis. If anyone in support of the project wishes to guest blog here also, supported by rigorous analysis, we will be happy to hear from you.

Proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline

Joint Review Panel

January 31, 2013

Oral Statement

David R. Boyd

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon. My name is David Richard Boyd. I’m an environmental lawyer, professor, and author. I have degrees in business and law as well as a PhD in resource management. I’ve written five books and over 100 articles on environmental law and policy and served as an advisor for governments ranging from Canada to Sweden. My family lives on Pender Island and we have traveled extensively on BC’s magnificent west coast by kayak, sailboat, raft, and on foot.

I’ve reviewed many of the transcripts of presentations made by citizens who’ve already testified, to avoid repeating their statements. I was deeply moved by their eloquence, passion, and knowledge. It is an honour to join them in opposing this project.

Here are seven reasons why it is not in the public interest (under s. 52(2)(e) of the National Energy Board Act) for the Northern Gateway pipeline project to be approved.

1. Aboriginal land claims in BC must be settled first.

2. Canadian environmental laws, standards, and policies must be strengthened to meet or exceed comparative international standards.

3. Regulatory agencies in Canada must be given the resources and independence to effectively enforce environmental laws.

4. Canada must recognize that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment.

5. Enbridge cannot be trusted.

6. Canada must take strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

7. Canada must adjust its regulatory regime to increase the public benefits of oil and gas development, ideally using the highly successful Norwegian model as a basis.

Let me expand each of these points.

I.

The first reason why the pipeline should not be approved is the fact that most of BC, including almost all of the land that would be traversed by the proposed pipeline, to this day, is subject to unresolved Aboriginal land claims. You’ve already heard from the First Nations themselves. The situation is remarkably similar to that facing the proposed MacKenzie Valley Pipeline in the 1970s.

As you know, Thomas Berger recommended against the approval of the pipeline until the northern land claims had been resolved. Berger’s report served as a powerful impetus for the treaty negotiation process, leading to final settlements for the Sahtu Dene, Gwich’in, Dogrib, and others.

II.

The second reason why the pipeline should not be approved is that Canada lacks an adequate regulatory system for protecting the environment. This is a major reason why Canada ranks 15^th out of 17 large wealthy industrialized nations in terms of environmental performance as the Conference Board of Canada reported earlier this month. A similar comparison of wealthy OECD nations ranked Canada 24^th out of 25 for environmental performance. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself said five years ago, QUOTE “Canada’s environmental performance is, by most measures, the worst in the developed world. We’ve got big problems.” END QUOTE I’ve published analyses comparing Canadian environmental laws and regulations governing air quality, drinking water safety, pesticides, and toxic substances to the laws in the US, Australia, and Europe. Our laws and standards are consistently and substantially weaker. The two omnibus budget implementation bills passed in 2012 will only make matters worse. Five major environmental laws were weakened or repealed altogether, including CEAA, Fisheries Act, NWPA, SARA, and KPIA.

Let me give you three specific examples of Canadian weaknesses. Canada’s Marine Liability Act is grossly out of date and inadequate. Liability limit is $1.3 billion. Exxon Valdez was 20+ years ago and cleanup cost at least twice that amount. Canada Shipping Act regulations establish a limit for oil spill response plans of 10,000 tonnes of oil. Exxon Valdez spilled 40,000 tonnes. Super tankers carry as much as 300,000 tonnes of oil. Less than 1% of Canada’s marine realm is set aside in Marine Protected Areas despite promises dating back decades. Compare that to Australia, where MPAs now cover 36% of their oceans.

III.

The third reason why the pipeline should not be approved is that Canada lacks the capacity to enforce even the weak environmental laws that remain on the books. A recent report from Ecojustice shows that federal prosecutions and convictions for environmental crimes, already abysmally low under the Liberals, have fallen further since the Conservatives took office in 2006. Consider the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, touted as the toughest environmental law in the western world when passed in 1988. The total amount of fines levied under CEPA between 1988 and 2012 was $2.5 million. That is less than the amount of fines collected last year by the Toronto Public Library for overdue books. Here’s another relevant comparison. In the Terra Nova case involving an offshore oil spill, PetroCanada was fined $290,000. Last year Brazil fined Chevron over $20 million for a similar-sized offshore oil spill. To settle a civil lawsuit, Chevron also offered to pay Brazil an additional $150 million for the damages inflicted by that oil spill. In other words, Chevron’s penalty was 500 times higher in Brazil.

IV.

The fourth reason why the pipeline should not be approved is that Canada lags behind most of the world in failing to recognize that its citizens have a fundamental human right to live in a healthy environment. My two most recent books show that recognition of this right leads to stronger environmental laws, improved enforcement, and protection from the type of rollbacks seen in Canada over the past year.

The right to a healthy environment right enjoys constitutional status in 108 countries. Not Canada. It’s included in national environmental legislation in 103 countries. Not Canada. It’s part of legally binding regional human rights agreements ratified by 120 countries. Not Canada. In total, 177 out of 193 UN nations recognize this right. Not Canada.

Yet nine in ten Canadians believe that the government should grant this right legal status. Over half of Canadians believe it is already in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is also essential to point out that environmental rights and responsibilities are cornerstones of Indigenous legal systems in Canada, as Professor John Borrows points out in his book Canada’s Indigenous Constitution.

V.

The fifth reason why the pipeline should not be approved is that Enbridge’s claims must be viewed through the lens of history. History demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that corporations consistently and systematically deceive, distort, and lie. This pattern of behavior has been established for the tobacco industry, the banking industry, the lead industry, the asbestos industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry, the pesticide industry, the petroleum industry, and others. Dr. David Michaels summarizes this record in his book Doubt is their Product, published by Oxford University Press. This propensity for dishonesty is a defect inherent in the corporate model that demands the maximization of shareholder profit above all else. It would be willful blindness to expect anything different from the pipeline industry or Enbridge.

VI.

The sixth reason why the pipeline should not be approved is that humanity is on the brink of a climate crisis. GHG emissions are rising faster than the IPCC’s worst-case scenario. Arctic sea ice is disappearing more rapidly than the IPCC’s worst-case scenario. The World Bank recently warned: “the world is barreling down a path to heat up by four degrees if the global community fails to act on climate change, triggering a cascade of cataclysmic changes that include extreme heat waves, declining global food stocks, and a sea-level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people.” And yet Canada drags its heels, failing to reign in our emissions.

VII.

The seventh reason why the pipeline should not be approved is that there is a better way to manage a nation’s oil wealth. Canada should look to Norway, where strong environmental laws and carbon taxes have spurred innovation, where rules giving locals priority for jobs and training have resulted in minimal unemployment, where the public has reaped the lion’s share of the benefits, and where oil and gas have generated a sovereign wealth fund currently in excess of $600 billion dollars.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, it is not in the public interest to approve this proposed pipeline until

1. Aboriginal land claims in BC are settled.

2. Canadian environmental laws, standards, and policies are strengthened to meet or exceed comparative international standards.

3. Regulatory agencies in Canada are given the resources and independence to effectively enforce environmental laws.

4. Canada recognizes that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment.

5. Canada takes strong action to reduce GHG emissions.

6. Canada adjusts its regulatory regime to increase the public benefits of oil and gas development, using the highly successful Norwegian model as a basis.

I want my 7 year-old daughter to grow up in a country she can be proud of, and experience the same joy and wonder that my partner and I have been blessed by here in BC.

Thank you for your time and attention. Good luck with your deliberations!