You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Saturday, November 22, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Jail Before Climate-Wrecking Tar Sands, Canadians Say

Stephen Leahy
Inter Press Service / News Report
Published: Wednesday 28 September 2011
The normally placid and polite Canadians demanded the closure of the multi-billion-dollar tar sands oil extraction projects in northern Alberta to protect the global climate and the health of local people and environment.
Article image

More than 200 Canadians engaged in civil disobedience, with 117 arrested in Canada’s quiet capital city on Monday. The reason? To protest the Stephen Harper right-wing government’s open support for the oil industry and expanding production in the climate-disrupting tar sands.

The normally placid and polite Canadians shouted, waved banners and demanded the closure of the multi-billion-dollar tar sands oil extraction projects in northern Alberta to protect the global climate and the health of local people and environment.

“People are here because they know that if we don’t turn away from the tar sands and fossil fuels soon it will be too late,” Peter McHugh, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Canada, told IPS.

“The tar sands are unsustainable. Canadians are willing to shift away from fossil fuels but our government isn’t,” Gabby Ackett a university student and protester, told IPS as she stood in front of a long line of police.

In what was proudly touted as “civil” civil disobedience, protesters aged 19 to 84 were arrested for using a step-stool to climb a low barrier separating them from the House of Commons, the seat of Canadian government. The police were friendly and accommodating because the organizers had promised there would be no violence.

“We live downstream and see the affects of tar sands pollution on the fish and the birds,” said George Poitras, a former chief of the Mikisew Cree First Nation in northern Alberta.

“Some our young people have rare forms of cancer,” Poitras told more than 500 protesters.

“Expanding the tar sands is not the way to go in a world struggling with climate change,” he said.

Carbon emissions from the tar sands production have increased 300 percent since 1990 and, at 45 to 50 million tons annually, are greater than most countries. And that does not include the carbon contained in the oil itself.

When burned, the 1.6 million barrels of oil that are extracted every day will add 346 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere this year alone. That’s almost the entire emissions of the country of Australia. The oil industry is making billion-dollar investments in the tar sands to more than double production by 2025.

Currently nearly all tar sands oil is exported to the United States. Canada imports 700,000 barrels of oil from Algeria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to supply the eastern half of the country.

“Canada’s energy policies are dictated by the energy industry,” said Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, a large environmental NGO. The Harper government turned its back on Canada’s international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions of climate-disrupting carbon, she told protesters.

“I’m willing to be arrested because I love my grandchildren,” said Barlow.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, a senior official in the Harper government, called protesters “extremists” in media interviews.

After four years as a minority government, the Stephen Harper Conservatives were recently re-elected for another four years. However, even though the Conservatives received less than 40 percent of the popular vote, they now have the majority of seats under Canada’s multi-party parliamentary system.

“If a government refuses to represent the people, then there is little choice but civil disobedience,” said Barlow, who was arrested later.

This was Canada’s largest ever civil disobedience action on climate change, organisers told IPS. It follows two weeks of protests in front of the White House in Washington DC at the end of August over the proposed 3,100-km Keystone XL pipeline to ship tar sands oil from northern Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast so the oil can be exported to Europe and Asia.

Climate scientists have said there is so much carbon in the tar sands that if most it is extracted and burned, there is no chance of stabilizing the climate. The primary and undisputed cause of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. The science clearly shows that global carbon emissions must decrease before the end of this decade or humanity will face dangerous climate disruption, where billions suffer the effects of an ever-hotter world, with mega droughts, mega flooding, and mega storms.

However, in Canada, trillions of dollars are being invested in proposed pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgan and others so that the tar sands production that produces the most- carbon laden form of oil can increase, said Barlow.

“Billions of dollars of oil money is being taken out of our country,” said Melina Laboucan Massimo from a Cree First Nation community in the tar sands region and an activist with Greenpeace.

“But in my community we still have no running water,” Laboucan Massimo told protestors in front of the House of Commons.

“This is not the House of Corporations behind me. Our government is supposed to represent and protect its people,” she said.

“Bitumen (tar sands) workers are against building the Keystone and other pipelines,” said David Coles, president of communications with the Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada (CEP). The labour union sees the pipelines as shipping thousands of oil processing jobs to the U.S. and other countries. Tar sands bitumen is a heavy, dirty type oil requiring special processing before it can be used.

CEP acknowledges the climate and environmental impacts of the tar sands are unsustainable, CEP representative Patty Barrera told IPS. “We want a just transition to sustainable green jobs,” Barrera said.

That’s what Canadians also want, said many of young and older people who assembled in front of the House of Commons Monday. Some had never been to a protest before. Deliberately breaking the law for these ordinary Canadians required a great deal of courage and conviction.

“I feel inspired and empowered doing this,” one older woman said just before she climbed the barrier.

“The real crime here was the tar sands,” said another older woman as she approached the barrier and the police. “Civil disobedience is the only way we can change this,” she added.



To put it more simply, for

To put it more simply, for those who are struggling with big, complicated concepts: From the 1800's until the 1960's, "they" told us that the water on this planet is infinite, that pollutants flushed into it would just "go away". Then - lo and behold! - in the 1960's rivers started catching fire, huge cancer clusters started appearing, creeks, rivers, and lakes started stinking unbearably, the Great Lakes were being pronounced dead - the GREAT LAKES, enormous bodies of water! - and we learned, of course, that "they" had lied to us, that the water on our planet _circulates_ everywhere, that your pollution-outlet today is my drinking water tomorrow.
Now "they" (not liberals, mind you) are working hard to convince us that the atmosphere around our planet - a mere seven miles thick - is also infinite and can take an infinite amount of emissions and pollutants without ever being degraded.
Gee - "they" don't sound very smart, or very honest, do "they"?

Gosh, Doctor Sparkles, how

Gosh, Doctor Sparkles, how strange the world must look from your little isolated island where the symptoms of global climate change aren't yet "perceptible"! Doc, quick - get psychiatric help! Physician, heal thyself!!

Jaydee: True science regards

Jaydee:

True science regards theories with an open mind, as free of paradigmatic biases as possible. Its conclusions are so easily misdirected, particularly where great sums of money are at stake. I'm willing to entertain the theory of human caused "global warming" (now conveniently renamed "global climate change"), but the politicization of the issue taints it from the start.

I was at first moved by Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". Its superficial science validated my feelings that we humans are screwing up our environment and natural diversity. It justified a sense of self-righteous indignation. However, as I looked into the science, I found that actual climate scientists are split on this issue and that Gore's hockey stick corellating rising atmospheric CO2 and rising temperature was being misused. Seems that CO2 follows temperature (as opposed to the very premise of man-made global warming, when things heat up, the ocean releases more CO2.) This was enough to break my bias. Now I'm open to the theory of man-made climate change, but full of healthy skepticism. You might try it sometime.

The two great challenges to the this theory are:

1. Prove that climate is changing more than it always has been changing.
Afterall "global" climate change is also happening throughout the galaxy, as it no doubt always has. The full power of nature and the transdimensional scope of its cycles are beyond human comprehension.

2. Prove that humans are the ones actually "changing" climate beyond its baseline cycles of change.

You can't do it, and rightly so. Scientifically speaking, the notion of man made climate change (outside of HARRP technology) must be considered a theory. Some theories, perhaps even this one, turn out to be true. Some theories, certainly this one, are taken on with religious zeal. Some religious notions are true. Some are at best dogmatic, judgmental and hypocritical and at worst needlessly restrictive and even inhumane.

And so crusaders in the church of global warming, like yourself, deride those who question its basic dogmas and its role as a trojan horse to greedy political agendas. I'm not saying you're fighting for the wrong side. I'm just saying you're far too ignorant to be self-righteous. No doubt, I am too.

Be at peace.

Thinking about this

Thinking about this scientifically, I wonder what will happen if the Canadian gov. continues with the plan and the climate doesn't change in any perceptible manner that can be linked to it, but then again the "science" used to validate the theory of "global warming" is more principle than actual science (which is always open to new unbiased interpretations of data.) Not to fart in the middle of the bandwagon or anything...

Greenwash sing-a-long:
doctorsparkles.com/audio/DOCTOR_SPARKLES-Greenwash-3.m3u

Boris Badenov's picture

The world stock markets are

The world stock markets are collapsing and Big OIL and COAL still rakes in the money. Makes you want to think this all over again doesn't it?

things are only getting

things are only getting worse
why arent we pumping water in to the Great Plains aquifers ?
this nation is on the verge of another DUST BOWL

Thank you, my Canadian

Thank you, my Canadian brothers and sisters.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...