Why West Coast is fighting Enbridge (it’s not the funding)
A recent ad campaign linked to a top oil sands firm questions what drives the work of West Coast Environmental Law.
One of Canada’s oldest environmental law organizations, West Coast Environmental Law has provided legal support to British Columbians to ensure their voices are heard on important environmental issues and worked to secure strong environmental laws for almost 40 years. Through our environmental legal aid services, citizens and community groups who could not otherwise afford it are able to participate meaningfully and democratically in decisions about resource development that have the potential to profoundly affect their lives.
Back in the ‘70s when a broad citizens’ coalition brought to a halt a proposed oil pipeline to an oil port at Kitimat, BC West Coast lawyers were there to support them. And we are there today for these northern communities as they once again face the threat of environmental devastation from oil pipelines and tankers.
Our belief remains strong today, as then, that our salmon-rich north Pacific coast and rivers should remain free from oil supertankers and the threat of oil spills. Repeated polling suggests that 75-80 percent of British Columbians agree with us. (While recent polling conducted for Enbridge indicates that project support exceeds project opposition, the majority of respondents were unfamiliar with the Enbridge project. Four past polls, most recently in the spring of 2011, confirm that when asked about a threat that they are familiar with –the risk of oil spills from oil tankers –British Columbians consistently agree that oil tanker traffic should be banned in BC’s inside coastal waters).
This goal, like the other long-term strategic priorities of West Coast Environmental Law is set by our board and staff, informed by the deep connections we have forged over many decades with communities in every corner of the province. Without the generosity of our supporters, including dedicated individuals and foundations on both sides of the border, the work of our non-profit charity to protect the environment through law would not be possible. But we, not our funders, decide what issues we will focus on.
Ultimately, the issue for Canadians is not whether funders outside our borders support West Coast’s work; after all, when disaster strikes, Canadians support charitable activities around the globe. Anyone who has ever seen images of the Exxon Valdez oil spill will not be surprised that people and organizations outside our borders care about safeguarding the globally significant Great Bear Rainforest from a similar fate.
A more important question to ask Canadians is what kind of legacy we want to leave for future generations. The threats posed to our current way of life from climate change are real and growing, and tar sands oil production, which will fill the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, is Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. The pipeline will cross over 1,000 rivers and streams across northern BC –a major oil spill in one of BC’s renowned salmon rivers or in our sensitive coastal waters could wipe out not only jobs and livelihoods in the fishing and tourism industries, but the very foundation of First Nations cultures, economies and governance structures.
West Coast believes that it is time to set legal limits on greenhouse gas pollution and the most egregious fossil fuel projects, and hasten the transition to responsibly developed, renewable sources of energy. It is time for a dialogue about how we create a ‘greener economy’ that creates and sustains jobs for Canadians without environmental destruction. But this dialogue won’t happen if the corporate profits of multinational oil companies continue to be given priority over the things that Canadians really value.
Each of West Coast’s staff lawyers made the decision to forgo the more lucrative path of private practice to work for an environmental law charity for personal reasons. I do the work I do because I love the land, and because I believe in justice. Like many Canadians, my identity is shaped by my deep love for our magnificent natural heritage and I feel privileged to work for an organization dedicated to conserving it. But it was my desire to in some small way right the balance between ordinary citizens and the deep pockets of multinational resource companies that led me to become a public interest environmental lawyer.
In 2010-11, $133,000 of West Coast’s revenue came from various US philanthropic foundations specifically for our work to protect BC’s economy and ecosystems from the damaging effects of tar sands pipelines and tankers. (By way of comparison, in the same year, $203,000 of our revenue was from donations e.g., from monthly donors, bequests and individual donations from concerned British Columbians. Overall, more than 80 percent of our 1.2 million budget came from Canadian sources).
Compare this to the $100 million provided by oil companies, including Chinese energy giant Sinopec, just to support Enbridge through the regulatory approval process for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, and it’s still clear who is wearing the David and Goliath hat on this issue.
By Jessica Clogg, Executive Director and Senior Counsel
Photo courtesy of Andrew S. Wright / www.cold-coast.com
Comments
Continue fighting the fight
Continue fighting the fight to keep our varied ecosystems shielded in the tankers. We was not amazed to read who had been "likely" right behind the EthicalOil internet site however I am nonetheless saddened. Individuals firms have no experience and it's about generating just as much cash because they are now able to and be worried about the future later. Thanks for putting together such a comprehensive and factual reaction to the grevious divulgación which has been you want to by simply several groups I'm going not really trouble to mention.
Pipeline is also an economic disaster
We all agree, except the Harper government and the oil companies, that the proposed pipeline would be an enormous environmental tragedy. But what is missing in the debate so far is that it would also be an enormous economic mistake. Here are the questions I just sent off to all the major media:
Why doesn't Canada refine this oil here? Why doesn't Alberta pipe the oil to Eastern Canada? Why does Canada have to import half (?) of its oil from other countries, when we have so much of it? Not that I like the tar sands, but it seems we are stuck with this mess, so why not use the oil in Canada? My guess is that the oil companies make more money exporting the tar and importing the gas under the current system, than if Canada were to become self-sufficient.
Please investigate these issues in a column. The debate over the pipeline needs to consider these issues and no one seems to be raising them. Although, I did read somewhere, that the unions are opposed to the project since they would prefer to see a refiner built in Canada that would provide far more long-term jobs than exporting the oil.
If Canada approves this project, once again we will be exporting our raw materials and the jobs that go with them.
My concerns are verified by a report I just found from Forest Ethics by j David Hughes (not on their website yet) called The Northern Gateway Pipeline, An affront to the public interest and long term energy security of Canadians.
Perhaps WCEL could help raise these economic concerns as well. it seems to me that there is a near conspiracy afoot to prevent this information from appearing in the mainstream press.
Another way that WCEL could help, is to produce a 1/2-1 hour power point presentation about the pipeline proposal and the tar sands and make it available for downloading on the website for groups like ours to present to service organizations and other groups in our communities.
I sent Jessica an email about this idea, but never heard back which is most understandable as all of you must be working flat out with all the controversy in the press.
thanks for all you do, Jim
It is hard to believe that
It is hard to believe that the evaluation of the pipeline should be limited to a study of the pipe alone, without considering the total environmental impact of the project, ignoring in this case the threat of unavoidable oil spills along the coast, the impact on the environment in Alberta, and the impact of oil burning on climate change.
I am loosing confidence in the workings of our government institutions that seem to serve political interests rather than community interests.
Henk
Scope of Enbridge hearing
Hi Henk,
Thanks for your comments. We did want to clarify just one point: the Enbridge JRP is going to consider the threat of oil spills from tanker traffic arising from the pipeline. This was added to the scope of the assessment after complaints from First Nations, environmental groups, local residents and others.
That being said, we do have significant concerns about the NEB process and the scope of the review. Here's the backgrounder we released last year on the scope of review.
Andrew
Northern Gateway Project.
It is interesting that no one has mentioned the "big one". What would happen when that earthquake happens It would seem that we would have two crises to worry about: One natural and one man made.
We have federal government that seems to be determined to hasten the destruction of our world and its ability to sustain human life.
I say NO to this project.Sp
Thanks for putting this issue
Thanks for putting this issue into perspective. You have my support, I'm sending a donation now. I encourage everyone who reads this to do the same.
Foreign involvement in tar sands
A list of major foreign players in tar sands extraction.
Another worthwhile read.
Thank You
Thank you Jessica, for this excellent statement. Please keep putting it out there.
EhticalOil.org and others have been flogging this issue for too long. They are never challenged by the mainstream media nor are perspectives such as yours given much airplay or ink.
In appreciation of your work...
Rob Pollock
Threat of Oil Spills
I saw Jessica on Global TV news tonight. She is right about the threat of oil spills - it's when not if.
Thanks Jessica and West Coast staff for your continued good work on the important environmental issues that matter to BCers.
My children and my grandchildren will thank you too.
Thanks for putting together such a detailed and factual response to the grevious propaganda that has been put forth by various groups I will not bother to name.
Thank you.
Thank you for all you do!
Keep on fighting the fight to keep our diverse ecosystems protected from the tankers. I wasn't surprised to read who was "likely" behind the EthicalOil website but I'm still saddened. Those companies have no foresight and it's all about making as much money as they can NOW and worry about the future later.
Thank you for all that you do!
Also, check this interview out on the Current:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/12/06/ethical-oil/
Post new comment