Media Statement: October 20, 2014
LNG Emissions Legislation Shows Lack of Leadership
For immediate release

Victoria, B.C. – The introduction of the proposed Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act is a clear signal that B.C. is losing its leadership in addressing global warming as it burdens the entire economy with the cost of its political promises around LNG, says Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“This bill is a complicated accounting game that attempts to pull wool over everyone’s eyes to make us think we are actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” says Andrew Weaver. “It is ill-considered, misleading and a clear signal that we are losing our leadership in addressing global warming.”

Of particular note, there are numerous pages in the legislation that essentially grant cabinet the power to decide what could be considered a carbon offset, irrespective of international standards.

“There are very clear international rules here and I cannot fathom why all these powers have been granted to cabinet unless the government wishes to make up new rules — like taking credit for China burning gas instead of coal,” notes Weaver.

Equally troubling is the repealing of the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act was specifically designed to allow British Columbia to join western states and provinces to create a larger jurisdiction in which to find the most economically efficient means of reducing greenhouse gases. California initiated its cap and trade program in 2012 and Québec recently joined. Washington and Oregon as well as several New England states have also expressed interest in participating.

“True leadership from government is not making our entire economy subservient to the demands of a single industry – especially one that doesn’t even exist yet,” says Andrew Weaver. “Instead of enslaving ourselves through reliance on hypothetical exports of a commodity that may or may not find a market elsewhere, we could, and should, show leadership in the development of a diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.

“We should be building upon the areas of our economy where we have already demonstrated the capacity for leadership, both in creating new opportunities for British Columbians and in taking real, honest steps to address the impacts of global warming.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382

This is the eighth in our series of stories celebrating the outstanding accomplishments of youth in our community. These inspirational young adults are enriching our lives with their passion and commitment to the betterment of society.

Erinne Paisley

Our first opportunity to hear Erinne speak and witness her remarkable leadership skills was at a student rally held on the steps of the BC legislature on September 9^th. Erinne had coordinated and organized the event. It brought students together from across Greater Victoria and gave them a venue to express their concerns as to how the teachers’ labour dispute was affecting their education and their future. Erinne spoke passionately and articulately about the wish of students to get back to school. And over the next few days she was extensively interviewed by the media as a spokesperson for students affected by the strike.  Erinne handled herself like a seasoned media veteran and told us “I really enjoy speaking with media”.

Erinne was born in Edmonton and her family moved to Victoria when she was one year old. She attended Selkirk Montessori from Kindergarten to Grade 8, then moved to Reynolds Secondary where she is now in Grade 12.

Erinne became very active at Reynolds Secondary right from Grade 9 with involvement in Leadership, Youth in Philanthropy/Vital Youth Group, the Principal’s Advisory group, Open 4 Change leadership group, Get R.E.A.L. Reynolds Environment group, the Outdoors Club and Reynolds Action NOW activist group. It was in the Principal’s Advisory group where Erinne met several older students who had a positive influence on her life. This group met weekly to discuss improvements to the school, plan assemblies and build and nurture a healthy relationship between students and Reynolds’ Principal. Erinne particularly enjoyed touring visitors through Reynolds and visiting feeder middle schools as an ambassador for the school.

Erinne is an honour roll student and she has won many academic awards, including the Principal’s Shield Award. Her service to her school and community has also been recognized with numerous awards for outstanding volunteer service. Erinne has also studied violin for 8 years and completed the Royal Conservatory of Music Grade 4 level. She loves to write and she entered a national writing contest in Grade 8. She even wrote a 25,000 word novelette while in Grade 7. This year, Erinne started interning at a communication company — Reboot Communications — as a Youth Content Developer. She loves social media, speaking at conferences and organizing events.

Erinne praised the mentorship she received from the former principal of Reynolds, Alana Charlton. “She has had a lot of influence in my life” noted Erinne. In turn, Alana Charlton described Erinne as “an exceptional young woman with outstanding leadership skills”. Erinne has also been inspired by her parents and Reynolds teachers Sara Reside and Heather Coey, all of whom have “taught me so much about life”.

Erinne has fully engaged in We Day and attended their BC event every year since Grade 8. In Grade 11, she was chosen as one of ten Canadian students to attend a We Day event in London, England and a conference in Berlin, Germany as part of the National Global Citizen Scholarship Program. Erinne submitted a video to the We Day evaluation committee and was subsequently interviewed by Skype prior to her selection. She has also produced other videos on her youtube channel as part of bullying awareness and we share campaigns.

The Reynolds Action NOW group was co-founded by Erinne and two other students while Erinne was in Grade 10. Its purpose is to bring youth together to discuss and take action upon societal issues of importance to them. The  Action NOW group arrange for external speakers at their meetings and they initiate awareness campaigns within the school. About 10 core members join Erinne in the present Action NOW group and one of Erinne’s goals is to act as a  mentor for younger students so that they can take over once she graduates.

Erinne was very excited to tell us about Reynolds’ involvement in the Cops for Cancer Tour de Rock and she was overjoyed with the success of the campaign this year. Reynolds ended up bringing in just over $100,000.00 after Rudi Hoenson wrote a $7,000 cheque on the day the Tour de Rock visited the school. This sum added to the $93,202 the students had already raised.

It was an unusual year for Erinne and the Cops for Cancer team at Reynolds due to the teachers’ strike. In addition, Dean Norris-Jones, a teacher at the school who played a critical role in previous fundraising efforts, was participating as a rider in the tour this year. Remarkably, their $100,000 fundraising goal was met. As one of the co-leaders of the campaign, Erinne told us that “it was very different this year, but we persevered as a school community”.

Erinne Paisley is an incredibly talented young woman who will complete any task and do anything she puts her mind to. She already has an impressive list of accomplishments and awards in recognition of her leadership. It’s clear to us that we will be reading a lot more about Erinne in the years ahead.  Thank you, Erinne for your commitment, passion and leadership.

I attended Clean Energy BC’s annual conference over the past three days. This year the conference was entitled: Generate 2014: More than Electrons. The conference opened with a presentation by Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett who strayed from his notes and wondered out loud whether or not cabinet will approve the Site C dam project. It was a bizarre address of circular arguments, random musings and priceless quotes.

From everything I have seen over the last two days, it’s pretty clear to me that it makes little economic sense to proceed with Site C. In fact,  the arguments I made last year are even more compelling now as the price of wind continues to drop. China, for example, is building a new windmill every hour. And China’s investment in photovoltaics has led to an 80% drop in price in just five years.

In addition, I share the desire to see British Columbia’s economy managed in a way that ensures a sustainable approach that is not burdening future generations with the cost of decisions we make today. The government has in the past appropriately celebrated the fact that British Columbia has maintained a AAA credit rating. I am concerned that this rating would be in jeopardy were BC Hydro, a crown corporation, to incur another 7.9 billion debt (with substantive uncertainty regarding cost over runs). I have written to the Finance Minister to expand upon these points.

Finally, today I had the honour of participating in a Question and Answer/conversation panel at the conference. The panel, hosted by Denise Mullen, Director, Environment and Sustainability with the Business Council of British Columbia also included Wade Davis, and Elizabeth Mcdonald from the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance. Each of us started with a brief statement before the conversation started. Below is the text of my statement.

Text of My Opening Statement

As many of you know, I am trained as a scientist, not a politician. Yet having spent a career studying the physics of the atmosphere and ocean and the science underpinning past, present and future climate change and climate variability, it became harder and harder for me to sit on the sidelines. Over the years I’ve given hundreds of presentations about the challenge of global warming to diverse audiences around the world.

Many, if not most, of my presentations have been in front of youth, both in my university classes and out in our public schools. I’ve spoken about the need for economic policy to ensure the internalization of externalities associated with the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. I’ve praised leaders, including a former Premier and Cabinet Ministers who have taken bold steps to introduce such policies. I’ve pointed out that the predicament we face is perhaps the greatest of all possible Tragedies of the Commons. Every individual in the world shares the atmosphere. Presently, it is in the best interest of every person in every household in every municipality in every city in every province in every country in the world to do absolutely nothing about global warming since the cost of action is born by the individual, yet the cost of inaction is distributed amongst seven billion people globally. There is only one equilibrium solution to this, and other, Tragedies of the Commons. And that is collapse.

Perhaps the most common question I get asked after my presentations is what can a single individual do to be part of the solution to global warming? I’ve invariably responded with two answers. I’d point out the power of the pocketbook and targeted consumer purchasing. I’d point out the importance of participating in our democracy. And the latter, I would target most pointedly to the youth in the audience.

Only between 30 and 40% of youth between the ages of 18 and 24 vote in, for example, federal elections. Those being elected do not have to live the consequences of the decisions that they are making. Yet those who will have to live with such consequences are not participating in our democracy. I suggest to the youth in the audience that in addition to changing their own habits, the best way that they can make a difference is to elect people into office who demonstrate the courage and leadership to deal with the challenge of global warming. And if those who are running aren’t going to address the issues of intergenerational equity and the sustainability of our social, economic and environmental systems, then they should consider standing for election or finding someone who is willing to stand. After giving that response over and over to so many young people, I eventually came to terms with the fact that I had to take my own advice.

My work on global warming and past, present and future climate change and climate variability has allowed me to see firsthand the potential that BC has to develop a leading 21st century economy. From our access to cheap, renewable energy, to our educated workforce, to our innovative business community, to the quality of life we can offer here, together with British Columbia’s natural beauty, we have an opportunity to develop our Province into one of the most prosperous jurisdictions in the world. But such a vision requires real leadership — leadership that is honest about the challenges and the opportunities in front of us; real leadership that also takes the challenge of global warming seriously, understanding the need to build a sustainable, diversified and resilient economy for this generation and the next.

The undeniable truth is that British Columbians have been sold a bill of goods with respect to promises of prosperity for one and all from LNG. In an election where the government was set to fall, a Hail Mary pass was thrown. It was packaged in a message of hope and opportunity, so compelling it couldn’t be ignored: 100,000 jobs; $1 trillion dollars to the GDP; a $100 billion prosperity fund; the elimination of our provincial deficit; thriving hospitals and schools. And the end of our provincial sales tax.

As we all know, that pass was caught and we now have a government that is trying to deliver on its political promises — whatever the cost and whatever the risk to our province.

The problem is the economics simply aren’t there to support an LNG industry on the scale of what was promised. I’ve been pointing this out for nearly two years now. The supply gap is too narrow. A recent Peters & Company report estimates that while LNG demand will increase to more than 500 million tons per annum by 2030, LNG supply will reach 800 million tons per annum. In the time since the government first announced its LNG plans, we have already seen Russia sign a $400 billion, 30-year agreement with China. We have seen the U.S. gulf coast become the most efficient place in North America to build LNG plants. Other jurisdictions like Australia, Malaysia, and Qatar have already established LNG export industries. We have seen Talisman sell its assets in BC, we’ve witnessed Apache pull out of Kitimat LNG and just last week we saw Petronas threaten to pull out of the Pacific NorthWest LNG project. We know that drilling in the dry gas fields in and around Fort Nelson is grinding to a halt. And we know that the only thing sustaining the drilling efforts around Fort Nelson in the Montney Formation are the condensates. These are transported to Alberta to be mixed with bitumen to form pipe-ready diluted bitumen. There is no market for our gas as the market is saturated with supply. These developments do not bode well for our hypothetical LNG prospects.

The fact is, this government has no back-up plan. We have staked our jobs, our health care, our education, our debt repayment and so much more, all on the gamble of an LNG windfall. But I ask you this: What if we only get one or two LNG plants? What if those plants aren’t realized until the mid 2020s? What if we don’t get the windfall this government has promised? Is gambling the creation of new jobs, the adequate and sustainable funding of our education and health care systems and the repayment of our debt, on the back of a risky political promise the right thing to do? More importantly, is it demonstrating real leadership? I don’t believe it is.

Our challenges are too big, and the consequences too profound, to ignore the evidence. We need a new vision for B.C.—one that begins with true leadership—leadership that is grounded on the courage to be honest with British Columbians, to recognize our overzealous promises and to move forward responsibly.

A 21^st century economy is marked by a focus on developing diversified industries that provide local, high-paying and sustainable employment over the long-term. Rather than relying on a single industry in one part of the province to provide prosperity for British Columbia’s future, true leadership demands an approach that develops varied opportunities across the province.

We know that the returns to investment will be highest for those who seize the opportunities of the 21st century—not the 20^th century economy. Windfalls will be enjoyed by those who move first with vision, not latecomers to a developed market. We are far too late to be significant players in the LNG export market—that ship has sailed. Instead, we should be identifying and seizing BC’s competitive advantages. One area of the economy in which BC possesses an enormous competitive advantage, if nurtured, is your industry — the clean tech sector.

This competitive advantage is shared with other jurisdictions in the region, and our neighbours to the south are already distinguishing themselves as leaders in the 21st century economy, reaping the benefits that this will provide.

California is embracing the changes to their electrical grid that are necessary to prepare for a massive influx of renewable energy that will flood the grid by 2020. And it’s not solely out of concern about climate change either — they know that this is crucial for making responsible investments of taxpayer dollars into the grid and that they need to be embarking on this strategic planning now.

Washington is joining California in leading the push for increased cost-effective energy storage capacity to improve the efficiency of off-peak energy producers like wind. Washington is also using policy tools to craft win-win situations in which both the consumer and the utility can benefit from installing clean technologies like rooftop solar and small scale wind — making it economically attractive for the utility and affordable for the consumer to install them.

In 2009, Governor Christine Gregoire created the Clean Energy Leadership Council tasked with developing strategies which would accelerate the state’s transition away from fossil fuels to create a “21^st century economy”. These strategies would accomplish this goal by building on Washington’s competitive advantages in clean tech to attract new investment, create new partnerships all with a focus on creating green jobs in the state. Washington’s approach was based on a very clear idea — one that arguably used to be present here in BC — Washington aligned both public and private sector efforts in order to develop “market leading clean energy solutions that [could] be replicated not only in Washington but beyond its borders”.

Washington’s approach is working.

This past summer, BMW announced an expansion to the Moses Lake carbon-fiber plant, which would see a tripling of its capacity. BMW uses the plant to produce carbon fiber ribbon employed in its i8 concept “sustainable car”. BMW cited the access to cheap, renewable power and the ability to create a “green supply chain using sustainable energy” as the reason for their investment in Washington.

Let’s move to Oregon, where on April 19^th Governor John Kitzhaber proudly proclaimed “It is time to once and for all say no to coal exports from the Pacific Northwest”. Here of course he is referring to thermal coal exports, not metallurgical coal exports. But for Governor Kitzhaber and for me as well, it’s not just about saying no. Here’s what Governor Kitzhaber said just a few days ago “Oregon has the challenge and opportunity to transition to clean, renewable energy like wind and solar because it will help the environment and create good-paying, local jobs that can’t be outsourced.”

Oregon’s vision is also paying off. Google, a company that sees itself as a powerhouse of the 21^st century wants to ensure it has access to clean, renewable energy. Oregon was able to provide Google with price certainty and so the company invested $1.2 billion in the creation of a major data distribution centre in the Dalles.

Recently, the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a report outlining the extent of the opportunity that BC has to produce geothermal energy. Looking at only a portion of BC, this study clearly shows that we are missing a massive opportunity to tap a renewable resource. In fact, BC is the only jurisdiction in the Pacific Rim’s ring of fire that is not producing geothermal energy.

We stand to gain by building on the expertise that our neighbours have already developed in these areas. And yet, there is still so much room to grow in this sector, to improve upon current technologies and policy innovations. We need to learn from what has worked for our neighbours, and craft them into a “made in BC approach” that respects the unique characteristics of our economy, our environment and our energy needs. A “made in BC approach” will require bold leadership to bring industry leaders, academics and government to the table to lay out a new vision for the energy system that a diversified, sustainable 21st century economy will require.

This vision will also require a serious look at the mandate of BC Hydro. Its scope should be expanded to allow for the production of geothermal power. Its role could also be expanded to facilitate the partnering of industries with clean energy producers, both existing and new, that want access to long term stable pricing for their electricity needs. In BC we have what many others do not. These are our legacy dams — the rechargeable batteries of the 21^st century energy grid that can be drawn upon when other intermittent sources are not producing electricity.

In essence, the same leadership, innovation and natural advantages that could provide us with the opportunity to become North America’s centre for clean tech can be harnessed to develop new opportunities including those within our traditional industries like forestry.

When we singularly focus on LNG, we fail to value the sectors in BC that actually exhibit promise for growth. Instead of banking on empty promises, why do we not look instead to industries like your clean tech, a sector that is already characterized by fast growth. From 2012-2013, investment in the clean tech sector tripled in Canada. Canadian individuals and business alike recognize the opportunity clean tech poses, even if our government does not. Furthermore, clean tech provides us with a rare opportunity to both mitigate climate change by reducing our emissions and to adapt to it with more resilient and localized energy systems.

Instead of tying our jobs, and our children’s jobs to the boom and bust cycle of fossil fuel industries, we should instead be looking at the long-run growth in clean industries. Rather than promising our youth positions in a hypothetical LNG industry, imagine if we trained our graduates to retool the BC economy for 21^st century industries.

Now is the time for British Columbia to take control of our own future. Instead of enslaving ourselves through reliance on hypothetical exports of a commodity that may or may not find a market elsewhere, we could, and should show leadership in the development of a diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.

Quite a number of constituents have written to me expressing serious concerns about the proposed changes to the Societies Act. Here is the action that I have taken so far.

To provide some context, starting in 2009, the Ministry of Finance began a process to review and update the 1996 Societies Act in order to “modernize and update the statute that provides rules for the incorporation and governance of not-for-profit organizations in B.C.”

The Ministry released a White Paper that outlined a number of policy recommendations and included a revised draft of the Societies Act. The public consultation process for this White Paper ended on October 15^th.

During the public consultation period I heard from a large number of constituents (and from others across British Columbia) concerning section 99 of the draft legislation, entitled “Complaints by Public” .

In order to summarize the public feedback I received during the consultation period, I sent a letter to the Minister of Finance on October 16^th to ensure that the public, and my, concerns were brought to the direct attention of the Minister.

October 16^th 2014

Honourable Mike de Jong
Minister of Finance
Parliament Buildings
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Dear Minister de Jong,

I am writing to you with respect to the BC government’s Societies Act White Paper. I have received a fair amount of correspondence from constituents, societies and others across British Columbia who are concerned with the direction laid out in section 99, entitled “Complaints by Public”. I would like to ensure that their, and my, concerns are brought to your attention.

To begin, I am unclear as to what existing problem section 99 is meant to be addressing. The White Paper does not identify any specific issue that was the impetus for this provision being brought forward.

Section 99 of the Societies Act White Paper appears to lay out a mechanism that I believe has enormous potential to be abused. Relying on an extremely vague definition of ‘public interest’, this section could act as a vehicle for an unprecedented period of SLAPP lawsuits against groups that cannot afford to defend themselves.

Societies play a critical role in our province. Many of them have minimal financial resources, are staffed or supported by volunteers, and very limited access to legal support. If enacted into law, Section 99 could be used as a bullying tactic. As a result, Societies would have to operate in a culture where freedom of speech is at risk of litigation. While I am not a lawyer, it strikes me that the constitutionality of Section 99 might be called into question.

I recognize that the Societies Act White Paper is being advanced at this stage to gather public feedback on proposed legislation. Nevertheless, I hope that the Ministry recognizes the substantive concerns that are being expressed regarding section 99.

I sincerely hope that changes will be made to the Act before it is brought forward to the legislature for debate and that a legal opinion is obtained as to the constitutionality of Section 99.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter,

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Weaver
MLA, Oak Bay-Gordon Head

This post is part of an ongoing series in which MLA Andrew Weaver will be sharing key information from inside the National Energy Board hearings on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. To see previous posts, please click here. 

 Trans Mountain’s “Credible Worst-Case” Oil Spill

As part of their analysis, Trans Mountain conducted oil spill scenarios for what they consider to be “credible worst-case” and smaller-sized spills.

The purpose of running these scenarios is to estimate the likely impact a spill would have on our communities and our environment, as well as to gauge their ability to respond to a spill. The problem is, Trans Mountain’s “credible worst case” spill scenario only accounts for a small fraction of the oil that could actually spill.

Here’s what I mean:

A single oil tanker will carry over 110,000 tonnes of oil. Yet, according to Trans Mountain, the maximum size of a “credible worst case” spill (i.e. the largest spill they think could ever actually happen) would only be 16,500 tonnes. That’s only 15% of the oil carried by a single ship.

So where does their definition of a “credible worst case” spill come from?

Trans Mountain undertook a probability analysis, factoring tanker size, shipping lanes and traffic, as well as other data. They found that 90% of their spill scenarios were smaller than 16,500 tonnes in size. Trans Mountain then simply “defined” this to be their “credible worst-case” scenario. That is, they defined ‘credible worst-case’ as the 90th percentile.

That means there is not a single report or study in the entire 15,000 page application that considers what would happen if more than 15% of the oil on a tanker were to spill.

I found this profoundly troubling. In my first round of questions, I asked Trans Mountain to provide an analysis of the risks and impacts of having 100% of the oil spill. This is called a total loss scenario. While it fortunately isn’t a common scenario, it certainly does fall into the realm of possibility.

Unfortunately, Trans Mountain responded by saying that a total loss scenario was not “viable” or “credible”, that my request was therefore not relevant, and so refused to provide the sought after analysis.  They base this on the fact that “there has not been any total loss of containment scenarios involving a double hull tanker, ever, to date…”

The Problem with Trans Mountain’s “Credible Worst-Case”

I have two big concerns with Trans Mountain’s logic.

First, the very fact that Trans Mountain’s “credible worst case” oil spill only accounts for 90% of spills means that there is a 10% chance that an oil spill will be larger than their “credible worst case”. 10% isn’t some distant possibility—it’s a very plausible scenario.  In fact, the Exxon Valdez spilled roughly 35,000 tonnes of oil—more than double the size of Trans Mountain’s defined “credible worst-case” scenario. The Atlantic Empress released 287,000 tonnes of crude in 1979 after it caught fire and sank in the Caribbean. In 1983 Castillo de Bellver exploded off the coast of South Africa and released 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes of light crude into the sea. In 2002, Prestige split in half and sank off the coast of Spain releasing 63,000 tons. And of course, there are other examples. By refusing to even consider the possibility of these larger spills, they are ignoring spill scenarios that are certainly possible and that would have a devastating impact on our coast.

Second, while it may be true that so far no double-hull tanker has spilled 100% of its oil, this is far from a solid argument. The fact is, policies requiring all new tankers to be constructed with double-hulls are relatively new. It is only within the last 20 years that this has become a mandatory requirement. So, while a total loss incident involving a double-hull tanker has not occurred to date, these ships have not been in use long enough for such a justification to be made with much certainty.

This leads me to two basic questions:

How can Trans Mountain credibly say that they have provided a full analysis of the risks and impacts of marine oil spills, when they refuse to even consider the possibility of more than 15% of oil spilling?

How can British Columbians trust that Trans Mountain can actually clean up a spill, if the largest spill they are prepared for only accounts for a small fraction of the oil onboard?

If you ask me, they can’t.