The Division on the Pipeline Projects

When even our Federal Government engages in divisive language to belittle the opposition to these projects, red flags go off -- big time.

As I live in Calgary, I am exposed to a lot of pro-oil & gas press that, taken in such quantities, can lead one to believe that the pipeline projects as they are today are entirely in the best interests of the country. While the Keystone XL pipeline has, allegedly anyway, passed safety and environmental regulations & concerns (and why wouldn't it? Shipment via train isn't exactly a contender for risk-free), the Northern Gateway pipeline has yet to overcome such hurdles. Keystone XL faced an odd delay from the Obama administration earlier this year, but the Northern Gateway has barely even handed in its papers for grading.

Now, one glaring omission from many voices in the media, and indeed from the companies at the helm of these projects (Keystone XL & Northern Gateway), is that of the actual benefits to stand from these developments. Indeed, while they promise significant economic benefits to the country, and to Western Canada in particular, they have yet to specify any actual figures or proper theoretical models as to how these benefits would roll out. Just who, and how, will these projects benefit? None of the pro-pipeline people can satisfy a proper answer.

But that can be discussed later. What's more important is the public opinion, and given its importance in the green-lighting (or not) of these projects, it needs to be stressed in detail. 

Whereas the Keystone XL has overcome the regulatory criterion necessary to even greenlight the thing (but still produce a deliberately delayed mandate from the White House), the Northern Gateway pipeline has to assure everyone who isn't the Harper cabinet just how safe the project is, before and after the very likely event of a disaster. People need reassurances. People need to know what they're shouting "Yay!" to. People need to be told proper, not misleading fucking information!

Hilariously, regarding the Northern Gateway pipeline, Enbridge, the company responsible for the project, has done just that. They've committed one of the gravest sins possible in the shaky field of public support; they have misled the people who, granted by the B.C Government, have the final say on whether the pipeline gets built or not. Public perception is vital here, and Enbridge has done poorly in their quest to muster the necessary support to get the ball rolling. Enbridge put out this video back in '12 (the linked video below is NOT from EnbridgeMedia themselves, by the by):

They shot themselves in the foot with this animation, because anyone with access to the internet (that includes YOU, reader) can see that the Douglas Channel does NOT resemble the wide-open, cozy ride that Enbridge wants you to believe it to be. Below is a screenshot that I took at the same time of writing this piece, with highlights of visibly risky areas in the actual shipping route(s) (keep in mind that alternate routes would have to be taken under certain circumstances given that ice does buildup in the channel):

The squares represent what would be forking routes for the oil tankers to take (and need you be reminded that these ships, while not quite HMS Titanic in size, are quite large?). It's certain that there will be, if hasn't been already, a predetermined route through one of each square at each fork of the channel, but what of emergency measures? This channel does get inundated with ice at the worst of times, and if they can't navigate one stretch because of it, then they'll have to take the other. Just look at the Southern fork and tell me that it won't end up like watching these cumbersome hulls attempting a pro-level slalom with broken skis?

With the exception of highlighting the port (Kitimat, in this case) on the bottom, the circles represent clusters of small islands that can further prove difficult in the shipment of bitumen. While I certainly am not omniscient enough to indicate all manner of rocks inconveniently and often just barely combing under the surface of the water at points, there are bound to be such obstacles as well. Of course, that's what sonar detection units were made for. And then there's the incidences of windstorms, and collateral from mudslides to look out for! And then there's bound to be even more than what I've listed above. Holy cynical Jesus is there ever the bevy of potential dangers in this whole project, right?

Does Enbridge think people are this stupid? Did they hope and pray that the people whom they're trying to sway to their favour are, or were at the time the advertisement went its rounds, too lazy to find out the truth for themselves? All it took for me to get the above image, that which roundly contradicts the story Enbridge tried to weave with their pitifully misleading route tour animation, was to use Google. Specifically, after clicking the grid icon next to the bell you see at the upper-right, I selected the immediately available Maps option and zoomed into fucking Kitimat. So little effort, and so little respect for the idiots at Enbridge responsible for this animation (both in designing it and giving it the go-ahead). People should be fired, methinks.

Now, that is a two-year old mistake for sure, but Enbridge has yet, to my knowledge anyway, make up for this gaffe with genuine apologies or, better yet, admittance of where they were wrong. Today, Enbridge engenders a majority disapproval from the local communities. The latter is obviously obviously ignored by the media at-large and indeed, outright insulted by our own fucking Federal Government. The press, and as mentioned the fucking Tories want you to believe that those who oppose a project spearheaded by a company that has been called out for its misinformation tactics are "radical" and, in towing the Cold-War era propaganda ethos, "receive funding from foreign special interest groups" to obstruct "real economic benefits for the country."

That kind of fear-mongering via name-calling not unlike the usual banter heard on elementary school playgrounds was trotted by then-idiot of 2012 Jim Oliver (then Natural Resources Minister), and echoed by our third-time re-elected Prime Minister, or more fittingly, Emperor Stephen Harper in his oh-so stoic and condescending tone. I know you're probably gasping for air but bear with me here; actually concerned citizens who have every right and every reason so far to be blocking this project are, to this day, being diminished as obstructionist, anti-Canadian assholes by the press and the government.

I think it speaks volumes about a company, and its pipeline project by proxy, when they feel the need to put out misinformation that portrays a fantasy world wherein Enbridge won't have to double-down in order to ensure the project is as long-term and safe as possible. If anything, the lack of reassuring confidence and accurate information on their part is a telltale sign that they don't believe in their own project and their ability to muster a 'yes' vote. 

One of the often-touted arguments in favour of this pipeline is the promise of significant economic gains. An oft-heard soundbite tells everyone that this pipeline will generate jobs. There's certainly no doubt that jobs will be created, since the pipeline won't build itself and it will have to be monitored and maintained over time. However, Common Grounds magazine conducted an interview in '12 with an economist about it, and he raises some thoughtful insight about it: http://commonground.ca/2012/03/gateway-pipeline/

Now what about money for the country, the provinces, and the companies involved? The Vancouver Sun states, "The pipeline is estimated to be worth $300 billion in additional gross domestic product over 30 years. Governments are expected to net an estimated $80 billion in tax and royalty revenues over those three decades: $36 billion for Ottawa, $32 billion for Alberta and $6.7 billion for B.C. Saskatchewan would net an estimated $4 billion." (Source)

Those aren't scientifically-derived numbers, they're simply estimations. That's well and good, but while I did state earlier in this piece that they have yet to provide actual figures or theoretical models as to how we'll make money and how much the country and the involved provinces will rake in from the pipeline, my point still stands. Are these estimates really the best the complicit press can drudge up? Where's the basis for those numbers? And really, when you look at the numbers they came up with, B.C, where the most intensive operations will take place and who stands to see a nigh-inevitable disaster occur on their turf, will make a measly $6.7 billion that is just a fraction of Alberta's $32 billion?

As per the usual, and logically-sound environmental concerns, some 300 scientists have come up with this response to the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel report back in December 2013:

By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel's review:

1. Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
2. Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate consideration of key issues,
3. Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
4. Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents, and
5. Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the proponent's yet-to-be-developed mitigation measures.

 (Source)

Will it all be worth it when a disaster almost certainly does occur, and British Columbians have to pay the tab, and British Columbians have to roll up their sleeves to clean up the mess that Enbridge will almost certainly skimp on on their part? Is Enbridge still surprised that the people have not come to their side because of the lack of compelling arguments and reasons that this pipeline should go through sooner than later?

I don't really know, but based on what I do know, most of which Enbridge has not, and will not tell anyone, the project as it stands is not what should come to pass. It's shady, there's too many risks involved, it is scientifically unsound, the economic benefits are more crude & vague with little backing to them, many of the more prominent and vocal proponents have been more hostile and belligerent than necessary, and most of all, Enbridge has provided mostly misleading information regarding its safety and how the benefits will outweigh the losses.

I'm Being Silenced! Force Freedom of Speech (on Private Enterprise)!

Read the subject of this post here: http://amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/58763857547/youtube-is-100-within-its-rights-to-remove-your

I've written about TJ a few times so far and each time I thought I've seen the worst of him, it seems that he tops himself a little later on, so I then feel the need to comment on him again.

The gist of the situation behind the linked Tumblr post is that a number of TJ's YouTube videos were flagged for removal. Now, no one knows the full story yet, perhaps neither does he, but it's safe to say even at this point that he is indeed being censored. The party responsible is unknown, but that's not really important. What is important is how he is reacting to the issue.

It's fine that he's notifying his more active followers to keep themselves posted on his other social media outlets, but in saying the following...

Let’s consider that for a moment. Should your phone company control what you say on the phone? Should your ISP control what you say online? Then why should YouTube get to control what you post on YouTube? 

If YouTube was a small, exclusive site, I think your argument would have merit. But YouTube is large enough now, culturally important enough now, that we must extend First Amendment protections to YouTube videos.

 ...he does himself no favors. To compare companies which provide actual services to that of websites, albeit with very high traffic (YouTube is ranked #3 by the Alexa Ranking System globally & in the U.S.), is fucking ridiculous. Memorandum to TJ: their site is their god damn private property, and they can set the terms of service for using their site(s) any way they damn well please.

Here is what he responded to. Keep in mind that it contains a bit of vitriol directed at him, but compared to what he's received from many other sources, it's pretty tame:

Youtube is 100% within its rights to remove your videos. They are a company. You are allowed to hold whatever (fucking stupid) opinions you wish, but they are IN NO WAY obligated to give you a platform from which to spout said (fucking stupid) opinions. Yes, I am "for real". I know you wish women didn't exist, but sadly for your sorry fat ass, they do.

Too bad for the big guy that the poster of the above (verbatim) paragraph is 100% correct regarding Youtube's rights on controlling content that populates what is their property. When TJ said that "if YouTube was a small, exlusive site, I think your argument would have merit", he threw in a non-sequitur; the size & reach of an entity in a market, except for utilities, does not serve as a barometer on whether said entity should be regulated in any way by the government. Instead, the function of a company is a category upon which to consider regulations of a private organization. Owned by Google (whose service I am using now, obviously), a private corporation, they are explicitly excluded from freedom of speech rights as declared by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The government has no ability to set limits, or even lift them completely, in the private sector.

And it should stay that way.

I assume that you, reader, have gleaned the aforementioned amendment within a valid copy of the document from which it can be found. In that case, I don't need to quote it to support my argument that TJ is either somehow ignorant of said amendment (the old-world English as used in said document may have threw him for a loop), or is outright cherry-picking it in order to advocate for the abolition of the barrier set in place by that same document. Given his nature as a money-hungry, fraudulent, shady motherfucker since, as an actual example, he's still wrapped in a controversy regarding his $17,000+ video embedding site (which went down within two months of launching, and has yet to return to full operating order as of this writing), I feel that he falls into the latter case.

An argument that pushes government mandates on freedom of speech rights within the private realm, be it the home of the Average Joe (provided it isn't owned by government assets and thus, being publicly-owned property), a small business, a web business, or anything along those lines, is an unsound argument. First of all, it violates the Constitution itself. Second, because YouTube (and Google, henceforth) are accessed by users throughout the world and their assets are not exclusively rooted in the United States (in spite of being founded in Menlo Park, California), it would be a burden to legally impose Free Speech laws on YouTube alone because it would have to be applied distinctly according to the rights (or lack thereof) of each country which grants access to the site. Google's monetary assets are extremely high, and they could challenge such wasteful theoretical scenarios with the best legal teams their money could buy.

TheAmazingAtheist, an admitted Social Libertarian (mind you that within the same context, Social Liberal is virtually synonymous with that position), who held starkly Libertarian views on economics, essentially wishes for the government (his government, mind you) to re-write the Constitution so as to mandate freedom of speech laws on the private sector, particularly YouTube/Google. Keep in mind that this is not out of principle, but rather out of necessity, for him. He doesn't care about the experience of others, but that of his own, since the guy is laughably dependent on his earnings through Google AdSense via YouTube partnership. He's also a shameless beggar who comes up with sob stories or snake oil sales schemes to bilk money out of his more naive subscribers. His channel is, due to a large number of his uploaded videos being flagged down, likely going to be on the chopping block and he is understandably in panic mode.

But arguing for the intervention of the Government to protect his right to a platform and to speak freely on what is the property of a private corporation is not only desperately reaching, it's sadly hilarious. I hope he realizes just how idiotic his response was to the user who posted that comment on his Tumblr, because if that were enacted in the U.S., then it would set a bad precedent of yet conceived proportions. I feel bad for the guy because he's a weak-willed individual with seemingly few principles, if any at all, and will say or do anything to avoid having to get a fucking job like most people do. After all, people who work earn their money, but he has to beg for it. He's 28 fucking years old and he asks for handouts in ways no different than teenagers, but the difference between he and teenagers is that he manages to sell himself doing it.