The battle over tar sands oil in Canada is increasingly bitter, with each side accusing the other of slippery motives
Canada has two main ways to get its Alberta tar sands crude to foreign markets: through the US, via the controversial XL Keystone pipeline, which goes to the Texas coast, or via the Northern Gateway, through British Columbia, to the Pacific.
The first option is effectively on hold at the moment, as the Obama administration has rejected the XL, pending further environmental review. The second, though, is very much alive, and the Canadian government is keen – very keen – to see the US$6.6bn project go ahead.
The government has been campaigning aggressively to avoid delays that have bedevilled the XL – so much so, that it has been painting opponents of the project as foreign radicals who care more for the environment than for Canada’s economic future.
Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, has said NGOs are “hijacking” the Gateway consultation process, and that opposition mainly comes from US groups who see Canada as “one giant national park for the northern half of North America”.
‘Foreign interests’
Joe Oliver, the natural resources minister, has accused greens of taking money from “foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest”. And a website set up by a member of the PM’s staff has called for a ban on “foreigners and their local puppets from appearing before the pipeline review panel”.
Meanwhile, members of Harper’s party have drafted a bill that would curtail the activities of NGOs that receive foreign funding, and have launched a review of the charity sector and its role in public debates. Under Canadian law, charities are not allowed to use more than 10% of their budgets for political activity, and in the past several have lost charitable status for overstepping that mark.
NGOs say they are facing a co-ordinated, undemocratic and nationalistic campaign by Harper’s government. “It is disappointing to see this increasingly antagonistic approach. This is an attempt to silence voices that are speaking out for our clean air, safe drinking water and healthy communities,” says Alison Henning, a spokeswoman for Tides Canada, an umbrella group for Canadian NGOs.
“The whole idea that outside entities are a big problem is pure fiction,” says Todd Paglia, founder of ForestEthics, which campaigns against tar sands from offices both in Canada and the US. “What the Harper government is really trying to do is treat oil companies preferentially and silence Canadian citizens, environmental groups, and First Nations [aboriginal groups].”
NGOs point out that Enbridge, the company that proposes the pipeline, itself gets foreign money, in the shape of a $10m fund from Sinopec, a Chinese state company.
Paglia says the real reason ForestEthics has apparently been targeted is because its US office has organised a corporate boycott of tar sands crude.
So far, 16 US companies, and one city, have said they will limit use of tar-sands crude, which is more carbon-intensive than conventional oil. Where ordinary Canadians stand is hard to gauge.
An Ipsos Reid poll in late 2011 found that 48% of British Columbians supported tar-sands oil, with only 32% opposed.
But critics note the survey was paid for by the oil industry, and that half of those surveyed did not know about the project when questioned. The fight over unconventional fossil fuels, from tar sands to shale gas, looks certain to grow ever more dirty.