Who
and what is a Governor General? He or she is the representative of
the Queen. The role and responsibilities cover constitutional
responsibilities, he or she is the Commander-in-chief of the Canadian
Forces, he or she represents Canada, encourages excellence, brings
Canadians together and grants armorial bearings. All of this is
clearly described on the Governor General's own website. The
Governor General is not a cheap salesman hawking a product!
Governor General David Johnston became just that on Monday November
28th
2011. He joined the ranks of Ezra Levant to sell the oil sands for
PM Harper. As the representative of the Queen he has overstepped the
boundaries of his authority and has to be removed from his position.
Unless it is the Queen herself who wishes to publicly state that she,
her Royal Highness approves of the Alberta oil sands, its production
and sale. For in fact Governor General David Johnston has done
exactly that.
I
now quote from Derek Abma of the National Post, (November 28, 2011):
“Governor General
David Johnston waded into Canada's oil sands debate Monday, praising
the industry as a “Great Canadian development.” According
to Derek Abma of the National Post, Governor General David Johnston
brought up the issue of the oil sands in a question-and-answer
session after his formal speech. I have read the formal speech as
presented by the Governor General and in it he avoided all questions
or points regarding the oil sands. In bringing up these points after
his formal speech he overstepped his authority beyond any acceptable
level. Quoting again from Derek Alba of the National Post, Governor
General David Johnston said, “I
know there's a controversy about the oil sands, but that's a great
Canadian development, those are resources that were of no use to
anyone {until} Samuel Hearne discovered them.”
Agent
Orange was thought to be a pesticide. Nuclear fusion and nuclear
research thought to be beneficial till it devastated Japan and
brought the world to the brink of mass destruction. We as human
beings strive to explore, to discover it is our nature, yet hope in
our maturity to know better is the only safeguard.
Governor
General David Johnston has a position of power in the public's eye.
He represents the Queen and all her powers with authority to dissolve
the government of a sovereign country. He went on to say (again
quoting from Derek Abma of the National Post's story) “The
challenge is for us to mine {the oil sands} in improved, increasingly
economically sustainable ways.”
There
lies the very essence of the whole issue of the oil sands. It is
not the environment, the future of our planet or that of our children
and grandchildren, Canadian, British, Chinese and alike, it is pure
economics. We simply live in a world where greed and a lust for
power is overwhelming.
Regardless
whether one accepts the reasoning behind the basic need of power and
greed it is still difficult to fully understand the motivation behind
Governor General David Johnston's public support and selling of the
oil sands. As per the Governor General's web page:
“Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada and Head of
State. The Governor General is the representative of the Queen of
Canada.” Governor
General Johnston has in fact given the very public approval and
support of the Queen for the oil sands. How was this possible, or
why? Further research provides an alarming answer.
Governor General David Johnston
overstepped his very public position and authority as the
representative of the Queen. There is no question that he should be
removed from his post by the Queen. To answer why he had done this
is an alarming realization just how those in power see us all as
pawns even acceptable collateral damage.
I
quote Johnston's predecessor Her Excellency the Right Honourable
Michaelle Jean, in a letter I received from Rideau Hall, with full
lion's crest.
These were the words I read: “As
you know, the role of the Governor General in Canada's parliamentary
democracy is strictly non-partisan.” Governor
General Johnston has shown the hypocrisy and the lies behind those
words. Using the weight of his position and his title he sold to the
world the oil sands. WHY?
The world is joining in a voice
that is alarming to Prime Minister Harper. He is sitting on a
monstrous pile of wealth, and through wealth, power. It is
detrimental to all, in its extraction and as a refined product.
Not only environmentalists, but government officials, Nobel
recipients, scientists and ordinary people are joining together to
tell Canada that our oil sands are a danger in the end to us all.
Yet PM Harper has a partner, becoming less silent through such acts
as of the Governor General.
A
recent headline in the London Guardian reads: “UK
secretly helping Canada push its 'dirty oil' fuel,” (November
27,2011). In
this UK Guardian story information is revealed how British top
officials promised to help Canada to overturn the European Union's
move to label the oil sands as a 'dirty' product or a high-pollution
product. Whilst the British Prime Minister David Cameron “campaigned
on a pledge to provide the greenest government ever” (from The
Globe & Mail by Doug Saunders, November 28,2011).
British
Petroleum, or BP on its own official website has this to offer. “BP
is involved in three oil sands projects, all of which are located in
the province of Alberta. Development of the Sunrise Energy Project,
our joint venture with Husky Energy, is under way, with production
expected to start in 2014. The other two proposed projects, Pike and
Terre de Grace, are being appraised for development.” Who
can forget that BP was responsible for the worst oil leak in US
history, destroying not only the environment in the southern United
States but putting innocent lives and livelihood at risk. As the
facts slowly emerged surrounding that disaster one point was clear,
cost cutting to increase profit was the major concern for BP.
As
you read this official web page by BP, British Petroleum a
frightening realization comes tingling down the spine from these
words under the heading 'Commercial
viability of oil sands projects.' “BP requires oil sands projects,
like all its investments, to be commercially viable over the life of
the project. In gauging this, we factor in BP's view on carbon
pricing and carbon regulation evolution; economic forecasts, such as
fluctuations in the oil price; and potential policy changes, such as
national legislation intended to address climate change.” What
can be more frightening than the realization that these words bring.
Now put all the pieces of the puzzle together that have occurred
slowly.
On
September 19th
2011 Environment Minister Peter Kent states that Ottawa will not
bring out new rules for greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands
this year. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information
requests in Britain by The Cooperative and Friends of the Earth
Europe and Greenpeace reveal high-level government officials from
both the UK and Canada meeting with senior oil industry executives.
Although many of these documents are heavily censored with page size
black blocks, e-grams sent between high ranking British government
representatives show intense lobbying by the British to bring about a
compromise to the European Union Commission. The European Commission
has recommended oil sands derived fuel be given a greenhouse gas
rating of 107 grams per mega joule, 22% higher than the 87.5 grams
rating given to fuel from conventional crude oil. Canada and its
officials had been caught off guard by the EU Commission and had no
real strategy to deal with this. Briefing notes on meetings held by
British Foreign Secretary, British Foreign Offices America's director
with Canadian officials leave no doubt how Canada was unprepared to
handle the EU Commission and the FQD (Fuel Quality Directive). In
one such note between the British Foreign Secretary and Foreign
Affairs Minister John Baird it says: “Canada
was surprised by the rapid timetable for the Commission's FQD
proposal but welcomed {the UK's} approach.” (from
Jason Fekete, Postmedia News, November 28,2011).
Environment
Minister Kent went on to say, “We're
doing all this with a sensitivity not to strand capital, threaten
jobs or impact consumer pricing” (National Post, September
19,2011). At
home
Harper
and Kent used Levant's 'Ethical
Oil'
to sell its dirty oil. Though much of that has faltered. Levant and
Ethical Oil rely on attack without any facts or evidence. Canada
cannot afford a loud vocal opposition to the oil sands as dirty oil.
Nor can it really afford the Kyoto Protocol to survive.
Canada
has been caught flat-footed by the EU and has 'mama' Britain quietly
helping. The British have a huge stake in the Alberta oil sands with
both BP (British Petroleum) and Shell expanding their already huge
investments. Yet the embarrassing truth is oozing out with documents
showing how every attempt has been made by British government
representatives to stall the EU and the FQD (Fuel Quality Directive)
decision. As posted by The Guardian's Damian Carrington, a portion
of a letter sent to The Guardian by LIBDEM minister responsible for
the UK's transport fuel's policy Norman Baker, tries to defend the
help the British have given Canada and the oil sands. Damian
Carrington calls this letter “laughable.”
Norman
Baker's letter states this: “To
be clear, we are not delaying action in any way, but we are seeking
an effective solution to address the carbon emissions from all highly
polluting crudes, not simply those from one particular country.”
The EU proposals do not target any one particular country, and the
UK compromise to put crude into three bands of emissions: high,
medium and low, is designed to stall the decision by the EU. Yet in
a copy of an email (obtained through the Freedom of Information by UK
environmental agencies and Greenpeace) dated September 27th
2011, between Deputy High Commissioner Corin Robertson and Assistant
Deputy Minister at the Department of For Foreign Affairs and Trade
(DFAIT), Subject: Fuel Quality Directive, it states: “...we
are now reaching out to EU member states through our diplomatic
missions to explain the UK's position on the FQD.” Most
importantly where Norman Baker claimed, “we
are not delaying action in any way” in
his letter to The Guardian in late November, this followed in the
email. “We
are acknowledging that devising an effective and practical system
will be challenging, especially one that will avoid resulting in
extra costs for industry and consumers. We know that working out how
to track crude as it goes through the complex refining and
transportation system will be difficult and may take time to get
right.” So
much for not intentionally delaying action.
Yet
as the war for the future of our planet heats up apposing politics
and big business a new trend is coming to the surface that is
alarming. In the letter by Norman Baker the LIBDEM minister, it is
the last paragraph, where he blames environmentalists for the
controversy. “I
have challenged green NGO's to come up with a solution so we can
address the carbon problems of all crude sources as soon as possible.
So far I have been met with silence.”
Damian Carrington of The Guardian had this response from John Sauveu
of Greenpeace, ”together
with the majority of European governments, we're enthusiastic
supporters of the (existing) European plan to prevent the most
polluting fuel from entering our filling stations. So Baker is
completely wrong to say we haven't put forward a solution to the
problem of tar sands.”
Here
in Canada it is Sun Media that has led the attack against
environmentalists. First with Ezra Levant and his Ethical
Oil. Levant used a
mythical creature he named Zoe, a make-believe
individual
to ridicule and insult as an environmentalist. Most of what Levant
had said has been seen for its real value, hot air, insults instead
of fact. Still Alykhan Velshi who ran EthicalOil.org has been
rewarded with a post at the Prime Minister's Office, he will soon
become the director of planning. Velshi claimed that the
“grassroots”
EthicalOil.org was “100% independent of government and industry.”
It is clear how much truth there has been in anything coming from
EthicalOil.org or anyone associated to it.
British
Minister Norman Baker accuses environmentalists in his letter to a
British newspaper. Lorrie Goldstein Senior Associate Editor of the
Toronto Sun goes much further. Goldstein calls environmentalists
“dishonest cowards.”
He goes on to say that “the
green movement has deep roots in anti-western, anti-capitalist,
anti-development and anti-growth ideologies...” he
continues with, “environmentalists,
particularly in Europe, are Marxists, who were put out of business
when the Soviet Union collapsed...” Not
surprising that Ezra Levant is part of the Sun Media organization.
True
there are those who are recognized as environmentalists and who push
the boundaries of ethics and credibility with elves, Santa evictions
to raise a buck. As there are Sun Medias in the world of journalism,
where truth, honesty and ethics may be seriously questioned. But the
world is raising its voice to Canada, telling us it's time for
honesty and ethics in the real sense. The realities cannot be
ignored nor covered up with insults and attacks. Alberta's own
Auditor General in his report, “pointed
a finger at Suncor Energy Inc. SU-T which has submitted tailings pond
emissions estimates that don't include carbon dioxide at all, and are
based on old measurements at a pond
that no longer exists”
(The Globe & Mail by Nathan Vanderklippe and Shawn McCarthy,
November 23,2011).
Now
it is time to ask is 'dirty
really ethical'?
Reports coming from Durban South Africa are sounding off alarm bells
not only in relation to ethics but of the integrity of a nation.
Environment Minister Kent has made enough public statements to the
effect that Canada is planning to dump the Kyoto Protocol. His
reasons, or at least those given publicly are an insult to
intelligence. In an interview with South African High Commissioner
Mohau Pheko at the South African High Commission in Ottawa by Mike De
Souza (Postmedia News,
December 3,2011), Pheko
said “she was
particularly disturbed by Kent's recent suggestions that he would
take a hard line approach against developing nations and challenge
founding principles of the existing international climate change
agreements that require developed countries to take responsibility
for causing the environmental threat over the past 150 years.”
Canada
claims that the world's two biggest polluters of carbon China and the
US are not taking part in the Kyoto Protocol. South African High
Commissioner Mohan Pheko said that her country has been approached by
other nations in vulnerable positions that have been lobbied by
Canada to leave the treaty. She said: “we
must also recall that many of things are linked to aid packages and
there's arm twisting.” How
does this rate on the ethical scale? What is the reason for Canada
to play such a game?
According
to Bloomberg, “Canada
the country furthest from meeting its commitment to cut carbon
emissions under the Kyoto Protocol may save as much as $6.7 billion
by exiting the global change agreement and not paying for offset
credits.” Can it
be that the consideration of the mighty dollar be a stronger
motivator here? Or is it that Canada has a problem on the
international stage, its reputation damaged as an environmentally
ethical member of the world community. Out of the 191 signatories to
the Kyoto Protocol Canada would be the first to annul its
emission-reduction obligations. According to Keith Stewart of
Greenpeace Toronto, “Canada
is the only country in the world saying it won't honour Kyoto.”
The reasons for
this are becoming more clear than Minister Kent would like.
According to the Pembina Institute emissions of carbon from oil sands
production has risen to about 6.5% of Canada's total from about 1% in
1990, that figure will likely double by 2020.
So
what is the truth here? Rick George chief executive officer of
Suncor Energy Inc (SU) said, “Kyoto
no longer works, whatever happens with Kyoto won't change our
direction.” (Bloomberg,
December 4,2011). This
is from Canada's largest oil producer, the same Suncor Energy Inc
(SU) that the Alberta Auditor General pointed a finger at for
submitting pond emissions for a pond that no longer exists, and
submitting “tailings
pond emissions for a pond that don't include carbon dioxide at all.”
It is also the same
Suncor Energy Inc (SU) that is responsible for an oil leak at the
Commerce City Colorado refinery, potentially putting at risk the
South Platte River the source of Denver's drinking water. Suncor
Energy faces $130,000 in penalties for more than two dozen health and
safety violations at the refinery in Commerce City. Suncor allegedly
failed to test monitors properly for hydrogen sulfide, a toxic and
flammable gas, and failed to follow safety standards while processing
hazardous chemicals, according to the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which issued the citations (National
Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Promise November, 30,2011).
According
to Josh Mogerman a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defence
Council in relation to the Commerce City refinery spill, “If
the leak involves tar sands diluted bitumen, the contamination could
be more severe, tar sands diluted bitumen spills are associated with
significantly more submerged oil, which cannot be contained by
surface booms.”
In
response to the objections to the oil sands mining process there has
been a change in the process of bringing up the bitumen. Peter
Fairley's story in the current issue of MIT's Technology Review talks
of “in situ”
harvesting. The
process pumps superheated steam underground to melt the bitumen in
place before sucking out the mixture for processing. This form of
deep mining for the bitumen reduces the number of trees brought down
and erosion runoff into streams and waterways. Yet Fairley's warning
is alarming. “It
creates more than twice the production emissions of conventional oil
sands mining. Independent experts say that by the time the bitumen is
refined and delivered to gas stations across the United States, it
has already accounted for two or three times as much greenhouse gas
per gallon of fuel as gasoline refined from conventional crude.”
That being said
combined with the fact that “much
of the region has moved to 'in situ' harvesting” (Forbes, Erica
Gies, founder of ThisWeekInEarth.com) then
more light shines on Canada's fear of the EU Commission and the FQD
(Fuel Quality Directive) and the Kyoto Protocol.
According
to a Peter Fairley blog post “Cenovus
Energy has achieved a 15% reduction in energy use per barrel of
bitumen with a hybrid extraction method combining butane and steam,
and says optimizing the process could cut another 15%. N-Soly is
testing a purely solvent-based process, eliminating steam altogether
in a bid to slash greenhouse gas emissions per barrel by 80 to 90
percent.”
One should warn Ezra Levant at
EthicalOil.org and PM Harper that this is not really the answer.
Butane and propane are extremely volatile and warnings by the US
Department of Labour are alarming in relation to our human health
impact. When industry uses the term 'solvents' they are quite vague
and the results could cause toxicity to the nervous system,
reproductive damage, liver, kidney and respiratory damage and cancer.
More of a concern is with the potential leaching of these 'solvents'
into soil or water supplies and the cost to human safety then. All
of this looks good in the press, it shows that the industry is trying
to address environmental concerns. Or is it only a public relations
exercise that will result in a greater threat.
Canada
and its partners, particularly in Britain, know that the voices
against the oil sands are becoming louder. Pressure is mounting with
the EU and its Fuel Quality Directive, something that Canada can not
really afford. According to Greenpeace's Keith Stewart Canada has
not implemented a policy to reach its targets, remember Environment
Minister Kent delaying GHG (greenhouse gas) rules “with
a sensitivity not to strand capital,” so
the Kyoto Protocol is a threat. The British are doing all they can
to help protect, shelter and promote the oil sands and its billions
of dollars. New mining technology such as the 'in
situ' harvesting or
the testing of a combination of butane and steam or unnamed solvents
is more frightening than exciting for the future of our environment.
When
Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister for Natural Resources said, “you
can turn off your lights and freeze in the dark, the alternative is
to use the energy, which of course you are using, everybody is
using,” the
sheer arrogance of these words should of been both alarming and an
awakening. I simply watch my seventy-plus year old neighbour across
the road get in his red truck for the fourth time today for his
journey to pick up the peeling lottery tickets, and realize how much
does rest in our hands.
Joe
Oliver went on to say, “If
the world doesn't want our oil, it doesn't have to buy our oil.” It
is such intelligence that has driven the British to shudder in
embarrassment. When Governor General David Johnston made his
statements at an official function in his official position praising
the oil sands industry as a “great
Canadian development,”
are they to be taken as the words of Her Majesty the Queen. HE HAD
NO RIGHT TO DO SO! Governor General David Johnston said “I
know there's a controversy about the oil sands, but that's a great
Canadian development.” Those
words have put the endorsement of Her Majesty the Queen on the oil
sands. Under no circumstances can this be allowed. He must be
removed! Governor General Johnston said “I
know there is a controversy...” The
world is voicing its opposition even though Britain is trying its
hardest to promote the oil sands. British Prime Minister Cameron,
ministers like Norman Baker and others may also play their secret
dirty games behind doors yet the Governor General has no right or
authority to do so. Again from the Governor General's own website:
“Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State, the Governor
General is the representative of the Queen in Canada.”
There is a great deal to examine
regarding the oil sands. It is the future of our world, what we
leave for our children and our grandchildren. A reality should
tingle down Minister Joe Oliver's spine and that is the simple law of
supply and demand. If we curb our demand then you simply have to cut
the supply. But can we?
Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com
