[Newsbot]

Title: Northern Gateway Pipeline report 'flawed', 300 scientists tell PM
Category: Environmental
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2014-06-03 10:00:25
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

First they should post the names of "all" these scientists and their professions before having them explain how shipping oil by rail is much better than shipping it by pipeline because, that's what's going to happen whether they like it or not.

Sorry, I found the list but I have some issues with the headline now.

I just read the list of signatories and found alot of these:

$1:

Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia

So are these people scientists or students and if they're still students how can they be classified as scientists.

Or better yet, the librarian is now a scientist FFS.

$1:

Data Librarian, Carleton University

And for some reason there seems to be an inornate amount of PhD's on the list. Are they all scientists to?

Sorry but to say 300 scientist signed the document isn't exactly true although, it sure sounds better than saying some scientists and a bunch of doctors, students, and a librarian signed a letter to the PM because, the truth wouldn't have the same weight as the headline.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/d ... d?page=0,1

But anyway I digress the point I was trying to make is that it's easy to sit back and point out problems but until they give solid viable solutions other than their usual Desmond TuTu bullshit about shutting the oil sands down it's all just rhetoric from people who for various reasons find themselves in opposition to the project.

[jj2424]

Some of the scientists .




Deb Niemeier
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Deb Niemeier received her degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1994. Her research focuses on the impact of low income families’ access to transport on jobs, healthcare, and schools

http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/profile/deb-niemeier


Christina Roberts University of Calgary.

Teaching (Department of French, Italian and Spanish):
Québec Literature; French Literature; Comparative Literature; French-Canadian and French Culture; French Language


Oh lets not leave out the poet!

Bruce Hunter

Since 1986, he has taught at Seneca College where he is a professor of English and Liberal Studies at Seneca@York.   In 2007, he served as Writer in Residence at the Richmond Hill Public Library and in 2002, at the Alberta Writer’s Guild’s Banff Retreat.

http://www.brucehunter.ca/index.php/article/About.html


All qualified "scientists"...lol

[Xort]

If it was flawed it would only take 1 scientist.

[DrCaleb]

jj2424 jj2424:

Some of the scientists .




Deb Niemeier
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Deb Niemeier received her degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1994. Her research focuses on the impact of low income families’ access to transport on jobs, healthcare, and schools

http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/profile/deb-niemeier


Christina Roberts University of Calgary.

Teaching (Department of French, Italian and Spanish):
Québec Literature; French Literature; Comparative Literature; French-Canadian and French Culture; French Language


Oh lets not leave out the poet!

Bruce Hunter

Since 1986, he has taught at Seneca College where he is a professor of English and Liberal Studies at Seneca@York.   In 2007, he served as Writer in Residence at the Richmond Hill Public Library and in 2002, at the Alberta Writer’s Guild’s Banff Retreat.

http://www.brucehunter.ca/index.php/article/About.html


All qualified "scientists"...lol

All of whom have lost more critical thinking skills to drinking alcohol than you will ever possess.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And for some reason there seems to be an inornate amount of PhD's on the list. Are they all scientists to?

What degree would you expect a scientist to hold?


Gotta admit they lost me on point one tho: that it will increase ghg emissions. That means there is no oil transportation project that would satisfy these folks. Then they probably hopped in their SUV's with the stickfigure little family on the back window (the biggest threat to the environment is an ever increasing population) and drove home and sat by their gas fireplace to relax.

These folks are making the same mistake the war on drugs did, going after the distributor instead of the consumer. As long as there is demand, there will be somebody along to satisfy it. And what they don't want to admit is how much demand would have to decrease to make a whit of difference.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

And what they don't want to admit is how much demand would have to decrease to make a whit of difference.

You would be surprised as to how much demand could be decreased via small modifications to the Canadian & Provincial building codes.

Throw in a couple adjustments to civic planning theorem, and I am fairly confident that we could knock a significant amount of demand off.

Doesn't help with any of the existing pieces, but at least gives us a couple good steps in the right direction.

[andyt]

Show me some figures of overall ghg reduction as a percentage, and I'll believe you. Haven't we already been warned that we've passed the point of no return on ghg? If we really could make a significant difference with relatively minor adjustments, well shame on us for not doing so. We could also add a ghg tax to gasoline that really has a bite and gets people out of their SUV's and pickups. I don't know how significant that would be, but we haven't even tried that.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Gotta admit they lost me on point one tho: that it will increase ghg emissions. That means there is no oil transportation project that would satisfy these folks. Then they probably hopped in their SUV's with the stickfigure little family on the back window (the biggest threat to the environment is an ever increasing population) and drove home and sat by their gas fireplace to relax.

They didn't reject it just because it will bring more GHG's:

$1:

The need for the Project as stipulated by Enbridge includes consideration of the enhanced revenues that would accrue from higher prices for oil sands products in Asian markets. These enhanced revenues are benefits to producers from production. The environmental risks, however, were only considered if they are associated with transport, not production or later burning consumption. All negative effects associated with the enhanced production of oil sands bitumen, or the burning of such products in Asia, were excluded, as were greenhouse gas emissions generally.

This exclusion of the project's contributions to increased at mospheric emissions undermines Canada’s formal international commitments and federal policies on greenhouse emissions.

They say to consider only the monetary gain from the project is flawed, especially when it will go against Harper's 'environmentally friendly' suit he's trying to wear.

andyt andyt:

These folks are making the same mistake the war on drugs did, going after the distributor instead of the consumer. As long as there is demand, there will be somebody along to satisfy it. And what they don't want to admit is how much demand would have to decrease to make a whit of difference.

Agreed.

[andyt]

I just stopped reading their arguments after that first canard. I have no doubt that the fix was in for Northern Gateway to be approved. But people who reject a project based on ghg production don't have any validity imo. We're not going to shut down our industry, just not going to happen.

[BartSimpson]

In short, Canada should cease exporting all oil and coal in order to reduce ghg emissions.

That's a GREAT idea!

You should do it!

I personally think it'd be AWESOME to see the CDN$ trading against the US$ at 3:1.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

Show me some figures of overall ghg reduction as a percentage, and I'll believe you.

2012
Total CO2 emissions: 699 Mt
CO2 emissions attributed to buildings: 80 Mt (11.4%)

CO2 emissions attributed to a carbon neutral building: 0 Mt.

So...switching every building in Canada to a carbon neutral building (yes, many types of existing buildings can be converted), will net you around 11% reduction in total Canadian emissions.

A little late now, but just that change gets us awfully close to the Copenhagen target (612 Mt).

[andyt]

That does sound good. doubt if the expense if feasible to convert all buildings. So it would be something we do to reduce future carbon emissions.

[DanSC]

They should have asked me, considering that I work in transportation safety. Anyone who argues shipping by rail is safer than shipping by pipeline is wrong and dangerous.

According to the Transportation Safety Board, approximately 21 billion litres of oil traveled on Canadian railways in 2013 (160,000 car loads * 131,000 liters per DOT-111 tank car). Canada also had four rail accidents involving crude oil tankers (there was also a fifth accident where a train struck an tanker trunk at a level crossing). Canadian railways also experienced 94 incidents that resulted in the release of dangerous goods, of which 35% involved oil, so 33 incidents that released oil. In total, there were 37 incidents where a Canadian oil train released oil.

Canada shipped 207 billion litres of oil (207 million cubic meters) by pipeline in 2013. Canadian pipelines of all types suffered 11 accidents and 118 incidents; unfortunately TSB doesn't separate all statistics by what was flowing through the pipeline. TSB does however count when an accident or incident results in a leak, and in 2013, 48 accidents and incidents resulted in the release of petroleum crude oil, sour crude oil, or refined petroleum products.

In conclusion, pipelines in Canada move approximately 10 (9.88 times to be more exact) times more oil than railways, yet have only 30% more total releases of oil. In other terms, railways have 1.765 leaks per billion litres moved, while pipelines have 0.232 leaks per billion litres moved.

Source for rail statistics
Source for pipeline statistics

[Zipperfish]

I was going to complain that I don't like it when scientists use try to politicize an issue with the "science is on our side" argument. Most of these guiys are against teh pipeline for ethical or policy reasons and that was probably the basis of their signing a petition stuck in front of them. I doubt that all of them read the Panel report and the submissions to the panel.

CBC used the word "scientists" but in the letter to the prime minister that word is not used. Rather they use the term scholars, which I think is more appropriate.