Shawn Graham and the Environment....

[mtm]

I'm just so confused by this, and the NDP is the only party to pick up on it. Today the Federal Libs passed a law that sees the Feds have to re-implement a Kyoto plan.

Yet on the same day the Provincial Libs stated that they will not be meeting Kyoto targets and will be making what is essentially a "Made in NB" (sound familiar) strategy for environmental (in)action. Consequently, Irving is proposing a new oil refinery in Saint John and their existing refinery is the biggest CO2 emitter in the province by far.

So I guess my thoughts on this is, when you join the lib party you get a membership to both the Prov and Fed parties. So if you're a Liberal, you support a strict priority on Kyoto and a leader who has made the environment his number one issue.

But you also support a Premier who is proposing we burn Pet coke in our power plants, one of the dirtiest and carcinogenic fossil fuels, the bottom of the barrell bi-product of oil refining (gee wonder where that will come from), and is supporting a second oil refinery in the most populous city in the province that already has the worst air quality and highest asthma and carcinogenic particulate rates in the province and one of the worst in the country?

How can you really be a NB Liberal and not be contradicting yourself. I don't get it at all. The ironic thing is that the NB Conservatives are saying that Graham should at least try to meet Kyoto (its about trying at this point because even notable environmentalists acknowledge that it cant be done by 2010 given the province's finances)...

Its just mind boggling. What is a liberal but a hypocrite in this instance. "Kyoto for Canada, but NB is special we dont have to"

From Fundy Royal NDP website.

It should be seen as no coincidence that on this day, two separate news stories dominated the media in Fredericton and Ottawa respectively. At the Legislature, Premier Shawn Graham publicly stated that New Brunswick would not be living up to its Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The province’s current emissions are at 47% of 1990 levels, and the Kyoto Protocol calls for a 6% reduction from 1990 levels by the year 2010. The opposition Conservatives were quick to criticize Graham’s autonomous plan for environmental action, and lauded the benefits of cooperative government initiatives to combat climate change.

This situation seems remarkably similar to the battle that has been waging in Ottawa since Stephen Harper’s Conservatives took a minority government in 2006. In fact, today Parliament passed the bill of Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez to reinstate the Federal government’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. This was the end result of the headstrong actions of a Conservative government that refused to live up to an agreement that 70% of Canadians support.

In New Brunswick the situation is exactly the same, except it is the Liberal government turning its back on an international agreement, with Conservatives taking the opposite view. How can Liberal and Conservative party members in this province truly support their own leaders, when the views of each branch of the party are so clearly divergent? This hypocrisy exposes both parties and their obvious lip-service to the environmental issue.

The NDP is the only party that has supported the Kyoto Protocol and is unwavering in its commitment to improving and preserving our environment. New Brunswick deserves a voice that will represent your true values and will not play political games of chess with the lives of our future generations.

[geoffrey]

NB and Alberta may come out of this as unlikely partners.

You see, the Federal government is in a bit of a pickle. They made a commitment they can now not only never keep, but never really could take responsibility for in the first place.

Natural resource based industries are the biggest emitters of CO2 in Canada. Fortunately, all natural resource conservation, development, planning and taxation is soley the responsibility of the provincial government, and Ottawa can't touch it. So too bad, so sad, Kyoto isn't happening and Alberta... and like minded provinces now like NB, will clean up the environment on their own terms... terms that won't cost industry billions and thousands their jobs.

[White Doors]

The Irving refinery is the cleanest in NA. It was also the first to produce sulphur free gasoline. California is one of the biggest purchasers of the gasoline refined there for that reason. They have to refine it somwhere and as long as they operate it as cleanly as they do now why would we say no to the economic activity?

To do so would be absolutely insane.

To say no would be for a socialist reason, not an environmental one.

Meanwhile the city of Saint John dumps millions of gallons of untreated sewage into it's harbour everyday and the so-called 'environmentalists' don't say a peep.

Why do you suppose that is so?

Also, the air quality problems in SJ were never because of the refinery but rather because of the pulp and paper mill. If you have ever lived there you would know that.

[mtm]

The Irving refinery is the cleanest in NA. It was also the first to produce sulphur free gasoline. California is one of the biggest purchasers of the gasoline refined there for that reason. They have to refine it somwhere and as long as they operate it as cleanly as they do now why would we say no to the economic activity?

To do so would be absolutely insane.

To say no would be for a socialist reason, not an environmental one.

Meanwhile the city of Saint John dumps millions of gallons of untreated sewage into it's harbour everyday and the so-called 'environmentalists' don't say a peep.

Why do you suppose that is so?

Also, the air quality problems in SJ were never because of the refinery but rather because of the pulp and paper mill. If you have ever lived there you would know that.

the environmentalists have been very outspoken about Harbour Cleanup for a long time now. In fact its been one of the major issues in the last 2 Paul Zed federal campaigns. It is something that many people in the SJ community have been talking about for a long time.

I'd suggest you check your facts before you make a statement such as this.

Also, just because the Irving refinery is the "cleanest" in North America doesn't mean it is not the provinces single largest emitter of carbon, and it is not a huge burden on the health of Saint Johners, most notably those who live on its doorstep in Champlain Heights. Calling any oil refinery, no less one of the largest in the country, "clean" is just a total misnomer.

I would like to also add that this claim is only true when the refinery is running at normal capacity and production. During the expansion two or three years ago, there were all kinds of teething problems and malfunctions, that resulted in huge flares and burn offs. I remember one day in the summer I was out in Belleisle at dusk overlooking the Kingston Peninsula (over 50-60km and several mountains away) and I could see the red flicker in the sky and a huge black cloud. Granted, thats an extraneous condition, but keep in mind, they want to build ANOTHER refinery, and those kinds of start up procedures on a new plant, new equipment and the like WILL be inevitable, and quite persistent for the first months and even up to a year of operation...and it will be SJ'ers bearing the costs of those.

Also, I would just like to add in closing that while you did try and make some points, you completely missed what I was trying to get at here. When you buy a membership, you are a member of the provincial and federal party. If you are a Liberal supporter, especially an involved one, how would it be possible to reconcile the views of a Federal party that supports Kyoto at all costs in its efforts against Harper, while simultaneously supporting Graham, who like Harper, supports independent initiatives.

I am not talking here of whether Kyoto is good/bad. I clearly have an opinion, but its not about MY opinion. What I want to know, is how could a Liberal support the contradictory views of their Provincial and Federal bodies, REGARDLESS of which side of the issue they support. I'm talking both sides here.

@ Geoffrey, I do see an Alberta/NB strategic partnership here. Its inevitable. The funny thing though is that Graham is always talking about NB self-sufficiency but it cannot and wont happen as long as we have this mass exodus of people (ironically to Alberta).

[White Doors]

Also, just because the Irving refinery is the "cleanest" in North America doesn't mean it is not the provinces single largest emitter of carbon, and it is not a huge burden on the health of Saint Johners, most notably those who live on its doorstep in Champlain Heights. Calling any oil refinery, no less one of the largest in the country, "clean" is just a total misnomer.

uhh.. CO2 isn't a pollutant. That makes as much sense as saying that Pt. Lepreau is the provinces biggest single emitter of radiation.

the environmentalists have been very outspoken about Harbour Cleanup for a long time now. In fact its been one of the major issues in the last 2 Paul Zed federal campaigns. It is something that many people in the SJ community have been talking about for a long time.

Yes, normal citizens.. I don;t see David Suzuki taking time out of his Co2 jihad to rail against raw sewage being dumped in the ocean like so many cities on the East Coast do. And we wonder why the salmon fishery has collapsed? They locate their home river by smell. Hmmm.. raw sewage and smell... coinkydink ya think?

I would like to also add that this claim is only true when the refinery is running at normal capacity and production. During the expansion two or three years ago, there were all kinds of teething problems and malfunctions, that resulted in huge flares and burn offs. I remember one day in the summer I was out in Belleisle at dusk overlooking the Kingston Peninsula (over 50-60km and several mountains away) and I could see the red flicker in the sky and a huge black cloud. Granted, thats an extraneous condition, but keep in mind, they want to build ANOTHER refinery, and those kinds of start up procedures on a new plant, new equipment and the like WILL be inevitable, and quite persistent for the first months and even up to a year of operation...and it will be SJ'ers bearing the costs of those.

uhhh 'flare ups' are just gasoline being burnt. Probably would account for less than 10% of the 'carbon' released in SJ everyday by cars. I call BS that you seen that from Belleisle however.

Also, I would just like to add in closing that while you did try and make some points, you completely missed what I was trying to get at here. When you buy a membership, you are a member of the provincial and federal party. If you are a Liberal supporter, especially an involved one, how would it be possible to reconcile the views of a Federal party that supports Kyoto at all costs in its efforts against Harper, while simultaneously supporting Graham, who like Harper, supports independent initiatives.

I am not talking here of whether Kyoto is good/bad. I clearly have an opinion, but its not about MY opinion. What I want to know, is how could a Liberal support the contradictory views of their Provincial and Federal bodies, REGARDLESS of which side of the issue they support. I'm talking both sides here.

Quite easily actually.. The Kyoto protocol is nowhere in the liberal membership declaration and another thing, the burden of power.

[mtm]

Ok, Mr. Semantics. CO2 aside, its still a major emitter of actual pollutants as well. You just can't call ANY oil refinery clean. It is never going to be clean. Take a nice breath of Fresh Air in Saint John and tell me there are no harmful pollutants coming out of that refinery. Its dirty enough just having one. We definitely don't need two.

Speaking from an economic standpoint as well, a lot of people that work at the refinery have moved out to mispec and red head to be as close to the refinery while being far enough away as to not get hit by the pollution cloud (prevailing winds go in the other direction more often than not due to the wind coming in off the BoF). IF they build another refinery, these people are going to move out of the tax base altogether to places like KV and Hampton, and SJ will lose a huge amount of city revenue, because of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem. The mass exodus to the burbs will only strengthen when SJ opens another refinery.

by the way, you call bs on my belleisle story do you? And what evidence do you have to call BS? I'm only telling you what we saw. In the evenings you could see the red hue and flashes in the sky and the smoke cloud pertruding from the horizon in the direction of Saint John. I'm not making this up, why would you accuse me of making it up? Its perfectly plausible, its only 50 kms....and there was a TON of burning done.

[White Doors]

Ok, Mr. Semantics. CO2 aside, its still a major emitter of actual pollutants as well. You just can't call ANY oil refinery clean. It is never going to be clean. Take a nice breath of Fresh Air in Saint John and tell me there are no harmful pollutants coming out of that refinery. Its dirty enough just having one. We definitely don't need two.

Well with that thinking we should shut down Pt. Lepreau too. What about the LNG plant, should we shut that plant down as well? Belldune? What else would you like to shut down? Look, as long as it passes an environmental review and they take care of the environement than I don't see an issue. I mean, it's not like NB doesn't need the jobs! Or would you rather have NB continue to suck off the federal teet into perpetuity?

Look, Saint John isn't 'dirty' because of the refinery. It is 'dirty' because it's a freaking old city and the pulp and paper mill and all the shite in the harbour.

by the way, you call bs on my belleisle story do you? And what evidence do you have to call BS? I'm only telling you what we saw. In the evenings you could see the red hue and flashes in the sky and the smoke cloud pertruding from the horizon in the direction of Saint John. I'm not making this up, why would you accuse me of making it up? Its perfectly plausible, its only 50 kms....and there was a TON of burning done.

Fair enough I thought you said you could see the flames themselves. my apologies.

Speaking from an economic standpoint as well, a lot of people that work at the refinery have moved out to mispec and red head to be as close to the refinery while being far enough away as to not get hit by the pollution cloud (prevailing winds go in the other direction more often than not due to the wind coming in off the BoF). IF they build another refinery, these people are going to move out of the tax base altogether to places like KV and Hampton, and SJ will lose a huge amount of city revenue, because of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem. The mass exodus to the burbs will only strengthen when SJ opens another refinery.

That's Saint John's issue. They need to expand their boundaries, should have been done years ago. Regardless of property taxes, this will be huge for SJ and the whole southern province. No one disputes that. Your ramblings are just that.

[mtm]

ramblings? Speak for yourself.

Every point I've made has been valid. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm a raving lunatic. And I think its a valid criticism to point out that the Provincial Liberals refute Kyoto while the Federal Liberals are making Kyoto an absolute priority. There is a total and obvious hypocrisy there and its good for people to question it.

Saying the reason why it happens (the pressures of office, the realities of power, etc, etc) doesn't excuse the system from being broken. The NB Liberal party is completely off-base with their Federal counterparts and that needs to be exposed for what it is.

The refinery issue is for another day but since we've gone there, I will make a final comment. As you can well imagine, I am against it for many good environmental, economic, and practical reasons. Amalgamation will never happen because the communities of Rothesay, Quispam etc don't want to have to put up with Saint John's burden and I dont think anyone in any of those communities will support it in any way. Bringing in more of the same (heavy and dirty industry) is not going to fix SJ's problem. Its just a repetition of the same failed behaviour pattern. The SJ council must realize that money being made is not the be all and end all when a disproportionate amount of that money actually gets filtered back into the city and its residents. They have to stop giving tax breaks and incentives and realize the true costs of industry in their backyards in terms of the wider picture.

As it is right now, SJ has become a commuter town, where all the people who work in its industrial sector are living outside of the city boundaries. As SJ encourages more industry, they are encouraging more people to leave. I would really like to see what the ratio is for every 100 jobs created in SJ how many actually choose to reside in the city.

Saint John has become the American Northeast's solution to the 'not in my backyard' problem. We are a flow through economy and we suffer the residuals for products we never see. Critically, the profits are enjoyed by Irving and a few others and not flowed back into SJ's economy as you would expect to see. With all the money being made in Saint John, it is uncanny to me that the City is in deep financial trouble. It is inexcusable, and replicating past behaviour is only going to exacerbate the problem.

[White Doors]

Saying the reason why it happens (the pressures of office, the realities of power, etc, etc) doesn't excuse the system from being broken. The NB Liberal party is completely off-base with their Federal counterparts and that needs to be exposed for what it is.

newflash - they are not the same parties despite the name. Did you not know this?

The refinery issue is for another day but since we've gone there, I will make a final comment. As you can well imagine, I am against it for many good environmental, economic, and practical reasons. Amalgamation will never happen because the communities of Rothesay, Quispam etc don't want to have to put up with Saint John's burden and I dont think anyone in any of those communities will support it in any way. Bringing in more of the same (heavy and dirty industry) is not going to fix SJ's problem. Its just a repetition of the same failed behaviour pattern. The SJ council must realize that money being made is not the be all and end all when a disproportionate amount of that money actually gets filtered back into the city and its residents. They have to stop giving tax breaks and incentives and realize the true costs of industry in their backyards in terms of the wider picture.

As it is right now, SJ has become a commuter town, where all the people who work in its industrial sector are living outside of the city boundaries. As SJ encourages more industry, they are encouraging more people to leave. I would really like to see what the ratio is for every 100 jobs created in SJ how many actually choose to reside in the city.

You know that those high paying jobs will improve the economy of Saint John no matter where they live, correct? This project will provide a very large boost to the economy of Saint John and area. It is a good thing. As long as this passes all evnironmental regulations then no rational person should be against it.

Saint John has become the American Northeast's solution to the 'not in my backyard' problem. We are a flow through economy and we suffer the residuals for products we never see. Critically, the profits are enjoyed by Irving and a few others and not flowed back into SJ's economy as you would expect to see. With all the money being made in Saint John, it is uncanny to me that the City is in deep financial trouble. It is inexcusable, and replicating past behaviour is only going to exacerbate the problem.

This is exactly WHy they need another refinery. Why ship our natural resources to the US RAW? A refinery makes an 'added value' finished good for export. If you really believe what you wrote here, then you should be on board with the project. If you are still not then you are just proving you have a very spurious handle on basic economics and should refrain from using terms that you plainly do not understand.

Your call.