If there is one thing BC and Alberta can’t see eye to eye on, it’s oil pipelines. The incessant demands by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith for another oil pipeline to the West Coast spells nothing but trouble for her BC counterpart, David Eby.
Compared to folks on the Prairies, British Columbians aren’t keen on pipelines carrying heavy crude across their lands and rivers. They resent being asked to shoulder the risk posed by spills which have been ongoing since the mid-20th century when Canada’s pipeline buildout began. Nor do they like the idea of gargantuan oil tankers navigating tricky coastal passages; many still remember the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska which killed thousands of birds and marine mammals and decimated the region’s herring population.
These are sizable risks, and for what? As long ago as 2012, even BC’s centre-right, fossil fuel-friendly government under then-premier Christy Clark pointed out the inequities of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline’s risk/benefit equation. “Given that BC would shoulder 100 per cent of the marine risk and a significant portion of the land-based risk, we do not feel the current approach to sharing these benefits is appropriate,” said former environment minister Terry Lake at the time.
Environmental concerns ultimately killed the Enbridge project in 2016, leaving Kinder Morgan’s plan to twin the Trans Mountain pipeline as the only remaining pipeline project. The BC NDP spoke out against that, too. In the lead up to the 2018 election, BC NDP leader John Horgan campaigned on using “every tool in the toolbox” to block the pipeline. He couldn’t stop it, of course, but the promise to try helped him win the election. It also soured his relationship with fellow NDP Premier Rachel Notley, who led Alberta’s government in those years.
Now, with Trump’s tariffs threatening Canada’s economy, oil pipelines are having another moment and there is huge pressure on Eby to bend. Smith has the US trade war as a reason to play hardball in her demands for another pipeline to the BC coast, calling it a national unity issue and stoking the fires of an Alberta separation movement at a time when Canada desperately needs unity.
There are signs her blackmail tactics are working, at least to a certain extent. In a joint statement released late Monday, the first ministers agreed that Canada should quickly build new pipelines to get natural resources, such as “decarbonized Canadian oil and gas,” to domestic and international markets. The notion of “decarbonized” oil and gas is greenwashing at best. At worst it is “a dangerous lie that Canadian government after Canadian government has tried to spin under the spell of industry lobbying,” Catherine Abreu, director, International Climate Politics Hub, wrote in response.
The agreement, insofar as it applies to oil and gas, sounds a whole lot like the status quo. A greenlight for the oil giants to keep pumping oil out of the oilsands and governments to keep pouring money for carbon capture into their pockets, despite an alarming lack of evidence it will ever work at scale.
It will come as no surprise to Eby, who, before he left on a trade mission to Asia last week, dismissed Smith’s pipeline call as “very predictable” and noted no such proposal from the oil and gas sector itself currently exists. While all the premiers are under enormous pressure to cooperate to beat back the US economic threats, Eby cannot afford to ignore the large percentage of his electorate who care about the environment and climate change. These are overwhelmingly NDP voters, the very people who gave Eby his mandate.
It’s worth recalling that Eby came close to losing the NDP leadership race after a challenge from a climate activist, who was backed by the party’s climate wing. Anjali Appadurai was disqualified from the race for using third parties to sign up new members. But the thousands who supported her sent Eby a crystal clear message: ignore climate and the environment at your peril.
To some extent, Eby seems to have listened. Some of his top officials include Deputy Premier Niki Sharma, who was a senior campaigner for the climate advocacy group Stand.Earth; Christine Boyle, who pushed for strong civic climate policy as a Vancouver city councillor; and Adrian Dix, his energy and climate minister, who lost his own bid for premier several elections ago after speaking out against pipeline expansion.
So why did Sharma, who filled in for Eby at the first ministers’ meeting, sign the agreement? Possibly the NDP will try to argue there is no world in which all the conditions for a new pipeline can be met.
Carney stated from the outset that criteria for major projects must be that they contribute to clean growth, have Indigenous participation and a high likelihood of execution. It is just as delusional to slot oil and gas development into the clean growth slot as it is to buy into the decarbonized oil and gas myth.
Ultimately, the future of new pipelines in Canada rests with Carney, whose own leadership campaign was supported by the climate wing of the Liberal party. Yet much to the dismay of those supporters, he has expressed a willingness to discuss future pipelines.
Carney is under immense pressure to make peace among the premiers. And a hard no would further inflame Smith and the band of Alberta separatists in her camp. Given his climate background, we can only hope that like Eby, he is looking for an out. Slow-walking new pipeline projects while the debate over clean growth and mythical “decarbonized” oil and gas plays out, could be a good option. The exit ramp is there – Carney only has to take it.
Comments
Article: "It is just as delusional to slot oil and gas development into the clean growth slot as it is to buy into the decarbonized oil and gas myth."
You'd be surprised.
The Liberals have long hyped the fantasy of "clean energy" from oilsands extraction.
The Liberals have redefined "clean technology" and "clean growth" to mean reducing the oilsands industry's emissions from a business-as-usual case. Nothing more.
The Liberals have nothing to lose by approving new pipelines. The Liberals are not ruled by conscience. As history has shown, the Liberals will declare a climate emergency one day, and approve a pipeline the next. Nothing will stop them.
Certainly, progressive voters will not stop them.
Every election, progressives turn out to support the Liberals — and vote for climate failure under the Liberal banner — because the Conservatives would be even worse.
In 2017 Ottawa announced $28.8-million in grants for 11 companies focused on "clean energy and water technology".
"What is the 'clean technology sector'?", you ask.
A $10-million grant to help microwaves replace steam to extract BITUMEN from the OILSANDS.
Other grants went to firms working in such areas as "improving desalination and recycling of water used for OIL PRODUCTION, increasing the energy efficiency of large buildings, and cutting methane emissions."
No subsidies for the oil industry, of course. Just $28.8-million in grants, because the oil giants can't afford to fund their own R&D.
Of the $28.8 million for 11 "clean technology" projects, $26,078,000 or 91% went to 9 oil & gas industry projects.
$0 and 0% on renewables.
Clean technology is whatever the federal govt says it is.
"Governments of Canada and Alberta invest in cutting-edge clean technologies to encourage clean growth"
https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2…
Pre-election, Adrienne Tanner was boosting "Carney's green dream team" (National Observer, 03-Apr-25)
"Carney has attracted a team of candidates who have put in boots-on-the-ground time pushing for a clean energy transition. First and foremost, Carney kept Steven Guilbeault, Canada's former Minister of Environment and Climate Change, in cabinet. Guilbeault was shuffled out of the climate file, but as a member of Carney's small cabinet team he still holds a lot of sway.
"… There are other climate stars on the roster I'm sure, but you get the picture. These candidates are true believers who must be confident that no matter what happens in the short term, Carney will press ahead with other types of climate policy. …] If climate is your issue, you've got to take a good hard look at the Liberals.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/04/03/opinion/carney-green-dream-…
Even post-election, The Observer tried to keep our hopes up:
Chris Hatch: "It's time to shift from relief to gratitude as Carney helps steer the climate transition" (National Observer, May 5 2025)
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/05/05/opinion/mark-carney-climate…
"These new MPs have climate backgrounds — will they deliver?" (National Observer, May 27 2025)
"At the time, [Bruce Fanjoy] said the environment was part of what was driving him to try and unseat Poilievre, calling him 'a salesman' for the oil and gas industry.
"'There's no scenario for a sustainable planet that involves pouring more and more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have to change that.'"
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/05/27/news/mp-climate-federal-gov…
But growing unease set in:
"Carney open to changing major environment policies so projects can 'move forward'" (National Observer, May 15 2025)
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/05/15/news/carney-open-changing-i…
"Carney's cabinet signals potential softening on climate" (National Observer, 14-May-25)
"Prime Minister Mark Carney announced his new cabinet on Tuesday with a speech at Rideau Hall outlining his priorities — and like the speech, which did not mention climate change, the cabinet itself signals a potential shift in a new direction.
"Carney's cabinet signals a 'potential downgrading' of climate change and environment, says Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental governance at York University.
"'There's a lot of unknowns here in terms of specifics, but it certainly seems that climate is less central to the government's agenda than it was. …
"'We're not talking about energy transitions anymore, it would seem.'"
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/05/14/news/carney-cabinet-pivot-c…
As history and political insiders attest, Carney's green dream team has no power or influence over the Liberals' climate/energy agenda. Mere ciphers.
Even the Environment Minister has no say in project approvals.
How many times will Lucy hold the football for Charlie Brown, only to pull it away at the last second? How many times will Charlie Brown fall for this trick?
After another decade of climate failure by the Liberals, faint hope still lingers on the horizon. Ever out of reach.
A vote for the Liberals is a vote for fossil-fuel expansion and climate failure.
Clap back with their kind of language, you know: "Show me the beef".
"Give me a concrete proposal, with funding lined up, ready to commit. Your budget better be realistic, because private industry will have to bear the risks if the costs go up. No more bailouts!"
They need to relentlessly refer to TMX as the "pipeline bailout". "TMX" and "bailout" should be all-one-word in their mouths. The same treatment the "job killing carbon tax" got hit with.
Requiring any proposal to not lean on government, guarantee private funding, no bailouts, and the whole subject will go dead.
A lot of noise does not a signal make. Chatter and "maybe, probably, could be, possibly, potentially ..." does not mean there is an actual pipeline project in the works.
Three steps that will give challenge the pipeline proponents:
1. Require an auditable business case.
2. Require an independent critical analysis of the current and estimated demand for oil and gas in Canada's export markets.
3. Require a full professional risk assessment of all pipeline and tanker shipping projects.
Any project that ignores financial implications, overseas demand and risk does not deserve any kind of approval.