President Obama’s decision on the Keystone pipeline was no surprise. But it nonetheless came like one.
Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and the most aggressive environmentalist on this issue, explained why on NPR:
Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and the most aggressive environmentalist on this issue, explained why on NPR:
This is the first time that a world leader has stopped a major fossil fuel project because of its effect on the climate. It’s the first time that the power of big oil’s been broken like that even a little, and that’s a pretty astonishing thing.
.
Similar angle from David Roberts on Vox:
Plenty of people of good faith, even those who share a concern over climate change, are skeptical of, or at least puzzled by, the Keystone campaign. They all have versions of the same question: why this? It doesn’t seem like that big a deal in terms of carbon emissions. So why so much angst and organizing, so much wearying persistence, over this? …
… all the ongoing climate activist campaigns — divestment, the “thin green line” fighting fossil fuel exports in the Pacific Northwest, the “stranded assets” push in the financial world, the whole “keep it in the ground” movement that’s gathering steam, the #ExxonKnew investigations — are ultimately aimed at the same goal. They seek to remove the social license enjoyed by fossil fuel companies. …
Getting there means removing that presumptive social warrant, the default yes. It means creating a new heuristic: fossil fuels must be reduced as fast as practically possible. It means creating a new default answer to fossil fuel infrastructure: no, unless a case can be made that the climate damage is worth it. This wouldn’t mean cutting off all fossil fuels tomorrow, despite the crude caricatures painted of activists. But it would mean steadily raising the bar, changing a defeasible presumption of innocence to a defeasible presumption of guilt. …
What effect will it have on the economy, and on society, when fossil fuel companies lose their social license?
I honestly don’t know. Social change is nonlinear and devilishly hard to predict. But it seems far from futile or pointless. It seems like an important part of the most important fight in the world.
.
The Enbridge pipeline seems like the obvious analogy in the Lower Mainland to the Keystone campaign, but I wonder whether this might be too:
.
The Massey Bridge proposal: announced out of the blue, with no records of the rationale, no explanation beyond ‘it solves congestion’ and ‘the tunnel must be replaced’ (MetroVanWatch goes into the arguments here.) And especially, no discussion about what the impacts might be on the ALR, the Pacific flyway and the regional strategic plan. Not even a defense, really, for building a $2-3 billion, 10-lane bridge that drops on to land below sea level in order to, in part, facilitate the movement of shipping up river so we can more effectively sell carbon to the world. Climate change, we’re saying by our actions, is irrelevant.
Could Massey, then, be our Keystone – another piece of infrastructure built at great cost to accelerate both the expansion of an urban form dependent on high-energy consumption and the movement of fossil fuels to facilitate it – all the while disregarding climate change?
Honestly, I doubt whether the analogy to Keystone can be stretched that far; I throw this out to generate some discussion about aspects of the bridge that have been neglected. But I doubt the issue would be similarly catalyzing in this community.
Or could it?
A very difficult sell to stop this thing, but not impossible. Your analogy is correct: by approving this thing we’re telling the world that climate change is immaterial. The tricky part is that the region is not pushing it – the province is. And the province has no qualms about accelerating climate change so long as a few quick bucks are made along the way.
But the province is vulnerable on disdain for transparently. It seems that opposition should focus on the secrecy of the ‘business case’ the province is scrambling to put together to rationalize the decision to build it. I’m guessing that the thing has to be 10 lanes (or at least 8) to provide sufficient capacity/likely ridership to justify borrowing the money to build it as part of a P3 scheme. This is a very big $2B secret.
“Telling the world?” 75% of the region don’t care, haven’t heard, and won’t be bothered.
They don’t care about the bridge, necessarily. But people in this province do care about a provincial government that makes decisions (big or small) with no transparency or willingness to provide justification.
The Rationale was triple-deleted.
I love the analogy.
The Province is asking the voting public to subsidize the Transit system while they are more than willing to subsidize $Billions to the automobile! I am really glad that the press has taken an interest in the ‘business case’, but sadly it’s the lack of planning or consultation with the GVRD that should be the focus. If you look at the history of the Crosstown expressway in Toronto there is a great precedent for turning back unwarranted large scale public projects. What is needed in the Delta (and the rest of Vancouver) area is public transport. We can only achieve better transportation infrastructure through dialogue with all levels of government. Political decisions have no place in the process.
You shouldn’t be so cheap with your love. You probably love dogs, too, right?
I can see the arguments in favour of a bridge replacing a 50s-era submerged tunnel not engineered for seismic loading. And I can see the rationale for removing the tunnel to allow larger ships to use the South Arm without ripping their keels on the tunnel roof.
A 4-lane bridge would do it if transit was implemented to reduce the SOVs that make up the majority of traffic, or a max of 6 for additional trucks. But 10? That’s profoundly archaic.
Regarding exports of fossil fuels and a deeper channel, well, there are other cargos like containers, potash, dimension lumber and, if government actually had policies to foster value-added industries, then more manufactured goods and less raw resources.
Metro Vancouver’s Keystone XL moment was the Transit Plebiscite, and the decision went the wrong way. It was a major chance to publically declare the region’s support for green policies, concern over climate change and the practical continuation of more transition away from fossil-fuel dependant transportation. But it was not to be.
The public and the press swallowed every word from the CTF (Fraser Institute acolytes, with secret funding no less). And declared that the automobile and fossil fuels alone will rule for quite some time.
This ludicrously easy result, in my opinion, has emboldened the cars n’ trucks people of the Provincial Gov’t. And the Massey replacement is the result. And who cares about a business plan.
Just like the Alberta and federal election went the “wrong” way ? Perhaps Ken, just perhaps, tax payers are sick and tired of paying ever more taxes without getting adequate and competitively priced services from union controlled cities or bureaucracies like TransLink [ BC Hydro, BC Ferries, ICBC of course also guilty as charged]? Perhaps people like their individual cars in the rain, rather than waiting for a crowded bus ? Perhaps they like to get to a destination fast, on their own terms, rather than changing buses or trains 3x times and take triple the time to get from A to B ?
The mayors and most councils in MetroVan have two tools (besides efficiencies which will be opposed until we make strikes in the public sector illegal) namely far higher property taxes and far higher parking fees. They just chose to not use these tools, but rather shift the blame to “the province” for more money they could easily collect themselves in their own cities to fund public transit, housing or other required services.
I am all for higher property taxes and higher PSTs btw, if in lieu we’d see reduced salary and benefit packages of too many civil servants with high job security AND lower or no income taxes. [ That is the model Texas uses, btw where the state consumption tax is 8%].
Housing is consumption. Why is there no PST like land transfer tax of 7%, say over a base house (say above $500,000 in MetroVan ). Why can multi-billionaires buy vast mansions and pay next to nothing in income taxes here, next to nothing in land transfer taxes and next to nothing in property taxes (compared to other desirable jurisdictions like many US cities or London, Hongkong, Singapore or Monaco) and often even claim a capital gains exemptions as their “home” ? Billions are left on teh table here for MetroVan, billions, annually ! Atatck that please, not the referendum, Ken !
Imagine: BC dropped all provincial income taxes on corporations and individuals, but tripled the provicial portion of property taxes, and perhaps introduced road tolls as well (or allowed cities to collect it at choke point of their chosing). What a booming province we’d have ! Yes, driving a car would cost more, far more, as would owning a house. But we’d see fewer cars, and those that can afford a car woudl be happy to pay for it ! That is the new reality we face today: many users of all sorts of services services that do not pay, or pay far too little. Seniors, foreign house owners, affluent immigrants all would actually pay their fair share of taxes. Now THAT would be worthy a referendum to support ! That actually would make sense and would lead to more sustainable cities.
Our tax mix has to change, to change behavior. Why tax good behavior (encourage folks to make a high income) rather than poor behavior (high consumption or a huge home or a huge car) ?
Look up the word conflate.
“The referendum was our Holocaust! OMG, it was like … like … WW4 or something!!”
One is a major 2700 km pipeline across the continent.
The other, is a local highway, involving daylighting 750 metres of pavement.
In situ. In an obsolete, near 60-year-old tunnel.
Come on.
You’re missing the point. The bridge replacement is being pushed through in order to open up the Port Metro facilities to ship carbon energy through the Fraser. Currently they can’t send large vessels through the area because the tunnel is a physical speed bump at low tide.
We’re missing yours; you’d support the bridge if it was designed to block shipping? So?
The bridge has to be at least as wide as is planned to accommodate the eight lanes of traffic merging in from the south right now. If you consider the desire to have dedicated lanes for transit, it starts getting tight. With all the various electric and hybrid vehicles coming into the market emissions are only going down.
A valuable injection into the region of funds for design and construction.
Safer than the narrow tunnel that has no shoulders. More healthy for drivers and passengers that will not have to breathe the fumes. Safer than an aging non-earthquake resistant tunnel under a massive mass of flowing water.
Good for efficiency of traffic, good for transit, good for cyclists, good for shipping, good for tourists visiting from the USA and therefore, good for hotels and restaurants, good for travellers coming off the ferries, good for businesses in general and for families and people in general too.
You’re missing the point. The bridge replacement is being pushed through in order to open up the Port Metro facilities to ship carbon energy through the Fraser. Currently they can’t send large vessels through the area because the tunnel is a physical speed bump at low tide.
Opening up the Fraser to big ships requires two massive projects: building a tall enough bridge and removing the old tunnel.
Engineers asked about the project have stated that the old tunnel should stay where it is and be sealed off. It’s the sensible, logical, cost effective and environmentally responsible thing to do. Naturally the BC Liberals will do the exact opposite and insist it come out regardless of the cost to taxpayers and the environment.
“With all the various electric and hybrid vehicles coming into the market emissions are only going down.”
“More healthy for drivers and passengers that will not have to breathe the fumes.”
10 points for the cognitive dissonance!
As Dr. Kay Teschke of UBC would say, a new bridge with better transit and cycling possibilities means less dementia, cancer and fewer strokes.
I had previously read the VOX article in the post, and I think it does relate to the Massey replacement project. The posts above saying that it is just a bridge, that it is only about 750 m of tunnel, that it won’t make a measurable impact on public health, miss the point IMO. Using an example from the VOX article, that is like saying that the Montgomery protests were about some people who used the bus. They weren’t. They were about changing the culture, about throwing sand in the gears. Objections to the process to date for the Massey tunnel replacement are based on questioning the social license, and the presumption that large scale projects that will encourage fossil fuel consumption are automatically good, not about how many lanes it should have.
Gordon posted that he threw this out to generate some discussion. Thanks for that Gordon.
Ken Ohrn mentions the transit plebisite as our #KXL moment. Here’s an interesting study in contrasts. Our friends to the south in Seattle just voted to invest in a diversified and greener transportation system:
“Proposition 1 in Seattle, to spend a record-high $930 million over nine years on streets, transit, pedestrian and bicycling routes, was winning handily Tuesday — and beating the theory that voters had reached so-called tax fatigue.
About 56.5 percent of voters favored the measure. For it to lose, the “no” side would need to win 56 percent of the estimated remaining votes.
Mayor Ed Murray campaigned to the end for his plan, known as Move Seattle. Supporters walked with signs and took to phone banks, hoping to rally the base, especially the young.
“Seattle will get moving again,” Murray told revelers at the Belltown Pub. “If current trends continue, while the rest of the nation says no, Seattle says yes — we can be a livable city and an affordable city. Seattle can move forward.”
By affordable, city leaders mean direct bus lanes, sidewalks and safe bike routes could allow people options besides the expense of driving.
The new levy would cost $279 a year for a mid-value $450,000 home, or about twice what landowners paid under the expiring Bridging the Gap levy.
Besides offering $385 million for road repaving and bridge strengthening, the city heeded requests from neighborhood, social-justice and green-transportation advocates, including 50 miles of bike lanes, and a radical safety redesign of streets and walkways near the Mount Baker light-rail station.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/move-seattle/
Jurisdictional issues aside, clearly we have some lessons to learn from the Emerald City.
As for the question of the Massey Tunnel and regional transportation policy in general it’s clear that Christy Clark could care less about climate change. Except of course when there’s an opportunity for her to take credit for a carbon tax policy that had nothing to do with her. We are going backwards quickly in this province under her purported ‘leadership’. Is this because her base lives in the suburbs?
Or is it because mayors & city councils haven’t done enough to raise property taxes, parking fees or lowered the cost of services delivery ? Until the councils come to the table with solutions to these 3 topics expect the province to not move on more taxes or more debt for transit. Massey bridge, like XL, is just common sense.
Common sense is not so common.
Replacing the Massey Tunnel is about priorities. The cost of road infrastructure is 3x the cost of transit infrastructure for the same people moving capacity. Furthermore, transit creates 3x the jobs that roads do. So, with the recent Port Mann costing almost $4 billion, it would be unlikely that an equivalent Massey Bridge would cost any less.
Traffic in Vancouver is getting worse by the day and a new bridge would only create new choke points at the Oak and Knight Street bridges. Building more road infrastructure will cost too much and will only create more traffic.
Instead, we could build a transit-only tunnel for a 1/3 the cost and use the other $2.7 billion for a heavy rail transit system from White Rock to Vancouver.
The solution is simple, the rest is politics. BC Liberal’s conservative values will have them build more road infrastructure to satisfy their need for private transportation options. BC NDP’s progressive values dictate that their collaborative policies will result in mass transit.
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
We obviously need new roads, new bridges AND more transit and bike paths to accommodate 1M+ more people moving here and more goods movement as we are an export nation and MetroVan has 30+ ports.
The question is who is paying for it, how ?
Road tolls ? Per km mileage charge like in OR? Higher gasoline taxes ? Add’l tax on high volume engines ? More debt ? Higher property taxes ? Higher PST ? Higher income taxes ? Higher fees for transit users ? Tax on bicycle tires ? Less healthcare services ? Higher tuitions ? Lower public servants salaries and benefits ? Tax foreign owner real estate more ?
Mobility costs money. Whose money ?
@ nicolay; the Port Mann expenditure included lots of trimmings: 37 km of highway, including alterations to interchanges, the tolling infrastructure, as well as the creation of an entity to collect the money.
The NDP??? The party that secured voter support in the 1990s (and still hold that as a backwater bastion, in the recent federal election), by creating the massive in-land Island Highway, which cut through thousands of acres of forest and facilitated the greatest gift to sprawl for every community it passed? Instantly created the Colwood Crawl?
“Heavy rail transit??” Niccy, the communities in WR & Delta are fighting trains & tracks that existed before these people were born, and you think they’ll embrace new tracks, that run at much earlier and later hours? Hilarious
So, what are you going to be if you grow up?
I thought that the twinning of the Port Mann was our Keystone. Had it happened now instead of in 2009, we may have had a chance.
But if Port Mann happened in the 1940s, it would be like the Holocaust, but then it didn’t, so it’s less a Chernobyl, and certainly not a Fukishima, but more like a Hoover Dam. Port Mann is a regional replacement bridge in a peripheral city, used by a fraction of the regional population. Go look up ‘context’ …. it’s not far after ‘conflate.’
PM bridge is vital national infrastructure for Hwy 1 across the nation. Major goods movement to interior BC, Alberta and further east, from 30+ ports in MetroVan and an area where 2/3s of BC lives or soon will live.
While 10 lanes today is certainly overkill, in 25 years it will be heralded as visionary. A no-brainer, just like XL, Kinder Morgan twinning, Northern Gateway or Energy East oil pipeline.
Perhaps this on top (or hanging below) would have been really visionary, an elevated magnetic levation rapid transit system, green & fast: http://www.skytran.us but a retrofit is an option as it is light-weight !
A 10-lane bridge in Metro Vancouver without some sort of train is most certainly not visionary. Unless the province’s vision is that the next 50 years will be like the last 50 years.
Did you notice that there’s no mention of line capacity or how the switches work? I also see no mention of maximum headways.
Sounds like pixie dust to me.