After reading Enbridge’s Janet Holder’s recent full back-page commendation of the Joint Review Panel’s Northern Gateway report, I wondered how she sleeps at night, given what she has to sign her name to.
Ms. Holder, or someone writing for her, noted that Northern Gateway has had “the most comprehensive, scientific review in Canadian pipeline history.” Given that the panel did not see the held-back report on diluted bitumen’s behavior in water (and likely others, too), and given the general approach to science of the current regimes in Alberta and Ottawa, we must wonder at Ms. Holder’s, or her writer’s, ability to gauge the level of competence in other pipeline reviews.
That science should now also include the new University of Toronto report on the underestimation of oil sands pollution and health risk. Further, ongoing global climate science has to be recognized for never reversing its objection to oil sands exploitation.
Ms. Holder also claims that the panel concludes “Canada and Canadians would be better off” with Northern Gateway and that the panel’s report reflects the “input of thousands of British Columbians and Canadians.”
Given that such a “better” is so loaded with bias it deserves ridicule, and given that the input of those thousands was overwhelmingly negative, we have to wonder what pinata Ms. Holder, or her writer, has been flailing at with her pen. That input should now also include the 10 lawsuits, and counting, that are now challenging the panel’s recommendation. It should also just be stated honestly.
Ms. Holder concludes that “Building a better pipeline isn’t easy.” Harder still: to accept that it won’t be built.