Tarnishing Our Climate Efforts

OUR CLIMATE EFFORT:

Dirty Oil & the Future of B.C.

OUR CLIMATE EFFORT: Dirty Oil & the Future of B.C.

JULY 2009 | By: Gillian McEachern, Nikki Skuce

FORESTETHICS exists to protect Endangered Forests, wild places, wildlife, and human well-being. Our innovative, inspiring and effective campaigns challenge corporations and catalyze environmental leadership in industry, governments and communities. Our work creates solutions that last for generations to come and emphasizes addressing climate change, which compromises all of our efforts if left unchecked.

ForestEthics | 301-163 Hastings Street W., Vancouver, BC V6B 1H5 | tel. 604-331-6201

Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper cover photo: Tom Green | back cover photo: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

Introduction British Columbia has positioned itself as a leader in tackling global warming. Yet the province’s natural environment and climate leadership are being threatened from beyond its borders by the federal government’s desire for unrestrained growth in Alberta’s tar sands. Ottawa is poised to make several key decisions that will have a significant impact on B.C.. After years of false starts and loophole-ridden climate policy, it appears that the federal government is finally being forced to adopt a real cap and trade system as a result of President Obama’s commitment to U.S. action on the issue. This means that Canada will need to put a hard cap, or limit, on the amount of global warming pollution from industry. This also throws into question the future of regional programs like the Western Climate Initiative, as Washington and Ottawa both move to adopt national systems. There are reports that the government is seeking to protect the tar sands industry from having to make serious emissions cuts1. The tar sands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Special treatment for the tar sands industry could come at the expense of other industrial sectors and provinces such as B.C. A biased system could have economic consequences for B.C. by forcing industries in the province to do more than their fair share to reduce emissions.

pristine wilderness, including 1,000 streams and rivers, many of which are important for salmon spawning. It would then send supertankers into B.C. coastal fjords to carry 525,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day through B.C. to Asia and the U.S. An accident would destroy our coast for generations. This pipeline would also allow the tar sands to expand, and the extra half million barrels a day will cause the global warming equivalent of 1.6 million new cars on the road every year. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. A second major pipeline is being contemplated along a similar route and CN Rail is now talking about shipping tar sands through B.C. to the coast at Prince Rupert for export to Asia and the U.S..

In a nutshell, the federal government could make decisions that hurt B.C.’s economy, threaten our salmon and coast, and make the province an accomplice in the expansion of the most destructive project on earth, the tar sands. It’s time for the B.C. government, businesses and others to stick up for B.C.’s interests and engage the federal government on these big decisions. Our clean energy economy depends on it.

Furthermore, the federal government is being asked to approve Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, a massive new tar sands pipeline that would end at an oil tanker port in Kitimat. En route, the oil would cross B.C.’s

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

2

Ottawa on Climate Missing in Action So far, the centerpiece of Canada’s climate policy has been the proposal of so-called “intensity” targets for major polluters in industrial sectors such as oil and gas, pulp and paper and electricity. This approach requires companies to emit less pollution per unit of production, but allows overall emissions to rise as production increases, thereby failing to achieve the absolute emissions reductions needed to address global warming. The main driver behind this discredited system2 is the desire to allow unfettered expansion of the tar sands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and the hardest to get under control with climate legislation. Emissions from the tar sands were between 35 and 40 million tonnes in 20073. The federal government has estimated that business-as-usual would see tar sands emissions rise to 108 million tonnes by 2020 as a result of planned expansion4. Not only is Ottawa allowing tar sands expansion to take priority over getting serious about reducing global warming emissions, but the federal government has been neglecting its responsibility to protect the environment from the impacts of tar sands extraction. While the federal government has clear jurisdiction to protect species at risk and fisheries, limit air and water pollution and uphold Aboriginal and treaty rights, they have been missing in action when it comes to the tar sands. So far, Ottawa has rubber stamped new tar sands mines and pipelines, turning a blind eye to the growing environmental devastation. The impacts of this failed oversight include toxic tailings lakes, now spanning 130 km2, that are leaking into groundwater at an estimated rate of 11 million litres per day5. This is a legacy of voluntary management of the toxic mess by industry for over 40 years6.

“We’re supporting the creation of good jobs in communities across the province; building a home-grown clean energy sector that will market proven innovations to the world; and helping meet the growing demand for green power here in B.C.” — PREMIER GORDON CAMPBELL7

The federal government is missing in action on regulating an end to tar sands destruction. Photo : GARTH LENZ

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

4

Obama changes Ottawa’s tune The Obama administration has changed the game for climate policy in Canada. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the House on June 26, 2009, will implement a cap and trade system to reduce global warming pollution from industrial polluters in the United States once approved by the Senate. Also included in the legislation is an “International Reserve Allowance Program”, often referred to as a carbon tariff, which would require importers to buy emissions allowances for products from countries without greenhouse gas reductions at least as stringent as the United States8. The goal of this is to reduce the risk of companies relocating to avoid pollution limits. The United States will not accept weaker regulation of competing Canadian industry located a quick hop across the border. The integration of our economy with the United States means that Canada will be forced to limit industrial emissions to keep pace with U.S. action on the issue. The federal government now appears to accept that it will have to follow the U.S. by implementing a cap and trade system. Environment Minister Jim Prentice has said that he will unveil regulations for all major sources of global warming pollution by the end of 20099. Meanwhile Alberta is lobbying hard for weaker rules for them within a national system under the guise of “regional sensibility”10.

“We can let climate change continue to go unchecked, or we can help stop it. We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad, or we can create those jobs right here and lay the foundation for lasting prosperity.” — PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA11

British Columbia steps up In the face of Ottawa’s inaction on global warming, B.C. has stepped into a climate leadership role. As the first province to join the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) and implement a carbon tax, B.C. has demonstrated that it’s serious about reducing emissions. In November 2007, the B.C. government became the first province to put into law a target of reducing emissions by at least 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050 with the passing of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act12. B.C. has also pledged to adopt a low carbon fuel standard to reduce the carbon impact of transportation fuels, and has a legislated commitment for government operations to be carbon neutral by 2010.

5

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

Joining forces with progressive states and provinces under the WCI was the right thing to do considering that federal governments on both sides of the border were failing to act. Now, however, the situation is rapidly shifting as Washington and Ottawa appear poised to step in and regulate global warming pollution from big industries at a national scale. In the U.S., federal cap and trade legislation will likely pre-empt the WCI. In Canada, a national system to limit pollution from big industry will mean that provinces are either directly regulated by Ottawa, or will need to negotiate some form of equivalency agreement with the federal government. However, a patchwork of provincial systems stitched together is unlikely to resolve trade issues with the U.S. or be acceptable to industrial sectors that span provinces, meaning that some form of consistent system will be needed across the country. Furthermore, modeling by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has found that B.C. would need to pay a higher carbon price to meet existing federal targets through a strictly provincial system than under a single, federal system.13

Low carbon fuel for B.C.? In 2007, Premier Campbell pledged to adopt a low carbon fuel standard similar to that now in place in California. The policy aims to reduce the carbon impact of transportation fuels in the province by favouring fuels with lower carbon content and creating a disincentive for dirty fuels like the tar sands. B.C. already receives some tar sands oil. Without a low carbon fuel standard, the province is poised to receive an increasing amount of tar sands oil as the production of conventional oil in Alberta declines. An effective low carbon fuel standard would help ensure that B.C.’s clean energy ambitions aren’t thwarted by rising levels of tar sands oil in the province’s gas tanks.

In other words, whatever Ottawa decides to do will have a large impact on B.C.’s own climate initiatives. As the need to address global warming becomes even more urgent, continued leadership from provinces like B.C. is needed to make sure Canada does its part to address the crisis.

Tar Sands Hit B.C. It isn’t immediately obvious that B.C. government, businesses and citizens should be concerned about what happens across the border in Alberta related to the tar sands. The environmental impacts of tar sands extraction are serious, but what does that have to do with B.C., which is grappling with its own environmental challenges? The answer, ironically, lies in Ottawa, not Alberta. The federal government has jurisdiction over some key issues – regulating carbon pollution, approving new pipelines, regulating shipping including tankers - and will be making decisions related to the tar sands that could hurt B.C.’s economy and environment.

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

6

7

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

Capping Carbon Pollution: Free Ride for the Tar Sands? A national system to limit carbon pollution from big industry raises a difficult question: Who gets to pollute, and how much? The answer to this could have a major impact on B.C.’s economy, and the federal government seems poised to make decisions by the end of this year after years of neglect. Special treatment for tar sands emissions within this system will penalize other sectors and regions. A hard limit on carbon pollution sets up a “zero sum” situation for industrial emissions – if one sector’s emissions rise, another sector must make up for it by doing more than its fair share to reduce emissions. If the tar sands sector was responsible for its fair share of emissions cuts according to what scientists say is needed to protect the climate – 25% below the 1990 level by 2020 at a minimum – the tar sands sector’s allowable emissions would be 12 million tonnes in 202014. Given that the federal government estimates that business as usual emissions in the tar sands would hit 108 million tonnes in 2020, the sector would exceed its limit by 96 million tonnes, or nearly 1,000 percent. If business as usual continues for the tar sands, this translates into an additional 96 million tonnes of emissions cuts needed from other industrial actors in Canada by 2020. To put that into perspective, total emissions from B.C. in 2006 were 62 million tonnes15. B.C. is already doing its part to reduce carbon pollution, and can continue to do so. But, with the U.S. tracking to a federal system, our largest trading partner will be looking for a coherent Canadian carbon policy rather than dealing with a patchwork of provincial systems. A federal system designed to favour the tar sands could mean that the province’s industries are asked to shoulder the extra burden of exploding emissions from the tar sands by cutting their emissions even further.16

Chetwynd Dawson Creek Grande Prairie Mackenzie Prince Rupert Tumbler Ridge Houston Fort St. Terrace Fox Creek James Whitecourt Bear Lake Burns Lake Mayerthorpe KITIMAT Vanderhoof Morinville Prince George Smithers

Bon Accord BRUDERHEIM Edmonton

Saskatoon Calgary Regina Vancouver

Map showing the Proposed Northern Gateway route

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

8

Dirty energy corridor: tar sands through B.C. Dirty oil by land Pipeline giant Enbridge is seeking approval from the federal government for a major new pipeline, called Northern Gateway, which would carry tar sands oil across B.C.’s northern wilderness to a tanker port in Kitimat. If approved, Gateway would involve two 1,170 km pipelines and carry 525,000 barrels of tar sands oil westward and 193,000 barrels of condensate (a petroleum product used to thin tar sands) eastward each day. The pipelines would cross earthquake and avalanche-prone landscapes and more than 1,000 streams and rivers, many of them within B.C.’s Skeena and Upper Fraser watersheds. Experiences shows that oil spills can and do happen. Enbridge recorded 67 spills from pipelines in 2006 and 65 spills in 200717. An oil spill from the proposed pipeline could have devastating ecological and economic impacts, particularly related to salmon. The Skeena River boasts one of the world’s

An oil spill could destroy the B.C. coast and hurt the region’s economy. Salmon in the Skeena River contributes an estimated $110 million to the economy each year. Even small amounts of oil can kill sea birds and otters. Salmon photo: Keith Douglas / Sea otter photo: istockphoto.com

“Canada urgently needs a coordinated national response to the challenge of climate change, but governments are taking a patchwork approach that will make it harder rather than easier to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” — THOMAS D’AQUINO, Chief Executive and President of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE).

9

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

B.C. has protected the Great Bear Rainforest. Will it now let the federal government make decisions that could destroy it? Photo: Aaron Ward.

healthiest salmon runs and contributes an estimated $110 million to the regions annual economy18. Rivers, such as the Morice, are culturally important salmon rivers to First Nations that have seen declining abundance of salmon. Even a minor spill in these fragile river systems could be devastating for the salmon and those who rely on them. The pipeline would also mean the destruction of a swath of forest the size of 6,557 football fields, which would have direct impacts on species that depend on old forests, including commercially important furbearers such as lynx, marten, and fisher19.

Dirty oil by sea The Northern Gateway pipeline would end at an oil tanker port in Kitimat. Supertankers would travel B.C.’s coastal waters to take tar sands oil to Asia and the U.S. Every year, 225 super tankers20 carrying 318 million litres of oil each would travel our ecologically rich and navigationally challenging coastline. That’s enough oil to fill 28,620 Olympic swimming pools. As the legacy of the Exxon Valdez and Queen of the North show, accidents happen and oil destroys marine environments. The North Coast is home to numerous salmon and Gray whale migratory routes, and feeding habitat for Humpback whales and Orcas. The Exxon Valdez

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

oil spill killed an estimated 22 orcas, 250,000 sea birds, 2,800 sea otters, 1.9 million salmon and 12.9 billion herring21. Twenty years later, oil can still be found along the shores of Prince William Sound. When assessing oil spill risk based on 2005 tanker traffic, Environment Canada predicted 100 small spills, 10 moderate spills and one major spill every year22. By requiring the lifting of the 37-year-old moratorium on tankers off B.C.’s north coast, the Enbridge project would result in unprecedented super tanker traffic, and an increased risk of oil spills. One accident could destroy the Great Bear Rainforest and our coast for generations. Surely this level of risk to B.C.’s natural environment must provide a big economic reward for the province? Enbridge estimates that the project would provide 45 long-term jobs23 to the region, fewer than the jobs created by the average Safeway24. The provincial government will see no royalties and receive a pittance in revenue from land-use taxes. The oil carried in the Gateway pipeline will not be for use in this province.

10

Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief Alphonse Gagnon stated at an Energy Summit in Moricetown that, “We will do whatever it takes to defend our lands and waters against this threat from Enbridge”. Photo: Nikki Skuce.

A helping hand to the tar sands First Nations Oppose Tar Sands Damage First Nations at both ends of tar sands pipelines are being adversely affected by the industry. The Beaver Lake, Chipewyan Prairie, and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations are suing over the destruction of traditional hunting and fishing grounds by tar sands activities25. In February 2008, the Treaty Chiefs of Treaties 6, 7 and 8 of Alberta unanimously passed a resolution calling for a tar sands moratorium26. The Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation are outspoken about fears of health impacts due to tar sands water contamination, and are experiencing elevated rates of cancer27. On the other end of the pipe, First Nations communities are opposing the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, and more than 500 residents of the region have signed a resolution calling for a moratorium on the transportation of tar sands oil28.

“The tycoons expect to further spread the tar sands poison, putting their lavish desires before our lifestyles and our culture. We depend on these lands and waters and we will not put the safety and well being of our territories in their hands.”

The potential impacts of the Northern Gateway proposal to B.C. are enough to say it’s not in the province’s interest. In addition, the project would allow a massive expansion of the tar sands by providing new pipeline capacity to get the oil to market. With growing awareness in the U.S. around the risks of tar sands oil and regulators beginning to respond with measures that penalize carbon-heavy fuels like tar sands, the industry is increasingly anxious to access the Asian market. The consequences of the additional tar sands extraction that the Northern Gateway pipeline would facilitate include an extra 6.7 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year (the equivalent of adding 1.6 million cars on the road), 2.3 million barrels per day of toxic tailings and 482,000 barrels per day of water29. B.C. would be complicit in the environmental disaster unfolding in Alberta.

Ottawa’s rubber stamp While the province will be required to provide some permits and licences for the pipelines, the main decision about whether the project will go ahead rests with the federal government through the National Energy Board Act.

- GUUJAAW, President of the Haida Council27

11

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

To date, however, the National Energy Board has approved every project that has come before it except for one. This gives little comfort that the interests of British Columbians, and the forests, rivers and wildlife so important to the province, will be well-represented when the Northern Gateway project comes before the Board and the federal government for approval. The first stage of the public consultation for the environmental assessment of the pipeline demonstrated significant concern about the process. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency received 2,000 comments on the draft Terms of Reference for the assessment, more than any other process on record.

Coming down the pipe Pressure to diversify the customer base for the tar sands oil by accessing Asia through the West Coast will continue to increase until Canada takes action to address global warming and shift from exploiting dirty fossil fuels to a clean energy economy. A second tar sands pipeline project has been on and off the table over the last couple of years. The Kinder Morgan TMX Northern Leg proposal is similar to that of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway line. While they’re struggling to secure contracts from shippers and Asian refiners, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline is already transporting heavy oil from Alberta to Asian markets via Vancouver port facilities. In 2007, these included ten tanker loads, two of which travelled to Japan while the rest sailed to China.30 More recently, there has even been talk of moving tar sands across B.C. en route to Asia via railway to the port of Prince Rupert. Rail also poses a risk of oil spills – British Columbia is no stranger to CN derailments. Every year there are 1,300 accidents in Canada’s rail system. Both of these proposals would allow tar sands expansion and require oil super tankers to ply the coast similar to the Gateway proposal.

“The situation downstream from the tar sands is so toxic that one of our elders told his son not to have children because everything is so polluted and our people can no longer drink the water or eat the fish.” — GEORGE POITRAS, Mikisiew Cree First Nation31

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

12

The tar sands are the fastest growing source of global warming pollution in Canada. Photo : S. JOCZ

Recommendations British Columbia needs to ensure that decisions made by the federal government protect the province’s economic interests and desire to build a clean energy economy. Businesses, citizens and the provincial government need to engage with the federal government on these key tar sands decisions. We recommend that B.C.: 1. Advocate for a fair and equitable federal cap and trade system that does not give special treatment to the tar sands. The upcoming Council of the Federal Meeting in Regina and promised consultation with provinces on Canada’s Copenhagen plans both provide opportunities to express the province’s interest in the design of a federal cap and trade system. 2. Call on the Government of Canada to not approve the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline due to the threat it poses to the province’s forests, rivers and marine ecosystems and its inconsistencies with B.C.’s leadership on climate change. 3. Support a legislated ban on tanker traffic off B.C.’s north coast. This would protect our diverse coast by preventing tar sands oil ports at Kitimat and Prince Rupert. 4. Support the development of low carbon fuels by adopting a robust low carbon fuel standard that distinguishes between conventional oil and carbon-heavy oil like tar sands.

13

TARnishing our Climate Effort: Dirty Oil and the Future of B.C.

Endnotes 1 “Ottawa swoops in with climate-change offer,” Shawn McCarthy and Campbell Clark, the Globe and Mail, Nov 5, 2008.

15

Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Understanding the Trends, 1990-2006. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_ report/2008_trends/trends_eng.cfm#toc_3

2

Every independent study has concluded that the government proposal will fail to meet even its own weak targets – see cite 19 in “Stuck in the Tar Sands,” Climate Action Network Canada, October 2008.

16

Enbridge Corporate Social Responsibility Report, 2008. www.enbridge.com/csr2008

17 3

Tar sands emissions are not well measured. Environment Canada’s Facility Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program only captures large facilities, and amounts to 35.6 million tonnes for tar sands (NAIS no. 211114) - see: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/ onlinedata/downloadDb_e.cfm. Using calculations of emissions by activity per barrel, the Pembina Institute has estimated 2007 emissions to be about 40 million tonnes – see: http://climate.pembina.org/pub/586 4

Government of Canada. 2008. Turning the Corner: Detailed Emissions and Economic Modeling. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ doc/virage-corner/2008-03/571/Annex4_eng.htm

“Tally puts value of Skeena wild salmon at $110-million annually.” Mark Hume. Globe and Mail, March 30, 2006.

18

Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council Aboriginal Interests and Use Study on the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline, 2006. p. 65.

19

Enbridge Information Brochure, January 2009, available at http://www.northerngateway.ca/files/NGP-Brochure.pdf.

20

Pembina Institute. Fact Sheet: Resource Development in the North. Impacts of Pipeline and Tankers on the British Columbia Coast. 2006.

21

Ibid. http://www.ec.gc.ca/eeue/default.asp?lang=en&n=9225900C

5

Matt Price, Environmental Defence. “11 Million Litres A Day: The Tar Sands’ Leaking Legacy”. December 2008. Available at www.environmentaldefence.ca.

22 Gunton, T., J. Day and T. van Hinte. 2005. Managing Impacts of Major Projects: An Analysis of the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline Project. Simon Fraser University.

6

The Pembina Institue. “Oil Sands Myths: Clearing the Air”. June 2009.

7 Office of the Premier. News Release “CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS TO CREATE 1,200 JOBS IN B.C.”. April 3, 2009.

8

See Title IV, Subtitle A, Part F, Subpart 2 of Waxman-Markey here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/hr2454.pdf

23

The Smithers’ Safeway store employs between 90 and 130 employees of which 50 are full-time.

24

Pembina Institute. Pers. Comm.

25 Kinder Morgan to partner in pipeline to supply China with N. American crude. Oct 2008. Source: Oilweek Magazine, by Andrea W. Lorenz. http://www.oilweek.com/articles.asp?ID=606

9

Notes for an address by the Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of the Environment on Canada's climate change plan June 4, 2009 http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang= En&n=6F2DE1CA-1&news=400A4566-DA85-4A0C-B9F4BABE2DF555C7

26

“Native groups sue gov’t over oilsands,” by Steve Lillebuen, The Edmonton Journal, June 05, 2008; and “Alberta aboriginals file court challenge to province’s system of oilsands leasing,” The Canadian Press, December 11, 2008. 27

10

“West rejects Ottawa's emission plan,” by Shawn McCarthy and Dawn Walton, Globe and Mail, April 10, 2009. 11

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE EDISON ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNICAL CENTER. March 19, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-thePresident-at-the-Edison-Electric-Vehicle-Technical-Center/

12

Office of the Premier Press Release “GOVERNMENT SETS GHG TARGETS FOR 2012 AND 2016”. November 25, 2008. Available at http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_20052009/2008OTP0280-001803.htm.

13 Canadian Council of Chief Executives Communique. “Avoid Patchwork Approach to Climate Change Policy, Head of CEO Council Says. November 26, 2007. http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/view/?document_id=1080

14

1990 emissions from the tar sands were 16.4 MT. See: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2008_trends/tren ds_eng.cfm#toc_annex_1. To reach 25% below 1990, tar sands emissions would need to be 12.3 MT.

http://www.aenweb.ca/node/2131

28

CBC. “Fort Chip cancer rates higher than expected: report”. February 6, 2009. Available at http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/ 02/06/edm-fort-chip-cancer.html

29 Press release “Event Galvanizes Opposition to Enbridge Tar Sands Pipeline”. July 8, 2009. Available at http://forestethics.org/ article.php?id=2302

30

Press release “BC FIRST NATIONS AT ENBRIDGE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING: NO TO TAR SANDS PIPELINE”. May 6, 2009. Available at http://forestethics.org/article.php?id=2295

31 Press release “Event Galvanizes Opposition to Enbridge Tar Sands Pipeline”. July 8, 2009. Available at http://forestethics.org/ article.php?id=2302