On Dec. 17, 2016, The David Suzuki Foundation, a registered Canadian charity, sent an email to subscribers claiming that “Pipeline approvals expose broken environmental assessment process” – that same day Ecojustice Canada Society, a registered Canadian charity, sent an email to subscribers claiming “Research shows that approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline will be a death sentence for the Salish Sea orcas.” No factual support was offered for either statement. No balanced statements were provided regarding the benefits of this economic activity. Readers were requested to donate.
Registered charities are given the privilege of issuing tax receipts to donors on the principle that the charities are performing a public benefit, and this privilege comes with certain obligations which include presenting balanced and factual information. Likewise, there are certain guidelines and rules about activities that affect public markets and national policies.
Consequently, in our opinion, the messages these charities sent are not simple matters of Freedom of Speech – especially when their tax-subsidized activities are blocking taxpaying workers and industries from performing federally approved activities.
Thousands of Canadians are out of work. The federal approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and Enbridge Line 3 have been subject to detailed review.
We have two reports on moving oil by pipeline and tanker. We hope the Canadian public will review this factual information.
MOVING OIL BY PIPELINE
MOVING OIL BY TANKER
Both charities also claim in these and related documents that building pipelines will prevent a ‘low-carbon’ future when such a thing is not in the realm of reality. According to the International Energy Agency:
“In 2014, the shares of primary energy supply by energy source were: oil, 31.3%; coal, 28.8%; natural gas, 21.0 %; biofuels and waste, 10.3%; nuclear, 4.8%; hydro, 2.4%; and “other”, including all renewables energy sources, 1.4%.”
Likewise, renewable energy will not replace fossil fuels anytime soon.
Climate change and energy policies have significant consequences for individual people as well as for the nation’s economy. The discussion should be based on facts and evidence.
One fact is that no wind or solar devices can exist without massive volumes of oil, natural gas and coal. So, if we follow the logic of these charities to “keep it in the ground,” we will have no power or energy sources at all. How is that in the national interest? What is the public benefit?