he oil spill disaster, when it comes, can't be ascribed to "the weather," "bad luck," or an "Act of God." Its absolutely predictable arrival is due to the system of moving oil and oil derivative products in and through BC waters currently in place.
That precarious fact was illustrated again on August 5th when a barge loaded with 60,000 litres of diesel and gasoline hit the rocks in Surge Narrows
, just off Campbell River. The Coast Guard was able in this instance to "race to the scene" to extricate the floundered barge before the surge tide came, and avert certain disaster.
Kudos to the Coast Guard this time; but, can they be expected to pull it off every time?
Listen. Hear. Ingmar Lee
is a long-time environmental defender, whose efforts to save the forests and watershed ecosystems of Vancouver Island stretch back more than decade.
Ingmar was among the few who took to the trees in the iconic Cathedral Grove, remaining for two years while the law, loggers, and MacMillan Bloedel threatened them every way they could. The fact the Grove remains is due in great part to he and his "outlaw" cohorts. Between campaigns like Cathedral Grove, fighting the destruction of the suburban forest to make way for highways in Langford, scaling the BC Legislature flag pole to garner press in opposition to the Enbridge pipeline scheme, and dismantling seismic explosives in the heart of Sandhill Crane nesting grounds, Ingmar earned a degree in environmental science from the University of Victoria.
Today, he's warning of the present and imminent dangers posed to coastal ecosystems by free-booting, regulation-evading oil transshipment companies, and the failure of government to perform its due diligence to protect the marine environment and the creatures dependent upon it. Ingmar Lee in the first half.
And; last weekend, hundreds came out to the annual Paddle for the Peace demonstration of solidarity in opposition to the proposed Site-C Dam on the Peace River. Despite the widespread public opposition to the project in the Peace River Valley, logging crews got busy cutting down trees along the footprint of the proposed site. And, to add insult to injury, as CBC Radio reported Monday, local loggers were frozen out, forestry jobs instead being contracted to out-of-towners.
Meanwhile, the upcoming Union of BC Municipalities Convention will debate at least one resolution dealing with Site-C and the freezing out of the BC Utilities Commission on the controversial project.
Andrea Morison is spokesperson for the PVEA, Peace Valley Environmental Association
. She holds a Masters of Natural Resource Management degree and has worked in that field in both Ontario and BC for more than 25 years; the last four years of which has been devoted to the PVEA's involvement with the environmental assessment process for Site-C Andrea Morison testing the power of resistance to one mega-project too many on the Peace in the second half.
And; Victoria Street Newz publisher emeritus and CFUV Radio broadcaster, Janine Bandcroft
will join us at the bottom of the hour to bring us news of the coming week on our city's streets, and beyond there too. But first, Ingmar Lee and running to ground an oil industry increasingly running aground.
Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca. He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, http://www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.ca/
Read more: Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, Ingmar Lee, Andrea Morison, Janine Bandcroft August 12, 2015
Created on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 03:24
Written by F. William Engdahl
US's Saudi Oil Deal from Win-Win to Mega-Lose
by F. William Engdahl
Who would’ve thought it would come to this? Certainly not the Obama Administration, and their brilliant geo-political think-tank neo-conservative strategists. John Kerry’s brilliant “win-win” proposal of last September during his September 11 Jeddah meeting with ailing Saudi King Abdullah was simple: Do a rerun of the highly successful State Department-Saudi deal in 1986 when Washington persuaded the Saudis to flood the world market at a time of over-supply in order to collapse oil prices worldwide, a kind of “oil shock in reverse.”
In 1986 it was successful in helping to break the back of a faltering Soviet Union highly dependent on dollar oil export revenues for maintaining its grip on power.
So, though it was not made public, Kerry and Abdullah agreed on September 11, 2014 that the Saudis would use their oil muscle to bring Putin’s Russia to their knees today.
It seemed brilliant at the time no doubt.
Read more: Kerry and Saudi's Foisted on Failed Oil Glut Strategy
Created on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 02:18
Written by WSWS
Obama on Iran: The specter of World War III
by Bill Van Auken
7 August 2015
In an extraordinary speech delivered Wednesday, [August 5, 2015] US President Barack Obama went public with a warning that powerful factions within Congress and the state apparatus are determined to carry out a war against Iran that would have incalculable consequences.
Speaking on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Obama said that a scuttling of the nuclear deal with Iran that was announced last month would mean war with Iran—a country nearly four times as large and with almost triple the population of Iraq. He further suggested, harking back to World War II and the Cold War, that a war with Iran could open the door to a Third World War.
At this juncture, it is not at all clear how the vote in Congress on the nuclear accord negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany) and approved by the United Nations will go. Obama has announced that he will veto any measure that blocks the United States from implementing the agreement. Whether there are sufficient votes in both houses of Congress to assure the two-thirds majorities required to overturn a presidential veto is still undecided.
What is beyond dispute is that a large majority of the US Congress will vote for a policy that is predicated on a catastrophic escalation of American militarism.
Created on Monday, 10 August 2015 20:03
Written by Brian Terrell
A Plea to Pope Francis: Name United States Foreign Policy Genocide
by Brian Terrell
n recent weeks, I have been part of a haphazard and ad hoc process to compose an open Letter
to Pope Francis in advance of his September, 2015 visit to the United States in September. The promotion of this letter has been taken up by Friends of Franz Jagerstatter
, a community of peacemakers inspired by the Austrian Catholic farmer who was martyred for his refusal to fight in the German Army during World War II.
Pope Francis’ recent comments regarding war, the environment and economic justice inspire our letter, which cites segments of his new encyclical, Laudato Si. “War always does grave harm to the environment and to the cultural riches of peoples,” Pope Francis writes, “risks which are magnified when one considers nuclear arms and biological weapons.” In the light of this reality, our letter suggests that Pope Francis avail himself of the challenging opportunity to acknowledge that the United States is “the most prolific polluter and, not coincidentally, the greatest war maker on the globe.”
Encouraged by his naming the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks one hundred years ago “the first genocide of the 20th century,”
our letter begs Pope Francis “to speak out just as clearly and (to) publicly denounce the terrorism and genocide that your host country, the United States, is even now inflicting on the Muslim and Christian Arab people of the Middle East and the people of Afghanistan,” and it states that “decades of aggression including sanctions, bombings, invasions, arming of insurgents, have left millions dead, many more millions displaced and homeless. Thousands have been imprisoned and tortured. Many lands are being made desolate and poisoned, and ancient communities are being devastated.”
Created on Monday, 10 August 2015 04:12
Written by Ray Grigg
The Strange and Elusive 2°C Target
by Ray Grigg - Shades of Green
he agreed political consensus for keeping climate change within tolerable limits is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently so the average global temperature does not rise above 2°C. If we can achieve this emissions goal, so the thinking goes, all will be well. The issue, however, is more complicated than a simple number.
Strangely enough, the 2°C limit was initially proposed in 1975 by an economist, William Nordhaus. He considered it little more than “a first intuition”, a temperature rise that made him nervous because it was “outside the range of observations” describing “the last several hundred thousand years.”
The 2°C number was mentioned again in 1990 by the scientists of the Stockholm Environment Institute. In their climate report, they wrote of two levels of risk.
"Temperature increases beyond 1.0°C may elicit rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage."
Their next highest level of risk was a less “safe” 2°C. But with global temperatures already up 0.85°C and with no hope of stopping at 1.0°C, the 2°C limit entered negotiations as a practical target. Simple to remember and politically comfortable, it was formally adopted in the UN's Copenhagen Agreement of 2009. Dr. John Holdren, a former Science and Technology assistant to US President Obama, described 2.0°C as “the best we can do, while being the worst we can tolerate.”