An Open Letter to Bill Barr - "Be Gone"

1,100 signatures. Democrats and Republicans alike. That's quite a few. They're sending a message to Trump's lapdog Attorney General, Bill Barr - Go, Go Now.

More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials called on Attorney General William P. Barr on Sunday to step down after he intervened last week to lower the Justice Department’s sentencing recommendation for President Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. 

They also urged current government employees to report any signs of unethical behavior at the Justice Department to the agency’s inspector general and to Congress. 

“Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice,” the former Justice Department lawyers, who came from across the political spectrum, wrote in an open letter on Sunday. Those actions, they said, “require Mr. Barr to resign.”

... 

Even as the lawyers condemned Mr. Barr on Sunday, they said they welcomed his rebuke of Mr. Trump and his assertions that law enforcement must be independent of politics. 

But Mr. Barr’s “actions in doing the president’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words,” they said.

Clearing Up This Nonsense About "Hereditary Chiefs"

There are still many Canadians who think the federal government is genuinely pursuing reconciliation with Canada's First Nations.

Not so much.

As Nikiforuk recently explained, colonialism is once again the order of the day.

On Thursday, the RCMP and the Canadian state came to a moral crossroads on a snowy country road and looked briefly down a pathway to reconciliation. Then it said, “Fuck it.”

As reliable agents of the Canadian state and defenders of resource extraction, the RCMP let it be known that the Trudeau government puts highly subsidized methane projects ahead of reconciliation and UN declarations.

Not surprisingly, Ottawa and Victoria are also trying to throw shade on the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en people.  They are, after all, not the "elected" chiefs who've thrown in with Coastal Gaslink. These hereditary chiefs are just a troublesome anachronism, a throwback to an earlier time - you know, before those indians became civilized. Those hereditary chiefs don't speak for the Wet'suwet'en people, just a small faction of cranks. How dare they set up protest camps?

That's the picture our governments are working to spin into our minds. They're trying to blow smoke up your ass. Fortunately Amber Bracken, writing in Macleans, has cleared the air.

The opposing positions of the two sets of chiefs has been represented by B.C. Premier John Horgan and in the media, as a fight within the nation between the equal actors of hereditary chiefs, who defend the land, and the band chiefs, who seek escape from poverty. Premier Horgan told the CBC he doesn’t think “a handful of people can stop progress and success for people who have been waiting for a break like this for many, many years.”

But this simplification obscures the fact that both sets of chiefs are on the side of their people, working against a colonial system that seeks economic certainty and the surrender of Indigenous land.

The Wet’suwet’en are not a nation divided, they are a nation with differing opinions on the best route to a better future after history of oppression. The band councils have sought opportunity, and funding, where they can find it. But based on Wet’suwet’en and Canadian law, it’s ultimately the hereditary chiefs who have jurisdiction to the territory, and they have been clear about their aim—to assert self-governance over their land and demand a nation-to-nation relationship with Canada. It’s a move that would benefit all Wet’suwet’en.

Each set of leaders has unique jurisdiction, in the same way that municipal and provincial governments do. The band chiefs, who were imposed by the Indian Act, govern their reserves, while hereditary chiefs predate Canada, and govern the entire Wet’suwet’en territory. It’s worth noting that they are not anti-industry and have long held logging agreements.

...

A key point that project proponents emphasize, is that 20 elected band councils signed benefits agreements, a phrasing that relies on Canadians’ social conditioning—one that assumes democratic systems are fundamentally more fair.

While talking about benefits agreements, duress is inherent in the process—First Nations can’t actually say no to any project in Canada. In addition, most councils are cash-strapped, and some reported that they were told the project would go ahead with or without their consent—they might as well get on board for a payout. Leaked examples of Coastal GasLink agreements show evidence of large provincial subsidies to get First Nations on board, attempts to muzzle pipeline dissent, and to limit Aboriginal rights.

It's an important article and I urge you to read it in its entirety. It puts paid to the bona fides of our governments and the pipeline police force. All this talk about "reconciliation" is just that - talk.

Some years ago I was talking with an Australian acquaintance, a mild-mannered sort of guy, about a legal victory achieved by his country's Aborigines that was in the news. I was floored, absolutely gutted, when this fellow said that Aborigines were entitled  to "anything a white man doesn't want."  At first I thought he was making an outrageous joke. He wasn't.

It's Not Just a Bunch of Cranky Indians

A good many Canadians imagine the Wet'suwet'en/Coastal Gaslink protests are a dispute between some hereditary First Nations chiefs and a pipeline company. It is that, to be sure, but there are many layers to this unrest.

On the Wet'suwet'en side there's a loose alliance that brings together the First Nations doing the heavy lifting but supported by two other groups, young people and environmentalists. They, in turn, are getting moral support from groups such as the Council of Canadians and from progressive media outlets such as The Tyee, and the National Observer.

On the other side are the fossil energy giants (gas and oil) and governments, federal and provincial, Conservative, Liberal and NDP.

The dispute also brings into play the nature and history unique to the province and people of British Columbia. This part may be hard for some from other provinces to understand.

British Columbia's political culture has long involved strikes and protests and civil disobedience, often meant to inconvenience, usually centred around rights and race and resources.

"These have happened before and they will continue to happen," said Rod Mickleburgh, a longtime B.C. journalist who has written books on the labour movement.

A two-faced NDP government adds to the problem.

On the partisan politics side, it's another story of the NDP campaigning on progressive issues and then disappointing some of their most fervent followers.

"Once the NDP got elected for the first time in B.C [in 1972] the labour movement thought ... they were going to get everything they wanted. Well they didn't. And they were not happy about it. These are the tensions that make it just a little bit harder for them to govern."

Federal-provincial colonialism bubbles to the surface.

"B.C. as a province, for its entire history, built on its economy and its growth on the resource sector. And that always comes as a point of conflict when it comes to the issue of title around Indigenous rights," said Khelsilem, an elected Squamish Nation councillor. 

"It remains an unresolved issue and I think that that speaks to the heart of this issue."
The political calculus might not be the same for this government though, because we're in an age where young people are increasingly seeking different political options.

"There is a palpable sense of disappointment, or frankly heartbreak, by a lot of activists ... and indigenous people who in good faith hoped this government would be a little bit different," said Khelsilem, who has warned the government could lose support they've traditionally had in First Nations communities.

"They're putting a lot at risk in terms of the future."

Fractures are emerging - First Nations, young Canadians, environmentalists and progressives who are simply tired of past injustices unresolved, promises broken and a future betrayed.  It's the informal coming together of these parties based on shared or overlapping interests and concerns that may suggest the path we're on into the future.

However, it's different, argues Ben Isitt — a Victoria councillor who participated in this week's blockade of the legislature — because it's a new type of coalition, less centred around traditional labour and more focused on younger environmentalists and Indigenous leaders. 

"We're seeing those two movements come together ... giving more strength to this movement than some other ones we've seen in recent years," he said. 

Isitt, who wrote his PhD dissertation on the history of protests in B.C., also believes these demonstrators are willing to push the envelope.

"I was surprised to see, in terms of the depth of support ... the openness to militant tactics, or to more non-violent civil disobedience that the young people demonstrated."

At the beginning of this century some prominent historians wrote of the 21st century as a "century of revolution" that would see the world break out in turmoil, the old order displaced. Unfortunately, liberals, who ought to have availed themselves of the chance to lead, chose instead to stick with the easy (i.e. lazy) option - neoliberalism.  It was, in the view of many, the betrayal of progressivism by liberals that allowed rightwing populism to surface and spread.

It infuriated me, during Harper's reign, to watch as he shifted Canada's political centre well to the right. That was bad enough but then the Liberals and the NDP followed in Harper's wake. The Liberals became Conservative-Lite, the NDP opted to become Latter-Day Liberals as Layton tried to position them to form government. When Harper was ousted I fervently hoped that the new Liberal government would even Canada's political keel but, instead, it was content with the country listing to starboard.

With Canada in the throes of a looming climate crisis, what is there for young people in the main political parties? What does the petro-state of Canada have in store for them? They can read. They know that we have less than a decade to halve our greenhouse gas emissions. They're not interested in empty promises about what we'll do by 2050. Their necks are on the block now. Deeds not words. Today those deeds take the form of pipelines and pit mines, tailing ponds and orphan wells, massive wildfires, droughts and floods.

The Liberals, the Conservatives and, yes, the New Democrats are writing the future for today's young people and the generations to follow and they know it's being written indelibly to suit the boomers, the millennials, the Gen-Xers,  at their expense. Of course they resort to "militant tactics." What choice do they have?

Well That's Awkward

British Columbia's NDP government was deservedly proud of itself when, last November, BC became the first Canadian province to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was passed unanimously to much thumping and applause.

But, of course, that was last November. It's now February and not even the same year. Three months is a long time. Things change. Everyone knows that. It was all done with the best of intentions to be sure but, you know...

You see, everybody is getting hung up on Article 10 of the declaration:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

Everyone knows that no rule is ever really absolute. There have to be exceptions. Like pipeline companies, for example. Surely they have a superior competing interest, right? Just because there's a law saying something else doesn't make it so, eh?

Now the Feds are Backpeddling on Open Pen Fish Farms.

What am I saying? Of course, it's the BC coast. Why would anyone expect the Trudeau government to keep its promise?  From The Narwhal:

Following an outcry from the salmon farming industry, the Trudeau government has backed away from its election campaign commitment to phase out open net pen salmon farming on B.C.’s West Coast by 2025.

Jane Deeks, press secretary for Bernadette Jordan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, confirmed in an email to The Narwhal that a transition plan will be developed by 2025 but open net pen salmon farms will not be removed by that date.

“Our government is working on a responsible plan to transition the industry away from open net-pen salmon farming in B.C., and we have committed to developing this plan by 2025,” Deeks said in an email in response to questions from The Narwhal. 

“Our government will not impose drastic, systemic change on Canadian communities,” Deeks said. “We believe that the best policies come from meaningful engagement with those who will be directly affected.”

"Meaningful engagement"? I thought that meant Mounties in full combat gear with assault rifles and snipers.

Following the escape of hundreds of thousands of salmon from an open net pen farm in 2017, the state of Washington committed to phasing out all open net pen Atlantic salmon farming operations by 2025.

The state also stopped hundreds of thousands of salmon infected with an Icelandic strain of piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) from being transferred to the farms, saying wild salmon could be at risk.

Both Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association maintain the piscine orthoreovirus is no cause for concern.

In B.C., infected fish are still transferred to ocean pens even though a June 2018 DFO study suggested “migratory chinook salmon may be at more than a minimal risk of disease from exposure to the high levels of PRV occurring on salmon farms.”

Johns said the Trudeau government’s revised commitment to develop a plan by 2025 is “simply not good enough.”

“It’s not acceptable. Our wild salmon simply cannot wait. We have had a catastrophic year.” 

Last year’s Fraser River salmon returns were the lowest in recorded history, Johns noted. Only 300 chinook returned to Clayoquot Sound last year and Skeena River salmon were “decimated,” he said. In the Alouette River in Maple Ridge, 60,000 chum were expected last year but only 500 returned.

“We have a government that is not dealing with it as the crisis that it is,” Johns said.

“We have a salmon emergency taking place in British Columbia, and this will be the government that will watch our salmon go the way of our Atlantic cod. It will be under their watch, because inaction is something that will lead to it.”

America's Emperor Defends His Throne

Even Trump's loyal handmaiden thinks the president goes too far by meddling in the administration of justice. A.G. Bill Barr recently complained that Trump's incessant tweets, weighing in on cases before the courts, makes Barr's job "impossible."

Trump's response? So what.

In a morning tweet, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Barr saying that the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The president said he had “so far chosen” not to interfere in a criminal case even though he insisted that he was not legally bound to do so. 

“This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” he said. 

Though he and Mr. Barr both said the president has not directly asked for any specific inquiries, Mr. Trump has long pressured law enforcement officials both publicly and privately to open investigations into political rivals and to drop inquiries. Mr. Trump also pressed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to retake control of the Russia investigation after he recused himself.

He's "chosen not to" meddle? Only in his bizarre little mind.

His claim in Friday’s tweet that he has “so far chosen” not to interfere in criminal cases is contradicted by a record of his actions during the his three years in office. 

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russian election interference inquiry, documented numerous instances in which the president sought to obstruct justice as federal investigators examined the activities of Mr. Trump’s White House advisers and former campaign aides. In his final report, Mr. Mueller said that Justice Department rules did not allow sitting presidents to be indicted.

Ever Heard of a "Splatometer"?

This summer will mark my 55th year of (lawfully) riding motorcycles. I've ridden through a lot of countries, mainly the UK, Western Europe, a bit of northwest Africa, North America (east to west, north to south, rinse, repeat) and other places.  You can't do that without inadvertently eating your fair share of bugs, insects. It used to be that, following a full day of riding, you would be decorated with insect remains from your helmet, on your sunglasses or goggles, your jacket and pants, they were everywhere. They usually made a proper mess of your headlight.

Over the last several years that's changed. The gauntlet is not as it once was. There are fewer insects, a lot fewer.

Two scientific studies of the number of insects splattered by cars have revealed a huge decline in abundance at European sites in two decades. 

The research adds to growing evidence of what some scientists have called an “insect apocalypse”, which is threatening a collapse in the natural world that sustains humans and all life on Earth. A third study shows plummeting numbers of aquatic insects in streams. 

The survey of insects hitting car windscreens in rural Denmark used data collected every summer from 1997 to 2017 and found an 80% decline in abundance. It also found a parallel decline in the number of swallows and martins, birds that live on insects. 

The second survey, in the UK county of Kent in 2019, examined splats in a grid placed over car registration plates, known as a “splatometer”. This revealed 50% fewer impacts than in 2004.

That may be good news for those who dash about with their heads in the slipstream but it's not good news for everybody else.

Our warming atmosphere is suspected as the main culprit behind the collapse of insect populations. Light pollution is thought to be another major factor. And, while we don't pay much attention to these bugs, the simple fact is that human civilization can't last without them.

News From the Front - Earth Heats Up, Oceans Speed Up.

We just experienced the hottest January on record. 2.5 F, 1.14 C, above the 20th century average. Meanwhile the continent that exemplifies 'cold' is breaking records this month. Antarctica logged a record 20 degrees Celsius on February 9th.

Scientists warned that Antarctica's Thwaites glacier is melting faster than predicted thanks to warmer sea water eating away at its edges. The glacier is thought to be the 'cork in the bottle' that holds much larger ice sheets from slipping into the ocean. If these other glaciers go it is estimated we'll be dealing with about 11 feet of sea level rise.

The warming sea water helping to melt the Thwaites glacier isn't an isolated phenomenon. The oceans are warming everywhere, absorbing more heat as our atmosphere continues to heat. Another knock-on effect of this atmospheric heating is stronger winds. A knock-on effect of those stronger winds, is a speeding up of ocean currents including the ocean currents at work on the Thwaites glacier.

A study published ...in Science Advances finds that global ocean circulation has been accelerating since the 1990s. The study examined decades of observations from instruments that monitor the seas’ kinetic energy—a measurement of how fast the water is moving. 

A closer look, region by region, suggests that much of the acceleration is happening in the tropics. And circulation also appears to be speeding up in other swaths of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. 

There are still some parts of the ocean that either aren’t speeding up or are actually slowing down, the study notes. But on the whole, as a global average, the waters are moving faster and faster. 

The reason is accelerating winds. 

Multiple studies have suggested recently that winds over the oceans are speeding up. And because winds are some of the primary forces that drive ocean circulation, they’re also causing the seas to move faster.

More to come?

...

More climate change may mean a greater strengthening of ocean winds, and potentially even faster ocean circulation.

The implications of faster oceans are still unclear, according to lead study author Shijian Hu, a scientist with the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In an email to E&E News, he noted that faster circulation could change the way heat and nutrients are transported around the world. That could potentially alter global weather patterns and affect marine ecosystems.

There is one major current that is still slowing down, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation or AMOC. This current affects weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere.

Studies disagree about exactly how long the AMOC has been slowing and what factors are responsible. Some researchers suggest that the AMOC goes through long-term, natural cycles of slowing and accelerating, and the recent slowdown is part of the cycle. 

But many scientists believe that climate change is playing a strong role. They suggest that cold, fresh meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet is disrupting the current’s flow and causing it to slow down. Modeling studies suggest this effect may worsen in the future if the ice sheet melts at faster rates.

One other thing. As we continue to add ever more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, more heat and CO2 are absorbed by our oceans. It's called 'ocean acidification.' This lowering of pH in sea water is playing hell with marine life. The latest victim is the Pacific Dungeness crab. 

...the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere directly lowers the pH of the ocean and makes it more acidic. This increased acidity acts to dissolve calcium carbonate, the “bones” of most organisms in the ocean. Organisms with exoskeletons (like crabs) are especially susceptible to more acidic water because their calcium carbonate shell is in direct contact with ocean water.

Here on Vancouver Island, ocean acidification is impacting shellfish operations, particularly scallop farms. 

Elizabeth May Asks "Why?"

Former Green Party leader Elizabeth May wants to know what's behind the Liberal government's decision to acquire the Trans-Mountain pipeline, a.k.a. "Trudeau's Folly."

Among other things, May wants to know why Ottawa handed Kinder Morgan $4.4 billion for an asset the Parliamentary Budget Office values at just $2.8 billion.

Buying an old (67 years old) and leaky pipeline in order to take over a private sector project that had hit the rocks was hardly smart. But overpaying for it to the extent that the Liberals did was an act of political desperation. 

The news coverage downplays the reality that Ian Anderson, CEO of Trans Mountain Corp., the Crown corporation in charge of the project, happens to be the former president of Kinder Morgan Canada. Trans Mountain’s parent, Canada Development Investment Corporation, bought Kinder Morgan’s assets with a $5.2 billion loan from Export Development Corporation. This was considered a “non-budgetary transaction.” As such, it did not need to be a line item in Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s budget. Nor did it need to be debated or voted by Parliament.

May says the signs were obvious that Kinder Morgan had no interest in building the new pipeline.

Instead of heeding those signs, the Liberals paid a price exceeding the old pipeline’s value in order to take on a project that Kinder Morgan had clearly decided would not fly.
The Liberals wanted more than anything to prove they could get the pipeline built. One can only imagine the glee of the Texas oil men when they realized they could sell the old pipeline for nearly twice what it was worth. 

When Kinder Morgan kidnapped its own project to demand a guarantee — or else — they were not looking for ransom. They wanted to shoot the hostage. Being able to blame a third party when they abandoned the project could avoid penalties under long-term contracts Kinder Morgan had signed. 

But the reckless behaviour with public funds does not end with the announcement in May 2018 that the Government of Canada was buying the pipeline for $4.4 billion.
On Aug. 30, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the pipeline permits ruling that not only did the Liberal government violate Indigenous rights leading to the quashing of the permit, Kinder Morgan itself violated indigenous rights. In other words, the vendor contributed to the devaluing of the asset, and we should never have paid $4.4 billion without re-negotiating the price.

Yet, without any explanation, Finance Minister Bill Morneau cut a cheque for $4.4 billion to Kinder Morgan the very next day, Aug. 31, with no closing date for purchase and sale of the pipeline. 

We overpaid not once, but twice. 

What is most galling to me is that our public funds are being used to brow-beat First Nations along the route into signing benefit agreements. One elected council member of a First Nation that is fighting the project told me recently that they are being “bombarded” by the now government-owned Trans Mountain with offers of millions of dollars to agree to the project. 

Those are public dollars being used to coerce acceptance of a project most Indigenous nations do not want to accept. And yet every time a First Nation accepts a benefit agreement, politicians celebrate it claiming Indigenous people want the project. That is the case in some instances, but it seems like the latest form of oppression and colonialism: Refuse to listen to Indigenous objections, convince people the project is inevitable and use our money to bribe and coerce.

The Big Lie.

The Trans Mountain pipeline remains a project outside market forces. The arguments for it rest on misconceptions and propaganda. It will not get a higher price at “tidewater.” Bitumen is inevitably expensive to produce with low value in the marketplace. As the carbon bubble bursts, these expensive “assets” will be the first to be stranded — uneconomical and unusable. Pursuing it blows our Paris commitments while squandering public funds. 

It is not too late to ask the question: what could be done with the further $13 billion? Could we not do more for the Alberta economy in cleaning up toxic abandoned wells and mines, as well as tailings ponds in northern Alberta? Could we not fund green and renewable energy? Ensure clean drinking water for every First Nation? Ensure we have an electricity grid to move 100% renewable energy from province to province? 

How much is too much? In my view, a single penny more is too much.

The government has a lot of explaining to do. Why did it so grossly overpay the Boys from Enron for a pipeline they were desperate to unload? Why did it manipulate the pipeline approval process, calling senior public servants into a room and telling them to endorse it? Why has the government never produced "the science" it claims to have showing dilbit to be safe? Where are these eager Asian markets for bitumen, markets willing to pay vastly more than world oil price for our high-carbon, hard-to-process, low-value sludge? How will the end use of these high-carbon products impact the climate and our hopes of averting climate catastrophe? What is plan B if bitumen becomes a "stranded asset"?  When and how are they going to clean up the ticking time bomb of the Athabasca Tar Sands tailing ponds that threaten to turn the Mackenzie River watershed into a giant Love Canal?

When will they come clean to the Canadian people?

February Will Be Remembered As the Month the Worm Turned On the Petro-State

What a month it has been for the Oil Patch and we're not even halfway through.

It began on the 2nd when CNBC's brash investment guru, Jim Cramer, pronounced the death knell for fossil fuels.

"You can tell that the world's turned on them, and it's actually kind of happening very quickly," said Cramer. "You're seeing divestiture by a lot of different funds. It's going to be a parade ... that says look, 'These are tobacco, and we're not going to own them.'"

That same day the CBC reported on an exodus of young people leaving Calgary.

One day earlier it was reported that Chevron was taking a 2 billion dollar (USD) write off on its investment in the Kitimat LNG venture the company was struggling to offload.

“Our assessment on the Kitimat project is, given all the other developments out there in the world, that one was going to be tough to compete versus our alternatives,” [CEO Michael] Wirth said during a conference call with industry analysts on Friday.

And, yes, in case you were wondering, this is the same project associated with the Coastal Gaslink pipeline. Chevron 's decision had nothing to do with the Wet'suwet'en protests. It's not the First Nations that are undermining the venture. We need $9/million BTU to break even. The Asian markets are now paying about $5.5/million BTU. It's a huge money loser and that's why Chevron has been so desperate to get out - if only it can find someone to buy their interest.  Good luck.

The next bombshell came on the 6th of February when BlackRock, the world's largest investment management company, notified the CEOs of the world's largest companies, that it was exiting high-carbon fossil fuels.

“Awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance,” [BlackRock CEO Larry] Fink wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times. “The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance.”

That week closed out with a report that the Trudeau government had underestimated the cost of constructing the new Trans-Mountain pipeline, a.k.a. Trudeau's Folly, by a smidge - if you consider 70 per cent a smidge. The feds had tried in vain to unload the TMX on the private sector but no takers. What do you think their chances are now of getting this millstone off the necks of the Canadian public?  Oopsie, they f--ked up!

Then the New York Times dropped a bombshell yesterday, reporting that the financial and insurance giants had given a big thumbs down to Alberta, Athabasca and, specifically, bitumen. This time there was no grey area, no wiggle room. It was the Tar Sands, DOA - dead on arrival.

on Wednesday BlackRock, the worlds largest asset manager, said that one of its fast-growing green-oriented funds would stop investing in companies that get revenue from the Alberta oil sands.  

“If you look at how destructive oil sands can be, there’s a very strong rationale,” Armando Senra, head of BlackRock’s iShares Americas funds, said in an interview, saying that Alberta’s oil fields, along with coal, are “the worst offenders, if you want, from a climate perspective.”

And the giant insurance companies also want no part of Athabasca bitumen or the companies that operate there.

It wasn’t just financing that suddenly seemed at risk. Some of the world’s largest insurance companies, including AXA, Swiss RE and Zurich Insurance, announced they would stop providing coverage to projects in the oil sands, which are sometimes referred to as tar sands, as well as no longer investing money in those projects. 

In December, the American insurer The Hartford said it would no longer insure or invest in companies that get more than a quarter of their revenue from oil sands or thermal coal mining. “We selected coal and tar sands because they have been identified as leading contributors to carbon emissions,” said David Robinson, the company’s general counsel.

Jason Kenney wasn't going to take Wall Street's rejection lying down. If they boycott Alberta, he fumed, Alberta would boycott them. As if.

The Tories were always going to be on the wrong side of bitumen. Their base is Alberta. Bitumen is their manna from heaven. It is the heart and soul of everything from the Calgary Petroleum Club to the Stampede.

The Liberals, by contrast, chose to back bitumen. Ignatieff proclaimed Athabasca the "beating heart of the Canadian economy for the 21st century."  Then, three years ago next month, Trudeau flew to Houston to assure the oil barons that "no country would find 173-billion barrels of oil (sic) in the ground and just leave them there." He was onside. He was their boy.

Now that hazmat-laden, bituminous sludge is reviled in boardrooms and stock markets around the world. Who knew? Who could've known? Well, as it turns out, lots of people. People who our political caste, federal and provincial, have chosen to ignore.

People like Mark Carney and his predecessor at the Bank of England and their counterpart at the Bank of France, have been warning anyone who would listen that stock markets and bourses around the world are sitting on a lethal time bomb in the form of investments in fossil fuel reserves of some $27 trillion. And climate scientists have warned, repeatedly, that if the world is to avert utter climate catastrophe, that bitumen has to be left in the ground. There's no other choice.

What's next for the federal government? When Trudeau returns from his tour to persuade Africans to support our bid for a seat on the Security Council, he will have to deal with the proposed Teck mega-mine that promises to jack up Canadian bitumen production. The science types have already said it's a climate wrecker. Now Justin has to decide whether to greenlight it and he's got Jason breathing down his neck.

There are no easy answers for the Dauphin. There certainly are no good answers. He has a record of yielding to the expedient rather than doing what's right, at least when that might jeopardize his and his party's fortunes. It's been a busy month. He's got a lot to mull over.

My guess is that Trudeau will find some excuse to defer any decision on the Teck mine. If BlackRock is right, maybe they'll put the Tar Sands out of their misery. Then there's Trudeau's Folly. A skeptical mind could suspect that the feds went to keep that pipeline from being abandoned in order to keep the Teck mine venture from collapsing. Hard to say. As Nikiforuk showed a few months ago, there's ample capacity in the existing TMX to handle bitumen shipments to the coast. The huge expansion of TMX must have had some production venture in mind. But, if BlackRock has foreseen the end of Athabasca, then the federal government clearly zigged when it ought to have zagged on the bitumen pipeline.

We know what Jason has in mind. His war room. He'll be launching into a frenzy of rage (he's actually pretty good at it) over foreign meddling or eastern betrayal. He'll be setting up straw men as fast as he can. His quest to become the King of Canada hangs in the balance.

How Is He Not Dead?

Donald Trump was in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Monday when he swung by the Red Arrow Diner for lunch.

Trump ordered the 'Newton Burger,' a burger topped by mac and cheese between two grilled cheese sandwiches in lieu of a bun. Oh yeah, and an order of fries.  This is what he got:

Tell me how president Gutload isn't dead?  A fat burger patty topped with mac and cheese served between two grilled cheese sandwiches plus a generous order of fries. That's a cardiac arrest on a plate. Why won't he do the world a favor and just up and die?

Another Body Blow for Athabasca, Jason Kenney, and Pipeline Boy

The world's financial giants can smell a bad bet. They know when the smell turns bad the smart move is to get out - fast. From The New York Times:

Some of the world’s largest financial institutions have stopped putting their money behind oil production in the Canadian province of Alberta, home to one of the world’s most extensive, and also dirtiest, oil reserves. 

In December, the insurance giant The Hartford said it would stop insuring or investing in oil production in the province, just weeks after Sweden’s central bank said it would stop holding Alberta’s bonds. And on Wednesday BlackRock, the worlds largest asset manager, said that one of its fast-growing green-oriented funds would stop investing in companies that get revenue from the Alberta oil sands. 

They are the latest in a flood of banks, pension funds and global investment houses starting to pull away from fossil-fuel investments amid growing pressure to show they are doing something to fight climate change. 

“If you look at how destructive oil sands can be, there’s a very strong rationale,” Armando Senra, head of BlackRock’s iShares Americas funds, said in an interview, saying that Alberta’s oil fields, along with coal, are “the worst offenders, if you want, from a climate perspective.”

Jason Kenney has lashed back, saying that if the financial giants boycott bitumen, why he'll just boycott them right back. Apparently nobody much cares about Jason's threats. The silly bugger's broke. They're not.

The oil sands have long been a target of environmentalists’ ire. But in 2017, the campaign against them shifted to the world of finance. That summer, the largest pension fund in Sweden, AP7, said it had divested from TransCanada, the company building Keystone XL, a pipeline to carry crude from the oil sands to the United States.

Other international lenders followed, announcing they would divest not only from pipelines but from oil-sands extraction projects as well. They include BNP Paribas Group and Société Générale of France, and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

It wasn’t just financing that suddenly seemed at risk. Some of the world’s largest insurance companies, including AXA, Swiss RE and Zurich Insurance, announced they would stop providing coverage to projects in the oil sands, which are sometimes referred to as tar sands, as well as no longer investing money in those projects. 

In December, the American insurer The Hartford said it would no longer insure or invest in companies that get more than a quarter of their revenue from oil sands or thermal coal mining. “We selected coal and tar sands because they have been identified as leading contributors to carbon emissions,” said David Robinson, the company’s general counsel.

Does that mean bitumen really isn't "just oil"?  But wait, it's "ethical" oil. Ezra Levant says so.

But what about Jason's massive tailing ponds? If Athabasca goes down who is going to pay for the cleanup? The same people who'll wind up paying for it even if Athabasca doesn't go down - taxpayers. Justin hasn't got that kind of money. Jason doesn't have that kind of money.  In case you're wondering, as of right now the total volume of those toxic tailings is 1.54 trillion litres.

Who Wins, the Wet'suwet'en or the Rule of Law?

I 'get' both sides of the argument over the Wet'suwet'en roadblocks in protest of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline. I understand why First Nations and others are staging protests across the country in support of the Wet'suwet'en cause. I also understand the "rule of law" arguments and that these coast to coast protests are causing some economic harm.

Then I draw back and look at the bigger picture. Coastal Gaslink and that other pipeline, Trudeau's Folly, look very different when you think in terms of climate change, the thawing Arctic permafrost and that methane bomb, the wildfires that now ravage the Canadian west, and the very real prospect that our fossil fuel fetish could trigger a mass extinction of life on Earth.

It's when you step back that you see Coastal Gaslink, and Trudeau's Trans-Mountain pipeline, and the proposed Teck bitumen mega-mine in a much clearer light. That's when all my reservations about the Wet'suwet'en roadblocks evaporate.

Then there's this bleating response from the prime minister:

"We recognize the important democratic right — and will always defend it — of peaceful protest. But we are also a country of the rule of law, and we need to make sure those laws are respected."

That's "but" as in 'everything up to this point is bullshit.' He's really good at bullshit. Remember his promises about "social licence" and "First Nations reconciliation"?  Yeah, more bullshit.

The Wet'suwet'en cause doesn't end at Trudeau's "rule of law" bullshit.

The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

With democracy in America failing (if it's not already dead), the American people should recall the days long before somebody like Donald Trump could be elected president. 

Americans are proud of their Founding Fathers. Their Supreme Court likes nothing better than to pretend to interpret the law as the Founding Fathers spoke of it.  

Now that America has accepted an imperial presidency, what wisdom can be had from the founding of that nation? 

What about Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. He had a lot to say:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality."

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather-bed."

"A first attempt to recover the right of self-government may fail, so may a second, a third, etc. But as a younger and more instructed race comes on, the sentiment becomes more and more intuitive, and a fourth, a fifth, or some subsequent one of the ever renewed attempts will ultimately succeed... To attain all this, however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood and years of desolation. For what inheritance so valuable can man leave to his posterity?"

"Postpone to the great object of Liberty every smaller motive and passion."

What would Thomas Jefferson have made of America's 'Great Orange Bloat' with his despotic ways?

----

Yes, now, I know there are those who can't wait to remind me that Jefferson was far from perfect. Yes, he not only had slaves he had his way with some of them. And he didn't really believe that business about all men being created equal. He didn't even believe that all white men were created equal. I've read Nancy Isenberg's "White Trash." I bought it, paid good money for it.  I know that stuff so, please, don't try to hijack this post.

Instead, treat yourself to a giggle:

And Now a Word From the Australien Government

Too soon? Nah.

Another Nail in American Democracy's Coffin

It's been hard to ignore how America's Department of Justice has been corrupted by Trump appointee, William Barr. The justice department is independent of the executive branch or at least it was until Barr put it at the Mango Mussolini's beck and call. Justice in America is now whatever Donald Trump says it is and AG Barr always gives Donald what he wants.

Four DoJ prosecutors have had enough of the Trump/Barr connivance. They quit in protest. At issue was the sentencing of Trump dirty trickster, Roger Stone, who stands convicted of a gamut of political crimes including witness tampering, lying to Congress and obstruction of a House investigation.

Yesterday prosecutors argued that Stone should receive a sentence of imprisonment for seven to nine years. Trump, who doesn't hold to the independence of the DoJ, took to twitter to rail on about the unfairness of Stone's treatment.

Barr, once again, rolled over on command of his imperial master, King Donald.

Four lawyers who prosecuted Roger Stone quit the case Tuesday after the U.S. Justice Department said it would take the extraordinary step of lowering the amount of prison time it would seek for President Donald Trump’s long-time ally and confidant. 

The decision by the Justice Department came just hours after Trump complained that the recommended sentence for Stone was “very horrible and unfair.” The Justice Department said the sentencing recommendation was made Monday night – before Trump’s tweet – and prosecutors had not spoken to the White House about it. 

The four lawyers, including two who were early members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia team, had made up the Justice Department’s trial team and had signed onto a Monday court filing that recommended up to nine years in prison for Stone. 

The department’s decision to back off the sentencing recommendation raised questions about political interference and whether Trump’s views hold unusual sway over the Justice Department, which is meant to operate independently of the White House in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Attorney General William Barr has been a steady ally of Trump’s, clearing the president of obstruction of justice even when special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so and declaring that the FBI’s Russia investigation – which resulted in charges against Stone – had been based on a “bogus narrative.”

As Attorney Generals go, Bill Bar is as shamelessly bent as they come. He has not hesitated to corrupt the administration of justice in the United States. Trump couldn't be happier.

The Government Says Canada Can Get Another 20 Years Out of Those Clapped-Out Subs. Well, Maybe.

When Britain's Royal Navy deployed their new, Upholder-class attack subs they retired them in short order. The boats were commissioned into service in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. So unimpressed were the Brits they tied them up at the quay in 1994 and left them there. They tried to flog them and almost shopped them to Pakistan but no luck. Then, in 1998, along came Canada and we've had them ever since.

Like the Brits, we too have left those subs either tied up or in dry dock. Think of them as Jean Chretien's white elephant. We have spent a fortune on Cold War-era submarines that don't work worth a tinker's dam.

We've been told, off and on, that, 22 years later, the navy has finally got them sorted out. Maybe, maybe not. The government claims we'll get another 20 years out of them.

The government may be right, judging by last year's results. Of the four boats, not one spent a single day at sea in 2019. Not one day.

The Liberal government's 2017 defence policy does not envision replacing the subs until 2040, but a written statement recently put before the House of Commons indicates the navy wants to keep the boats "operationally effective until the mid-2030s."

They want to keep the boats operationally effective. They've never been operationally effective.  What these boats have taught us over the past 22 years is that we perceive no significant, much less urgent, need for submarines.

Submarines have a limited shelf-life. When they're running and at sea, the pressure on a submerged hull takes a toll. Maybe the hulls of our boats have been spared that wear and tear.

The commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, said that after some early struggles the submarine program has reached what he described as "a steady state," and he's convinced the boats can be operated safely for years to come.

Seattle Council Bans Winter Evictions

By a 7-0 vote, Seattle city council has approved a motion to ban residential evictions during the three coldest winter months. It remains to be seen whether the mayor, who is opposed to the motion, will use her veto or allow it to pass into law.

Before voting 7-0, the council trimmed the period covered by the legislation from five months to three months; limited the rule to low- and moderate-income tenants; and exempted landlords with four or fewer housing units. The legislation was meant to prevent most residential evictions during the coldest months.

Sooo Predictable. Kenney Tries to Rattle Trudeau's Chain. Wexit, Fear Wexit.

Jason Kenney is trying to pressure Justin Trudeau to greenlight the Teck bitumen mine by threatening dire consequences if he doesn't.

In a letter to Trudeau, hand-delivered to Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland last week, Kenney said he expects to see the project approved because its emissions would fall well below the 100 megatonnes cap Alberta has promised to impose on its oilsands sector as part of the pan-Canadian climate framework. 

"There is, quite simply, no reason specific to this project that would justify denying federal cabinet approval for the Frontier project," Kenney said in a letter to Trudeau obtained by CBC News. 

"Here in Alberta," Kenney wrote, a cabinet rejection "of our most important industry and could raise roiling Western alienation to a boiling point — something I know your government has been attentive to since the election." 

The premier said he's frustrated by the fact that some Liberal MPs have suggested the provincial cap isn't the benchmark for approving natural resources projects any longer — that the federal government must decide instead whether the project is compatible with the government's goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.  

Wexit, my arse. If they want to learn the meaning of "landlocked" that's the way to find out.

Out of the Dust from the Collapse of Neoliberalism Comes...

A pundit wrote that Trump is not some fluke, an aberration. He is instead the culmination of a process of decay that began decades ago. Trump, or someone of his odious ilk, was an inevitability.

Noam Chomsky was interviewed at Truthout recently. He contends that we're now witnessing the collapse of the neoliberal order. Some of us might have desperately hoped that would herald a restoration of progressive democracy. Instead, Chomsky points out, as neoliberalism falters, authoritarianism steps into the vacuum.

What might be debatable is whether [Trump] is indeed the most dangerous criminal in human history (which happens to be my personal view). Hitler had been perhaps the leading candidate for this honor. His goal was to rid the German-run world of Jews, Roma, homosexuals and other “deviants,” along with tens of millions of Slav “Untermenschen.” But Hitler was not dedicated with fervor to destroying the prospects of organized human life on Earth in the not-distant future (along with millions of other species). 

Trump is. And those who think he doesn’t know what he’s doing haven’t been looking closely. 

Is that a wild and ludicrous exaggeration? Or the very simple and apparent truth? It’s not difficult to figure out the answer. We’ve discussed it often before. There is no need to review what is happening on Trump’s watch while he devotes every effort to accelerating the race to catastrophe, trailed by such lesser lights as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Australia’s Scott Morrison.

... 

Trump’s war on organized life on Earth is only the barest beginning. More narrowly, in recent days, the Chosen One has issued executive orders ridding the country of the plague of regulations that protect children from mercury poisoning and preserve the country’s water supplies and lands, along with other impediments to further enrichment of Trump’s primary constituency, extreme wealth and corporate power.

On the side, he has been casually proceeding to dismantle the last vestiges of the arms control regime that has provided some limited degree of security from terminal nuclear war, eliciting cheers from the military industry. And as we have just learned, the great pacifist who is committed to end interventions “dropped more bombs and other munitions in Afghanistan last year than any other year since documentation began in 2006, Air Force data shows.”

Chomsky on why Sanders is a perceived threat to establishment Democrats.

Even more threatening than Sanders’s proposals to carry forward New Deal-style policies, I think, is his inspiring a popular movement that is steadily engaged in political action and direct activism to change the social order — a movement of people, mostly young, who have not internalized the norms of liberal democracy: that the public are “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” who are to be “spectators, not participants in action,” entitled to push a lever every four years but are then to return to their TV sets and video games while the “responsible men” look after serious matters. 

This is a fundamental principle of democracy as expounded by prominent and influential liberal 20th–century American intellectuals, who took cognizance of “the stupidity of the average man” and recognized that we should not be deluded by “democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests.” They are not; we are — the “responsible men,” the “intelligent minority.” The “bewildered herd” must therefore be “put in their place” by “necessary illusions” and “emotionally potent simplifications.”

The demise of neoliberalism and the advent of chaos.

As the neoliberal order is visibly collapsing, it is giving rise to “morbid symptoms” (to borrow Gramsci’s famous phrase when the fascist plague was looming). Among these are the spread of authoritarianism and the far right. More generally, what we are witnessing is quite understandable anger, resentment and contempt for the political institutions that have implemented the neoliberal assault — but also the rise of activist movements that seek to overcome the ills of global society and to stem and reverse the race to destruction. 

The confrontation could hardly have been exhibited more dramatically than by the appearance of Greta Thunberg [at Davos] immediately after the most powerful man in the world — the leader in the race to destruction — had admonished the Masters to disdain the “heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers” (virtually 100 percent of climate scientists) and to take up his wrecking ball.