fbpx
Menu Close

“We in the Pacific Northwest Have a Choice”

“There is this very unique place on Earth, the Pacific Northwest. It’s either about to become steamrolled by coal and oil heading from North America to foreign shores, or it is going to stand up in an opposition movement and prevent those projects from happening.” Those are the words of Sightline senior policy director Eric de Place summarizing the two paths laid out before Cascadia right now. He opens an hour-long radio documentary by Portland journalist Barbara Bernstein about the powerful citizen resistance movement, the “Thin Green Line,” that has grown over the last several years to oppose coal, oil, and gas schemes across the region.

Bernstein paints a vivid picture, interviewing leaders from several communities who have devoted years of their lives to this effort. They include Dan Serres, Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky, and Brett VandenHeuvel of Columbia Riverkeeper; Jared Smith, president of the Vancouver longshoremen’s union, ILWU Local 4; Kathy Sampson-Kruse of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Eric LaBrandt of the Vancouver Port Commission; Charlie Hales, former mayor of Portland; and Nick Abraham, communications manager of Washington Conservation Voters and former Sightline fellow.

Listen to the full documentary, “Sacrifice Zones,” on KBOO’s website.

 

BC’s Carbon Pollution Could Double with LNG Plants

British Columbia is of two minds. The province has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution by 80 percent by 2050, but simultaneously it aims to become the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), a fossil fuel that contributes to climate change through emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. BC is currently considering 19 LNG export proposals, many of which are colossal in size. In fact, two of the proposals would each produce more LNG than the entire country of Australia, one of the world’s top exporters.

To make clear the scale of the provincial government’s LNG plans, Sightline calculated the likely cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from the facilities. Assuming that the proposed LNG plants operate at “best-in-class” standards, we determined that BC’s 19 proposals would more than double the province’s emissions. Even assuming full electrification of all the facilities’ refrigeration and power generation processes, a near-impossible scenario, the proposals would still increase the province’s carbon emissions by over 70 percent.

Estimating BC’s LNG pollution

LNG export facilities liquefy methane gas, commonly referred to as “natural gas,” for transport to overseas markets. (See “What goes on at an LNG facility?”) Project boosters and the BC government claim that BC would have the world’s cleanest LNG facilities, and they emphasize the purported climate benefits of the industry. But what does that claim mean in the context of such a large number of proposals?

If all of BC’s proposed LNG facilities produced emissions consistent with the “best in class” technology, they would still generate 75 million metric tons of CO2e annually, or 116 percent of the province’s total 2014 emissions.

To estimate the greenhouse gas implications of LNG development, BC’s Climate Action Secretariat commissioned an emissions “benchmarking” study in 2013 to compare the greenhouse gas intensity of a grid-connected LNG facility in BC with planned and operational facilities worldwide. The study compared the “emissions intensity”—greenhouse gas emissions per unit of LNG production—of a hypothetical LNG facility powered by electricity obtained from the power grid to the average emissions of other LNG facilities around the world, where the electricity is generated on-site with methane gas–powered generators and the compressors are driven by gas-driven turbines. The study analyzed facilities that “employ the most up-to-date technologies and processes and may therefore be considered ‘best practice’ in the industry with respect to the mitigation of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.”

The benchmarking study became the basis of hyped news reports that BC would have “the world’s cleanest LNG facilities.” By any accounting, though, even the world’s cleanest LNG facilities would collectively have a King Kong–sized carbon footprint if the projects are both numerous and large.

To arrive at a plausible low-end emissions scenario for standard LNG production in BC, Sightline used the “best in class” figures from the facilities evaluated in the study—those that have the lowest emissions footprints. Even if BC’s LNG facilities generate emissions consistent with the least-polluting facilities observed in the government’s benchmarking study, they would more than double the province’s annual carbon dioxide emissions. The province’s most recent emissions report calculated 2014 carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from all sources in the province at 64.5 million metric tons. If all of BC’s proposed LNG facilities produced emissions consistent with the “best in class” technology, they would still generate 75 million metric tons of CO2e annually, or 116 percent of the province’s total 2014 emissions.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

Next, we calculated LNG facility emissions based on the province’s “future technology” scenario. The BC government’s emissions report based this scenario on a hypothetical facility that, instead of powering its equipment with natural gas, uses grid electricity provided by BC Hydro. The report claimed that a grid-connected LNG facility could have a greenhouse gas intensity that was 50 percent lower than the average facility and almost 40 percent lower than the current “best in class” facilities evaluated by the study.

It’s not clear that grid-powered LNG is actually plausible in BC. According to the project description for Pacific NorthWest LNG’s proposed facility, for example, BC Hydro has indicated that it does not have enough surplus electrical energy for the number of facilities proposed in the province and, further, that it lacks existing transmission infrastructure to deliver surplus energy to the Prince Rupert area, which is home to seven proposed LNG export sites. (See page 10 of the project description.)

Even with this drastic—and unrealistic, because there isn’t enough electricity or transmission capacity available—reduction in greenhouse gas intensity, BC’s proposed LNG facilities would still produce 47.2 million metric tons of CO2. That’s over 70 percent of the emissions produced by all other sources in the province in 2014.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

LNG facilities’ pollution sources

Across North America, natural gas is displacing coal as a fuel for generating electricity. The primary reason is cost (gas is cheap), but the LNG industry’s marketing rhetoric focuses on the fact that it produces less greenhouse gas pollution than coal when combusted. When compared to coal, burning natural gas also produces less particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, which are hazardous to public health.

It must be noted, though, that the pollution reduction occurs at the place where the fuel is burned. In the case of BC exports, the destination countries are in East Asia. The emissions reduction at the fuel’s final destination should not be confused with the local and regional emissions produced by LNG facilities themselves. A large-scale liquefaction facility produces substantial emissions, including methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases.

LNG facilities produce emissions in at least five different ways:

  1. Fuel-fired equipment powers a facility’s gas refining and refrigeration processes by burning methane gas and produces the largest portion of a facility’s emissions.
  2. Venting removes surplus gases from processing equipment and disposes of waste gas. As a normal part of liquefaction and storage at an LNG facility, venting releases the greenhouse gases methane and CO2 directly into the atmosphere.
  3. Flaring burns waste gases, converting them into emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide as well as other pollutants like carbon monoxide and particulate matter.
  4. “Fugitive emissions” of methane gas escape directly into the atmosphere from various pieces of equipment, including pipelines that feed gas to facility equipment.
  5. Marine emissions are released from the LNG tankers, many of which run on heavy fuel oil and emit related pollutants, including particulate matter, a significant contributor to lung and heart conditions in humans. An LNG tanker typically spends around 24 hours at port, and some facilities would likely have multiple vessel calls per week.

Since the fuel-fired facility processes consume the most energy and produce the lion’s share of greenhouse gas pollution, powering these processes with hydro-derived grid electricity would indeed reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of BC’s LNG facilities. But if BC aims to produce four times as much LNG as world’s largest LNG producer, it must admit that it could also become one of the world’s largest generators of greenhouse gas emissions from LNG production.  While the province has pledged to reduce emissions by 80 percent, the proposed LNG facilities would actually increase the province’s emissions by between 70 and 116 percent, making it impossible to reach that goal.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

BC may have pledged to have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, but the promise is cold comfort when the province cannot deliver enough electricity to support its idealistic technology scenario. Moreover, the sheer quantity and scale of proposals that BC officials hope to greenlight are staggering. It’s not yet clear which direction the province will take after the recent election, but one issue is evident: BC must decide how serious it is about fighting climate change.

 

Methodology

BC’s 2013 “benchmarking” study analyzed eight facilities; four were operational, three were under construction, and one was in the proposal stage. The operational facilities were Qatargas 1 and 2, which were included as a benchmark of typical emissions intensity; Snovhit LNG, which has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any facility currently in operation; and Pluto LNG, a recently commissioned plant with standard new-facility performance. The under-construction facilities were three Australian facilities that will incorporate greenhouse gas mitigation measures. The proposed facility included in the study is US facility Sabine Pass, which had the lowest proposed intensity of any of the facilities surveyed. (Sabine Pass is now operational.) The study included emissions for all processes within the facilities but excluded marine emissions and end-use emissions.

These eight facilities generated or proposed to generate between 0.26 and 0.49 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) for every metric ton of LNG produced, with an average intensity of 0.34 metric tons of CO2e.

The average emissions of the three least-polluting facilities, all of which use current technology and/or carbon capture, was 0.27 metric tons of CO2e for every metric ton of LNG produced. We used this figure to calculate emissions that would be produced by BC’s proposed LNG facilities using gas-fired turbines. This number is consistent with figures used by the proposed Aurora LNG and Pacific NorthWest LNG facilities, which estimated their annual emissions using 0.28 and 0.27, respectively.

Facility

Metric tons CO2e/metric ton of LNG
Sabine Pass (US) 0.26 tCO2e/t LNG
Australia Pacific (Australia) 0.30 tCO2e/t LNG
Pluto LNG (Australia) 0.36 tCO2e/t LNG
Snohvit LNG (Norway) Between 0.29 and 0.34 tCO2e/t LNG
Qatargas 1 (Qatar) 0.49 tCO2e/t LNG
Qatargas 2 (Qatar) 0.41 tCO2e/t LNG
Gorgon Gas Project (Australia) 0.27 tCO2e/t LNG
Gladstone LNG (Australia) 0.35 tCO2e/t LNG at full build-out

To calculate the all-electric scenario for BC’s proposed LNG facilities, we used the study’s estimation of the greenhouse gas intensity of a grid-connected facility, which is 0.17 metric tons of CO2e for every metric ton of LNG produced. This includes 0.1 metric tons from grid electricity consumption and 0.07 metric tons from other power requirements: CO2 venting, methane venting, fugitive emissions, flaring, and on-site heating. Two proposed BC LNG facilities have gone lower than this benchmark in calculating their emissions, but we did not find the methods credible enough to use in this exercise because they omitted emissions-producing processes that are not remedied by using grid-based power.

Calculations for graphs
Annual production—all projects* Emissions factor tCO2e annually

% of 2014 provincial emissions
277.6 million 0.27 74,952,000 116
277.6 million 0.17 47,192,000 73

* The Nisga’a LNG project has yet to announce its annual production, so it was not included in these calculations. The inclusion of this facility would increase annual emissions calculations.

For the 2050 emissions goal represented on our third chart, we used the province’s Climate Leadership Plan, which includes the goal of reducing BC’s 2007 emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The province’s 2007 emissions were 67.3 megatonnes of CO2e in 2007. Learn more about BC’s emissions reductions goals here.

Another Columbia River Oil Trains Proposal

Northwest communities have been knocking down oil train development proposals as fast as they can spring up. In the last two years alone the region’s opposition movement has, by various means, spiked projects all around western Washington: once in Vancouver, once in Anacortes, and three times in Hoquiam. One big proposal is still under review in Vancouver, but the odds of its approval are shrinking.

Stymied at every turn, there’s reason to believe the industry is now setting its sights on Port Westward, a small industrial park in rural northwest Oregon on the Columbia River. Those tracking the region’s fossil fuel export controversies may recall that Port Westward is the site of two failed coal export schemes, as well as an active proposal to build a huge petrochemical plant. It’s the same place where an energy company called Global Partners runs trains loaded with ethanol to a terminal for loading onto marine vessels.

Up until January 2016, Global Partners was moving crude oil by rail to the site—initially in gross violation of its state permits—but as oil prices tanked and markets shifted, the firm switched to ethanol. Now, the company is angling to substantially expand its holdings at Port Westward, and it looks very much like an attempt to become a big player in oil-by-rail. Global Partners is on the verge of striking a deal with Portland General Electric (a utility that owns a neighboring power plant) to acquire 1.2 million gallons of storage tank capacity, a pipeline connecting those tanks to the Port Westward dock, and permission to expand its on-site rail infrastructure.

The site is already badly polluted with serious oil contamination of the soil and groundwater. A 2012 peer-reviewed paper published in 2012 found that Chinook salmon nearby were contaminated enough by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are derived from petroleum products, to harm their immune systems and reproductive abilities.

If approved by state regulators, the transaction would position Global Partners as the Northwest’s dominant oil train operator. The site is already permitted to received up to 120,000 barrels per day by rail, far more than any of the Puget Sound refineries that are allowed to handle oil trains. It’s the equivalent of roughly 12 loaded trains per week, all of which would travel through the Columbia River Gorge—the site of a catastrophic oil train explosion in June 2016—as far as Portland before transferring to the notoriously under-insured railroad that reaches Port Westward. At Port Westward, site operators would transfer the oil to above-ground storage tanks before loading it onto oceangoing vessels that would ship it to West Coast refineries or, if prices rebound, to export markets abroad.

The Oregon Public Utility Commission is weighing approval of the project. It can deny approval of the sale if regulators deem it not in the public interest. The agency is holding a public hearing on the project in Salem the morning of June 13. The good folks at Columbia Riverkeeper have details about the hearing and more information about the project.

 

Thanks to Alyse Nelson for research assistance.

 

Pull Together: The People vs. Kinder Morgan

Kinder Morgan, the corporation behind the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in Canada, is now eyeing expansion opportunities in Whatcom and Skagit counties in Washington State. Its oil transport ambitions directly threaten the Salish Sea and Puget Sound, and its track record of law-breaking, pollution, and cover-ups have communities across Cascadia on alert.

Next week, Sightline policy director Eric de Place and several other experts will discuss Kinder Morgan’s projects, how the community is fighting back against them, and how you can get involved. Learn more about the Pull Together movement at pull-together.ca.

Pull Together: The People vs. Kinder Morgan

  • When: Wednesday, June 14th, 7:00 – 8:30 PM (doors open at 6:30 PM)
  • Where: East Shore Unitarian Church, 12700 SE 32nd St, Bellevue, WA (map)
  • Sponsors: Sightline Institute, 350 Seattle, Sierra Club, Earth Ministry, and the East Shore Unitarian Church
  • Tickets: This event is free and open to the public. Refreshments will be provided.

Download a printable event flyer

Map: The Future Is Carbon-Priced and the US is Getting Left Behind

A little over a year ago, 195 countries signed on to the historic Paris Climate Accord to limit global warming pollution. This year, the United States pointed a loaded gun at its own foot, and President Trump pulled the trigger, announcing he will withdraw from the agreement. But the rest of the world is moving ahead with carbon pricing programs that will give other countries a head start in the race to a clean energy economy. Notably, The United States’ neighbors to the north and south are adopting national carbon pricing programs in 2018, and the European Union and China are allying to become global leaders in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Nations and regions making progress

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

Click map to enlarge.

Forty countries and 24 sub-national regions (states, provinces, etc.) have already or are scheduled to soon make polluters pay with a national or regional price on carbon. Together, these carbon pricing initiatives cover about 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e), or about 13 percent of annual global GHG emissions. Roughly two-thirds of covered emissions are covered by a cap-and-trade program, about one-third are covered by a carbon tax, and about one-quarter of the jurisdictions use both.

Several new or expanded pricing programs have come online in the past few years—these are highlighted with an orange outline in their first year in the animated map above.

In 2015, Portugal launched a carbon tax, and South Korea implemented a cap-and-trade program. California expanded its cap-and-trade program, initially launched in 2012, to cover 85 percent of it GHG emissions.

Starting in July, more than one-quarter of global emissions will be priced.
Tweet This

After abolishing its carbon price in 2014, Australia launched a new “safeguard mechanism”—a modified form of cap-and-trade—in 2016. In addition to its carbon tax, which has been in place since 2008, in 2016, British Columbia put a limit and price on pollution from industrial facilities (especially targeting coal-fired power plants and liquefied natural gas facilities). In 2018, BC will expand its carbon tax to cover fugitive emissions and forest slash-pile burning and raise the tax by $5 per year.

The United States-shaped hole in the fight against climate change is increasingly conspicuous. In 2017, Ontario, Canada, launched a cap-and-trade program, and Alberta, Canada, launched a new carbon tax for transportation and heating fuel emissions. Canada’s federalist experiment around carbon pricing paid off: four different provinces are running four different programs, and now the federal government is ready to implement a national price in 2018. But the federal requirements leave plenty of room for each province to tailor its own solution. Mexico will also launch a national carbon price in 2018.

Chile’s carbon tax, in the works since 2014, took effect in 2017. South Africa expected to launch a carbon tax in 2017, but delayed the implementation. China is scheduled to start its much-anticipated national carbon price in July 2017. Although nine (of 33) Chinese regions have run cap-and-trade programs for several years, the national plan will double the global amount of carbon pollution globally that has a price tag attached to it. Starting in July, more than one-quarter of global emissions will be priced.

Paris opens the door for international pricing

In December 2015, 195 nations signed on to the Paris Climate Accord, agreeing to try to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees—or maybe just 1.5 degrees!—celsius (3.6 or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively). The signatory nations—accounting for more than 95 percent of the world’s GHG emissions—are drawing up plans, and many are already putting them into action.

Article 6 of the Paris Accord lays the groundwork for an international carbon pricing regime. Most countries want in: nearly 100 nations, accounting for 58 percent of global GHG emissions, submitted initial plans saying they are interested in participating in international carbon pricing to help them meet their pollution reduction goals.

Several are already implementing domestic or regional prices, as shown in the map above. Add an international program to existing progress, and a price could soon be in effect across much of the globe, covering about two-thirds of global emissions.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

North Americans are warming to dividends

The carbon prices already in place were worth about $50 billion in 2016, and international action coordinated by the Paris Accord could generate a new stream of revenue in participating nations in future years. Nations and states use the revenue to reduce other taxes, fund clean energy projects, and fill budget holes. And some jurisdictions give some revenue back to the people. The idea of carbon dividends, making polluters pay, and then writing people a check (similar to what Alaska does with taxes on oil production) is gaining ground in North America.

Author and entrepreneur Peter Barnes has long advocated for the idea that we all have an ownership share in common assets. More than a decade ago, he asked, “who owns the sky?” More recently, he asked, if Thomas Piketty is right that those who make money by owning things keep making more while those who make money by working keep making relatively less, how can we sustain our middle class, our democracy, and our planet? His answer to both questions is: we all have a share in the world’s natural resources, and, like shareholders, we all should receive dividend checks.

Canadians like the idea: Alberta’s carbon tax includes a small rebate, and the federal plan will send some money back to individuals. For nearly a decade, British Columbia has used carbon tax revenue to give money back to people in the form of income tax credit—not as transparent as dividend checks, but a similar idea. Now, BC plans to increase and expand its tax and use the new revenue to deliver rebate checks to ensure a majority of British Columbians are better off financially.

In the United States, California’s cap-and-trade program has always included a dividend in the form of a “climate credit” on everyone’s utility bill. But dividends are the heart of the new proposal for a revolutionary upgrade to California’s program. Between 50 and 90 percent of carbon revenue would go right back to individuals, so everyone in the state would get a check in the mail every quarter. Even if oil corporations ginned up fear that the carbon price was getting too high, everyday people would cheer because their checks would get bigger.

Many working on the California bill see dividends as critical to the bill’s success. California requires a two-thirds majority to pass new taxes, and Chevron sponsored an under-the-radar campaign to pass Prop. 26 in 2010, changing the definition of “tax” to ensure it applies to cap-and-trade too. As a result, California climate advocates must attract some conservative support for the new bill.

Californians’ hope that a carbon dividend might bridge the partisan divide that has stymied progress in the United States may be well-founded. After all, a few months ago, a group of prominent Republicans released the Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends, complete with a TED Talk and meetings with White House officials.

Advocates in Washington DC are also pushing a carbon fee and rebate.

The US hangs back, but the world moves forward

Countries and regions continue to march forward with carbon pricing. China, after years of experience with nine regional carbon pricing programs, is almost ready to institute a national program. Canada and Mexico are also set to roll out national programs. Meanwhile, the United States the United States lags. But California’s trailblazing climate efforts, and some conservative thought leadership on dividends, is laying promising groundwork for US action.

An Oil Pipeline Expansion in Washington?

There’s much ado about expansion plans for Canada’s Trans Mountain Pipeline, and with good reason: exporting tar sands oil through the Salish Sea poses huge spill risks to the region. Now there’s reason to think that Washington may see a giant pipeline expansion of its own.

Kinder Morgan may also be planning to more double the size of the Puget Sound Pipeline, boosting its capacity from 240,000 to 500,000 barrels per day.
Tweet This

Kinder Morgan, an energy goliath with a checkered past, owns the Trans Mountain as well as the connected Puget Sound Pipeline, which runs through Whatcom and Skagit Counties in northwestern Washington State. The company is planning to begin construction this year on a near-tripling of its Canadian Trans Mountain Pipeline’s capacity—adding a new 590,000-barrel pipe alongside the existing pipe. The resulting “twinned” line would be bigger than the planned Keystone XL Pipeline. And south of the border, new financial disclosures indicate that Kinder Morgan may also be planning to more than double the size of the Puget Sound Pipeline, boosting its capacity from 240,000 to 500,000 barrels per day.

The existing Trans Mountain line delivers 300,000 barrels of crude oil daily over a 715-mile route from Alberta to the Northwest. Some of it goes to a marine terminal at Burnaby, British Columbia, where it is loaded on vessels for export to Tacoma, Washington, several locations in California, and other refining centers. Yet most of the oil, about 191,000 barrels daily, is diverted to a branch line known as the Puget Sound Pipeline, which delivers the fuel along a 69-mile route to four refineries at Ferndale and Anacortes, Washington.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

In operation since 1956, the 16- to 20-inch pipeline that comprises the Puget Sound system has four breakout tanks, designed to store oil for later pipeline shipments. The Puget Sound Pipeline accounts for roughly a quarter of all the crude oil delivered to Washington, requiring approximately one day for the crude to reach its destination. The company has reported only five spills to state and federal authorities over the course of the pipeline’s lifespan and none in the past 17 years.

In 2012 and 2013, company officials hinted at possible expansion plans to the Puget Sound line—either in addition to the Trans Mountain enlargement or as an alternative to it if the BC route proved unworkable—but those ambitions seemed to have fallen by the wayside. After a 2013 expansion from roughly 180,000 to 240,000 barrels per day, Kinder Morgan appeared content to focus on growing Trans Mountain. In the meantime, the Puget Sound system continued to fill with Canadian oil, “with 2015 and 2016 experiencing increases from previous years of over 15 percent and 30 percent, respectively,” according to the company.

Yet new information contained in Kinder Morgan’s financial disclosures shows that the firm may be intending to more than double the Puget Sound Pipeline’s capacity. Looking to raise money to finance construction on the Trans Mountain expansion, the company’s Canadian subsidiary has filed for an Initial Public Offering. In at least five places in the marketing materials and prospectus documents, Kinder Morgan asserts that the Puget Sound Pipeline “is capable of being expanded to increase its capacity” to 500,000 barrels per day.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

The company is pitching the expansion possibility to potential investors, presumably because expanding the Puget Sound line in coordination with Trans Mountain would enable the company to deliver more fuel to some of its prime destinations in the Northwest. And according to statements in the IPO filings, the expansion might also free up Alaska oil for export to foreign markets after the Obama Administration lifted the longstanding ban on exporting American crude oil. In other words, a Puget Sound expansion could indirectly act as a way for US oil producers to sell more oil abroad.

The state would likely be confronted with new challenges to protect local communities and sensitive ecologies from the risks of notoriously harmful tar sands spill.
Tweet This

Although Trans Mountain provides the sole pipeline link from Alberta’s oil sands fields to the Northwest, the existing line handles a variety of oil types. Historically, it has not been dominated by tar sands oil, which would comprise the bulk of the shipments in the planned Trans Mountain expansion. In 2012, for example, Kinder Morgan reported that the pipeline was carrying 45 percent light crude, 22 percent heavy crude (which could refer to an oil sands product), 16 percent synthetic crude (which could be a blended product containing oil sands), and 16 percent refined product (such as diesel or gasoline). But in the years since, oil extraction in Alberta’s tar sands region has boomed, and the planned Trans Mountain expansion is designed explicitly to deliver huge quantities of the sticky, heavy oil to export markets.

It’s reasonable to assume, therefore, that a twice-as-big Puget Sound line would likely carry large volumes of tar sands oil through northwest Washington, too. From its destination points at Whatcom and Skagit County refineries it would either be processed into useable consumer fuels or possibly loaded onto tankers for export. In either scenario, the state would likely be confronted with new challenges to protect local communities and sensitive ecologies from the risks of notoriously harmful tar sands spills.

Update 6/1/18: In its SEC filing for 2017 Kinder Morgan says that it could expand the Trans Mountain even more than currently planned, and the company reiterates its interest in doubling the Puget Sound line:

While we do not presently have any plans to expand TMPL outside of the current scope of TMEP, the combined capacity of the expanded pipeline could potentially be further increased by over 300,000 bpd to approximately 1.2 million bpd, with additional power and further capital enhancements. The Puget Sound pipeline is capable of being expanded to increase its capacity to approximately 500,000 bpd from its current capacity of 240,000 bpd. We will continue to monitor market and industry developments to determine which, if any, further expansion projects on TMPL may be appropriate.

 

This article benefited from research contributed by Alyse Nelson, John Abbotts, Carl Weimer, Matt Krogh, and Alex Ramel, and from editorial review by Tarika Powell.

Weekend Reading 6/2/17

Eric

Last week, one of Cascadia’s finest authors passed away. I’ve read nearly all of Denis Johnson’s published books and it is no exaggeration to say that several of them (especially Tree of Smoke, Train Dreams, Nobody Move, and Already Dead) regularly haunt me even during waking hours. There are echoes in his prose and hard-luck characters of another Northwest writer, Raymond Carver, but I’ve never encountered anyone with Johnson’s art for telling stories that seem to travel between this world and the next one.

After a Thin Green Line speaking engagement in Sandpoint, Idaho, I had the pleasure of meeting the owner of a beloved bookshop in Bonners Ferry. He supplied me with a signed volume and a magazine feature Johnson wrote about why he chose to live secluded in rural north Idaho. I’d hoped to return someday and perhaps meet him.

Dear Seattle International Film Festival, I love you. You are amazing in so many ways, and we wouldn’t be the same without you. But I will never understand—and I can never forgive—your scheduling. As you well know, Seattle is “blessed” with month after month of prime movie-going weather: darkness and cold and rain, seemingly without end. So when at last the sun returns to our gloomy shores, when the flowers are blooming, how on earth can you expect us to retreat to the dark cave of a cinema?

There’s a dead gray whale on a beach on Washington’s outer coast. This not being Oregon, state officials did not blow it up with dynamite. But if they had, perhaps it would have been in keeping with ancient Northwest lore.

Kristin

Mark Zuckerberg’s commencement address makes some really important points, like, maybe we should work together to stop climate change! Starting at 18:10, he talks for about 10 minutes about inequality and opportunity. We need to redefine our idea of equality to make sure that everyone has the freedom to find their purpose. Entrepreneurs can only succeed because they have the freedom to fail, which means having a cushion to fall back on when you fail. But while he (Zuckerberg) was able to try things, knowing he wouldn’t be homeless if it didn’t work out, and now he can make billions, historic inequality means that millions of young people can’t even pay off their student loans much less start a new business that might fail. He points out that he doesn’t know anybody who didn’t follow through on an entrepreneurial idea because they were afraid they wouldn’t make enough money if they succeeded, but he knows plenty of people who couldn’t try something because they wouldn’t be able to pay for rent and food if it failed. He goes on to say “it’s time for our generation to define a new social contract” that includes a universal basic income that gives everyone that cushion to try things and fail. We need affordable childcare, healthcare that’s not tied to one employer, and to give people the freedom to make mistakes instead of locking them up when they do. He acknowledges that this will not be free, and that people like him should pay. At 24:10 he talks about his experience teaching students and learning what it feels like to be targeted for your race and to have a parent in prison. He believes that everyone, not just him, but those students too, should have the opportunity to find their purpose in life.

Aven

Extra glad to have found a few points of hope this week, including this Resistbot app that faxes your political representatives for you with a simple text (please apply liberally), this list of awe-inspiring leaders working on innovative solutions to climate change, this statement from the six largest cities in the US committing to honor the Paris Accord, regardless of federal actions, and this article on a massive wind power project currently in the works in Wyoming (of all places). Also this picture of an abandoned synthetic silk factory in Rome that has become a nature preserve, which is currently serving as my own personal reminder that nature persists, no matter the hubris of humanity.

John

In the “unexpected developments” category, I frequently cringe at opinion pieces from the Seattle Times Editorial Board. But I find myself in agreement with their views that public funds should be spent for public purposes, and the Seattle City Council should protect the “public interest and transparency,” in negotiating with private parties over new sports facilities in the city.

On the other hand, a year ago, Samatha Bee defended the City Council female members who voted to support jobs at the Port of Seattle, rather than enable a private investor to develop a new sports arena; and Ms. Bee expressed her opinion in a more direct, humorous, feminist, and (trigger alert!) ribald manner.

Lastly, did readers know the world is running out of construction-quality sand? Well, neither did I until I read this New Yorker article.

John Abbotts is a former Sightline research consultant who occasionally submits material for Weekend Reading and other posts.

British Columbia Embraces Electoral Reform

The 2017 British Columbia election results are in, and electoral reform is a winner! The BC Green Party made electoral reform a centerpiece of its platform, and the BC New Democratic Party (NDP) also campaigned on electoral reform. This week, the Greens and the NDP penned a “Confidence and Supply Agreement”—the Greens will guarantee support for NDP’s budgets and Premier—and they released a 10-page accord describing policies they will work together on, including electoral reform. They commit to putting an electoral reform referendum on the 2018 ballot. If voters want to adopt proportional representation, the 2021 provincial election could be the first proportional election in Canada.

Proportional representation ensures the seats in parliament closely track the voters’ preferences, making every vote count and ensuring a more diverse and more representative legislature. For example, if 17 percent of voters prefer Green, voters would have the power to elect around 15 (of 87) Green members of parliament.

Like most elections in Canada and the United States, British Columbia  elects each member of parliament from a single-member riding (district), and so two parties win all or almost all the seats. The BC Liberal Party has won a majority of seats since 2001 while the NDP won a minority of seats. The Greens or other small parties usually win no seats at all. But this year the BC Green Party came out strong, winning 17 percent of the votes and 3 percent of the seats (3 seats out 87) while the NDP won 40 percent of the votes and 47 percent of the seats (41 seats out of 87), denying the Liberal party a majority. Together, the Greens and NDP hold just over half the seats but they have support from almost 60 percent of voters.

The Green Party also considered forming a majority coalition government with the Liberal Party. (The Liberals won 41 percent of the votes and 49 percent of the seats (43 out of 87), one seat short of a majority.) The BC Liberal Party did not include electoral reform in its 2017 platform. However, when Liberal BC leader Christy Clark was a radio talk-show host in 2009, she spoke in favor of proportional representation, saying “it will force politicians to compete for all your votes” and “every vote will count.” True that, Ms. Clark.

BC’s history with electoral reform

Former Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell was a proponent of electoral reform. (Side note: Campbell worked with current Green party leader Andrew Weaver—a member of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—to pass BC’s historic carbon tax. The Green-NDP agreement that Weaver just negotiated includes annually increasing the carbon tax, which has been stalled at Can$30 since 2012). In 1996, First-Past-the-Post’s unfairness struck BC—the Liberal Party won the most votes but NDP won the most seats, prompting Liberal leader Gordon Campbell to promise electoral reform when the Liberals won power again. Liberals gained power in 2001 and Campbell enacted a groundbreaking idea: a Citizens’ Assembly to study electoral reform and make a recommendation to citizens.

Some 161 regular people reflecting the gender, age, and geographical diversity of British Columbia were randomly selected to serve for a year. These citizens studied different electoral systems used around the world, heard from other interested citizens, and deliberated about which electoral system they thought would be best for BC. The Citizens’ Assembly chose a form of proportional representation called Single Transferable Vote (aka Sightline’s favored system: multi-winner ranked-choice voting). The question of whether to adopt Single Transfer Vote went to voters in 2005, and 58 percent, including a majority in 77 out of 79 ridings said “Yes!” However, Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell set the bar for the referendum to win at 60 percent, so even with a landslide 58 percent in favor, the referendum failed and BC stuck with a system that gives riding lines more power than voters.

British Columbians got another chance to vote on STV in 2009, but by that time, many voters had forgotten about the innovative Citizens’ Assembly, both the Liberal Party and the NDP stayed neutral (the Green party endorsed STV), many Liberal voters—with their party now firmly ensconced in power—were less enthused about STV, and the ballot wording subtly nudged voters towards “no.” Just 39 percent of voters said “yes” this time.

Canada’s turbulent romance with electoral reform

BC is not the only place in Canada that has closely studied electoral reform and so far failed to adopt changes.

In the past century, Canada has convened nine committees, commissions, or studies about electoral reform, most recently in 2016. During the 2015 campaign, Canada’s national Liberal Party said it was committed to enacting electoral reform. Once in power, Trudeau’s government assembled an all-party committee to study the question for nearly a year. In December 2016, the committee released an extensive final report, recommending Canada adopt some form of proportional representation. But the Liberal government backed away from its campaign promises and from the committee’s recommendations.

Canadian provinces have also conducted various electoral reform studies. In 2016, 52 percent of voters in the Prince Edward Island election endorsed using Mixed Member Proportional Voting to elect the provincial parliament. (PEI explained Mixed Member Proportional in this two minute video.)  PEI’s referendum was non-binding, so parliament immediately voted against making the change that a majority of voters want.

How BC could move forward

There’s a pattern here. Parties often call for electoral reform when they aren’t in power, and become less enthusiastic once they are in power. In light of this history, it may be good news for BC that NDP didn’t win a majority. With the reigns of power firmly in hand, NDP might have let electoral reform slip. But with a minority of seats, perhaps NDP’s passion for reform will continue to burn.

BC could learn not just from past studies of electoral reform, but also from past attempts to enact change. The first lesson could be: Just enact the electoral reform. That’s what the Green Party wanted to do. After all, nearly 60 percent of voters just voted to elect members of parliament who campaigned on electoral reform, so parliament could enact that change and give voters the opportunity to repeal it. But in negotiations, the Greens acquiesced to NDP’s desire for a referendum.

A referendum it is, and hopefully they will make it a good one. In designing the 2018 referendum, the Greens and NDP might take notes from past reform efforts in BC and elsewhere in Canada, and implement the following rules around the referendum:

  1. If an electoral method wins a majority of votes, it gets implemented. Not 60 percent, as in BC in 2005. Not now the parliament gets to vote on it, as in Prince Edward Island in 2016. Majority vote equals implementation.
  2. Give voters a choice between electoral methods. The 2009 BC referendum protected the status quo by framing the question as whether to keep “the existing electoral system” (safe-sounding) or try a new, “proposed” system (risky-sounding). More neutral framing would simply ask voters whether they prefer First-Past-the-Post or Single Transferable Vote. Or Mixed Member Proportional (another method Sightline likes).
  3. To get a true accounting of which electoral method a majority of voters prefer, let voters rank their preferences. Prince Edward Island’s 2016 referendum asked voters to rank their preferences between five electoral methods. If the referendum had used plurality voting (the one with the most votes wins, even if it doesn’t win a majority), “First-Past-the-Post” aka plurality voting would have won with a mere, yes, plurality. But the referendum let voters rank their preferences and the vote-counting eliminated the least popular options and transferred those voters’ votes to their next-ranked choice. In the instant runoff, Mixed Member Proportional won with a majority—52 percent—of votes.
  4. Let voters know that the Citizens’ Assembly “recommended” STV (the more accurate 2005 referendum language) and not that the Assembly “proposed” STV (misleading 2009 referendum language).

Almost two decades after the Citizens’ Assembly chose STV as the best voting method for BC, proportional representation might actually get implemented in BC in 2021. If the Greens and NDP play it right.

Oregon Poised to Pass National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Note: This article was originally published in 2017. We updated it to reflect the 2019 legislative session, where three bills were introduced to enact the popular vote concept in Oregon. Among its 40 sponsors, Senate Bill 870 has 13 state senators on board. It needs 16 votes to pass out of the Senate. Read more from Oregon Public Radio.

Oregonians, like other northwesterners, want their votes to matter in the US presidential election. But today, Oregon is a “safe” blue state that presidential candidates never visit. Instead, it could be a battleground state where candidates vie for votes. It could, that is, if enough states sign the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, agreeing to award their electoral college votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide.

Back in 2017, the Oregon House had already heeded the will of the people, voting in favor of a National Popular Vote Bill four times in the past eight years. But the bill faded in the Senate.

In past years, Senate President Peter Courtney has refused to bring the bill to a vote, even though a majority of senators were ready to approve it. In 2017, Courtney said he was willing to send the question directly to the voters. He could let Oregonians weigh in with a vote in November. Or he could let the people’s elected representatives in the Senate do their job—vote on legislation. In 2019, Courtney’s office told Oregon Public Radio that he’ll allow a vote on the concept on the floor of the Senate.

If Courtney lets the Oregon Senate vote on the bill and a majority of senators vote yes, Oregon will become the fifteenth jurisdiction to sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing Beaver State voters one step closer to having a voice in presidential elections. With Oregon, the Compact will have 188 of the 270 electoral votes needed to go into effect.

Weekend Reading 5/26/17

Serena

If you missed this fun article in Sightline Daily this week, check it out: it’s an illustrated account of women’s early forays into bicycling in the late 1800s and how that humble mode of transport contributed to liberating and emboldening experiences for many of them. Note, however, it’s largely the story of white, upper- and middle-class women venturing onto these two-wheeled wonders of liberation. I asked the author about this on Twitter, and she graciously acknowledged failing to name this more explicitly and then pointed me in the direction of Kittie Knox. Knox was a bi-racial, Boston-born woman cyclist who was a member of Boston’s first Black cycling group, who earned admiration for her bold and stylish cycling outfits, and (most notably) who defied the League of American Bicyclists’ 1894-instituted “color bar” (to block people of color from joining the group). I’d love to know more stories like hers.

Intergenerational friendships: they’re becoming more and more of a thing, in part thanks to technology, and particularly among women. Nice! Now, anyone need a 30-year-old new pal in her life? 😉

As I’ve written before in Weekend Reading, I’m a big fan of used clothing. Its reduced environmental footprint, its lower cost, and the thrill of a good find are all factors in my shopping choices—shopping I do, it should be said, infrequently and selectively in the first place. The New York Times had a helpful write-up this week of the main types of fabric in our clothing and each one’s respective environmental impacts. The takeaway, according to one expert? “The best thing we can do is buy less and wear more.” Yes! And I’d add: make use of all the great clothing already out in the world before heading out on your next shopping trip. My advice for successful thrifting or consignment shopping: know your personal style, develop an eye for spotting it on the rack, and be choosy about what you ultimately take home (as in, don’t just grab it ‘cause it’s cheap, and consider, too, whether it’ll mix well with the rest of your wardrobe). Et voila! Beats a trip to a regular store any day.

Eric

You must watch this: Bill Wurtz’s history of the world. It may miss one or two items, but he crams more into 20 hilarious, exhilarating, and slightly exhausting minutes that I thought possible. His 9 minute history of Japan is brilliant too.

Are fonts fueling the culture wars?

New evidence that hallucinogenic mushrooms are the safest recreational drug is starting people asking whether cannabis-style deregulation or legalization is possible for ‘shrooms.

I haven’t started watching the new Twin Peaks yet—I’m in a total media blackout about it—but I loved this All Things Considered feature about the composer of the original music. I’d forgotten how moody and dark and sexy and brilliant it was. (Listen, don’t read, at that link.)

Kristin

The research on mindfulness is compelling, but I’m still a bit skeptical of gurus urging me to live in the moment. Imagining the future is what I do—it seems to be what I’m built for! Martin Seligman, the father of “positive psychology,” backs me up. What makes us human is the ability to see and shape our future. Indeed, the inability to imagine a bright future may be the chief cause of depression and anxiety.

Speaking of imagining the future with great clarity… wow, Bruce Lee! He had not just a vision, but a spiritual force behind that vision:

When a man comes to a conscious vital realization of those great spiritual forces within himself and begins to use those forces in science, in business and in life, his progress in the future will be unparalleled. I feel I have this great creative and spiritual force within me that is greater than faith, greater than ambition, greater than confidence, greater than determination, greater than vision. It is all these combined.

And speaking of extraordinary people who accomplish amazing things: some of them may be slightly crazy. “authors are actually more likely to be depressed than the general population. Similarly, scientists are more likely to be schizophrenic and visual artists are more likely to be bipolar.” People like Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla make invaluable contributions to humanity, but for most people on the tail ends of the bell curve of mental states it may mostly suck trying to get by in a society that wants everyone squashed together inside the bell. Good to remember that while the people safely inside the bell make the gears of everyday life turn smoothly, it is often the ones on the tails that invent new gears.

What if you told your boss you found a way to be more creative and productive? She’d probably say go for it! But if you told her the trick was taking a 90-minute walk in the middle of the day, she might be less enthused. Yet, for knowledge workers, carving out time to wonder may be more valuable than more meetings and emails.

Anna

Here’s a fascinating and important illustration of how the way a problem is framed shapes thinking about appropriate solutions. World leaders, diplomats, do-gooders, and media have been telling the same story about Africa for so long, it’s deeply engrained in our minds as truth: Africa is poor but rich countries can send help. But what if we flip the story? What if we turned that story on its head? Africa is rich, but we steal its wealth. That’s the picture put into focus by a new report that accounts for wealth (often extracted, exploited, “repatriated”) that’s flowing out of African countries:

Based on a set of new figures, it finds that sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor to the rest of the world to the tune of more than $41bn. Sure, there’s money going in: around $161bn a year in the form of loans, remittances (those working outside Africa and sending money back home), and aid. But there’s also $203bn leaving the continent.

Nick Dearden, director of UK campaigning organization Global Justice Now, writing in AlJazeera, suggests that to shift to policies that really lift up African countries and their populations, including, we must shift the way we talk and think about Africa. “It’s not about making people feel guilty,” he writes, “but correctly diagnosing a problem in order to provide a solution. We are not, currently, ‘helping’ Africa. Africa is rich. Let’s stop making it poorer.”

The US Department of the Interior is “reviewing” national monument designations made since the 1990s, by Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton, including Cascadia’s Hanford Reach in Washington, Cascade-Siskiyou in Oregon, Craters of the Moon in Idaho, and other public lands all over the US West and the Pacific. They are now accepting public comment. If you haven’t already, you might hop over to the DOI site and share your thoughts about protecting these shared treasures. Need inspiration, just look at photos of these spectacular places.

Aven

Most people have heard by now that a meat-heavy diet is bad for the planet. And bad for your health. Just bad in general. So, what should we be eating instead, and are the alternatives really any better? According to a new study, insects are the most eco-friendly protein source, but really just about any edible protein you can think of yields environmental benefits over beef consumption.  The good news for people who aren’t too keen on bug-eating is that even switching from beef to chicken yielded significant increases in land-use efficiency. Some food for thought this grilling season.

Dan

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s speech last week defending the removal of four Confederate monuments is so bold, so moving, so truthful, it gives me hope that although there may be temporary setbacks, our country is slowly but surely moving down the soul-searching path toward taking responsibility for our dark history of white supremacy:

Another friend asked me to consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it?

Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential? Have you ever thought that if her potential is limited, yours and mine are too?

We all know the answer to these very simple questions.

When you look into this child’s eyes is the moment when the searing truth comes into focus for us. This is the moment when we know what is right and what we must do. We can’t walk away from this truth.

John

On the topic of Pigovian taxes (a “tax bads, not goods” approach), the New York Times reported on the tobacco industry’s attempts to undercut cigarette taxes by offering discounts. The article also points out that that tobacco industry, never a paragon of corporate responsibility, ultimately depends on hooking kids for future profits, since many smokers die early due to their addiction.

On a similar topic, Carrie Dennett’s syndicated column on nutrition runs in the Seattle Times. She recently addressed Seattle’s proposed soda tax, and identified a comparable situation: In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended taxes on soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) sufficient to significantly reduce consumption. Sugar may not be physically addictive as nicotine is, but it contributes to obesity and diabetes. The Junk Beverage industry is fighting back, against such taxes, and also by increasing advertising and sales to the young.

More in the “food can be bad” category, Democracy Now! ran this segment on hog “factory farms,” manure, and public efforts to fight them. North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoed a bill that would have shielded hog factory farm owners from claims brought by residents made sick by the farms. Unfortunately, the North Carolina governor’s veto was overturned by both legislative houses; in North Carolina, a 60% vote is required to override a veto. The North Carolina Pork Council celebrated the override. My reaction: OINK.

Fortunately, the Northwest does not suffer from the concentration of giant hog farms found in other states. However, we do have cattle and dairy factory farms, which also generate large amounts of liquid manure.

John Abbotts is a former Sightline research consultant who occasionally submits material for Weekend Reading and other posts.