The main points of the final arguments were:

• Developing natural gas in the NWT has the potential to bring some economic activity to the North, but that possibility does not outweigh the negative impacts of the pipeline.
• It is very likely that the pipeline will have significant negative impacts in the North and combined with inadequate assessment, a lack of preparedness and the consequent inability of the JRP to complete its mandate, Sierra Club submits that the JRP should recommend that the MGP not be approved at this time.
• Key concerns include the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the end-use of the gas and cumulative impacts from upstream induced development (i.e. the effects of further industrial exploration and development in the North).
• Under current conditions, the MGP and its cumulative effects (including end-use of gas) have the potential to move Canada 10% further away from meeting its treaty promises under the Kyoto Protocol.  As described by Sir Nicholas Stern, if we don’t start doing things differently now, the impacts of climate change could be “on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century”.  This applies especially to fossil fuels, which are the dominant cause of climate change.
• Natural gas has the potential to help Canada and the North bridge to a more sustainable energy future due to its lower GHG emissions compared to other fossil fuels and its versatility in end uses; however, the proponents and governments continue to resist recommendations made by interveners to insure this.  Programs  such as national carbon taxes to help ensure the delivered gas goes to wise end-uses or revenues from the project being used to develop renewable energy sources need to be in place before the development of the pipeline.
• Other extremely important issues remain to be assessed such as impacts on species at risk and cumulative effects from induced development.  For some species at risk, there has been no assessment at all despite evidence that suggests impacts will be significant.
• In regards to mitigation, reliance has been placed on the Cumulative Effects and Assessment Management Framework (CEAMF) which, while having many tools in terms of land use plans, protected areas, thresholds, etc., does not have the advancement or adequate funding for effective use and approval of the MGP would further diminish incentives within higher levels of government to complete them.
• Adequate assessment is crucial to understanding the upstream impacts of the MGP and the feasibility of mitigation of negative outcomes.  Currently, this type of assessment is not complete and without national programs, such as an effective price on GHG emissions, we cannot know whether a pipeline makes sense or has the potential to be sustainable.  Leaving assessment to regulatory stages or to adaptive management as suggested by the government contradicts the very idea of proper assessment before making key decisions.
• It is extremely important that this project be required to contribute to sustainability. As Dr. Gibson noted in his testimony, sustainability is “about reversing unsustainable trends.  So it’s not just about mitigating damage, it’s basically turning around the direction of trends that are now pointing us towards a future that would be non-viable and unattractive”.  Two such trends which are especially relevant for the MGP are the loss of biodiversity and climate change, two environmental crises of worldwide scale that have the potential to seriously impact ecosystems and future generations.  Dr. Gibson’s trade-off rules note that we should generally not accept further compromises in such issues.
•  While it is true that not all projects in Canada are assessed according to the standard of  ‘contributing to sustainability’, this is not a reason for relaxing the standard in this assessment of  the MGP, but rather a reason for improving the standard in other assessments.  The environmental crises we face call for an improvement in standards, not a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach whereby we avoid applying a higher standard to the MGP because other processes for other projects apply lower ones.  By following this sustainability standard, the JRP can not only assure proper consideration of the MGP, but can also help advance the state of environmental assessment beyond simply mitigating damage, a shift that Dr. Gibson has explained is so important.  Indeed, it is difficult to think of a project more deserving of this higher standard than the MGP, given its scale, its location, and its potential GHG emissions.

How best to proceed? 

Given the unknown but likely lengthy amount of time it will take to complete the required assessment work and achieve an adequate state of preparedness, Sierra Club suggests the best approach is for the JRP to write its report, recognizing in it that the JRP has not been able to complete its mandate, but nevertheless concluding that it has heard enough to recommend the MGP not be approved at this time. 

The ‘strong anticipatory work’ described by Mr. Greig and Dr. Duinker could then be undertaken, such as a scenario-based cumulative effects assessment.  An amended or new application for a pipeline might then be made at some time in the future – the gas will still be under the ground, its market value in the future is likely to be higher than today, and with the right conditions in place both upstream and downstream, it will have a much higher likelihood of contributing to sustainability.

If the JRP rejects this suggestion to recommend non-approval, the JRP might alternatively write an interim report detailing the assessment and preparatory work that still needs to be done, and then reconvene at some time in the future to hold further hearings.  Sierra Club identified a ‘program of work’ in its sub-recommendations 2A to 2Q 6 that it considers should be completed before decisions are made on whether to approve the MGP. 

Such an approach might be troublesome, however, given that the JRP may not want to be ‘waiting in the wings’ for such a length of time.   With this case in mind, Sierra Club emphasized in its sub-recommendations 2R to 2V 7 that the ‘program of work’ it identified nevertheless still needs to be verified by independent bodies in a public process, and Sierra Club provided some suggestions as to which bodies might be suitable.

Home > Postings > 2007-11-28