VANCOUVER—The environmental organization Stand.earth is calling for the National Energy Board to consider the full implications for climate change of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion before it makes a new recommendation to the federal government whether to approve the controversial project.

While the group has filed similar motions before and been denied, they say a new precedent has emerged since then that adds weight to their request. In August 2017, the board said it would consider indirect “upstream” and “downstream” greenhouse-gas emissions associated with the Energy East pipeline.

That means the assessment would consider both emissions from the production of the oil the pipeline would carry — upstream emissions — as well as downstream emissions, released during the refining process and combustion during its final use in a car, for instance.

“It would be completely arbitrary and unreasonable, in fact unprincipled, not to take the same stance with respect to the Trans Mountain project,” said Casey Leggett, a lawyer with Martin + Associates representing Stand.earth.

Now, as the board reconsiders the project, Stand.earth said the scope of its second environmental assessment should be expanded to include climate change.

The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the initial approval for the 1,100-km Trans Mountain expansion project, which would triple the flow of diluted bitumen through the pipeline, in late August.

In its ruling, it said the government’s consultation efforts with First Nations were flawed and that the decision to ignore oil tanker risks in the initial project assessment was an “unjustified failure.” The project is expected to result in a sevenfold increase in oil tanker traffic through the Burrard Inlet to the Westridge Marine Terminal.

In response, Ottawa, which now owns both the existing pipeline and the proposed expansion, launched a new consultation process with First Nations and directed the National Energy Board to redo its environmental assessment to include the marine shipping element.

The Alberta government disagrees there is a need to expand the scope of the current review to cover the greenhouse gases emitted by the oil when it’s finally burned.

“These are not appropriate issues to include in the review,” said Mike McKinnon, a spokesperson for Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd, in a statement.

“All of Canada benefits when we maximize the value of our resources. That’s why this pipeline is in the national interest and why the majority of Canadians agree that we need to get this pipeline built, while taking strong action to combat climate change,” he said.

“Deciding the merits of a pipeline on downstream emissions is like judging transmission lines based on how its electricity will be used.”

Read more:

Can Trudeau’s government convince First Nations to allow the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion?

First Nations leaders see promise in purchasing Trans Mountain expansion, despite the obstacles ahead

Federal Court of Appeal quashes Trans Mountain approval, calling it ‘unjustifiable failure,’ in win for First Nations, environmentalists

The federal government, meanwhile, says it fulfilled its promise to consider the direct and upstream greenhouse-gas emissions related to the Trans Mountain project with a separate review by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

That review missed a key element by excluding downstream emissions, said Leggett. And, since it wasn’t considered as part of the National Energy Board’s process, the organizations and governments participating had no opportunity to submit additional evidence about the project’s climate implications for the board’s consideration, he added.

Kirsten Zickfeld, an expert in climate science at Simon Fraser University, said it would be “very difficult, if not impossible” to meet Canada’s climate commitments and make the greenhouse-gas-emission reductions required to avoid the worst effects of climate change if new fossil-fuel infrastructure, such as a pipeline, is built.

“It is simply irresponsible that the government has so far refused to review the full climate impacts of this project,” added Tzeporah Berman, Stand.earth’s international program director.

Berman, whose comments came the day before the deadline for intervenors to submit their final arguments to the National Energy Board, said she expects new legal challenges will follow if the board doesn’t move to include a full assessment of greenhouse gases in its review.

Read more about: