, 10 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
This shouldn’t be surprise news. In 2008, Harper’s actions and approval of Exxon’s Kearl oil sands clearly indicated GHG emissions were not being reported accurately.
Here’s a report acknowledging the huge environmental impact, Jack Layton’s concerns about toxic lakes and overuse of fresh water, and Ed Stelmach (Alberta Premier) stating a Conservative government was essential to investors in oil sands.

ctvnews.ca/layton-calls-f…
If Environmental Impact Assessment Reports were used to make the decision (twice in Kearl’s case), why would it make a difference? Did Stelmach reveal Conservatives were ignoring Alberta GHG emissions for profit?
Here’s a legal description & opinion regarding the GHG emissions and environmental impact.

mondaq.com/canada/x/60800…

The Department of Fisheries & Oceans denied approval initially for Kearl.
After Imperial Oil tried to strong arm permission to commence the project, regardless of DFO nullifying the Panel’s approval, a federal judge ruled a new report was required in May 2008 and new application for approval process initiated.
It wasn’t long after the federal judge’s decision, in June 2008, a Harper assembled Panel recommended “alternate management” for scientists within the federal government. This was when the attack on scientific data, the environment & scientists commenced. tbs-sct.gc.ca/fedlab-labfed/…
Management of scientists in the following departments were to include industry oversight:

Agriculture And Agri
Environment Canada
Health Canada
National Research Council
Natural Resources Canada

tbs-sct.gc.ca/fedlab-labfed/…
In September, the DFO licence was obtained and Kearl was approved. Excessive environmental damage to local water ecosystems be damned.

For conservatives, the economy is far more relevant than the people and animals that rely on clean water & a habitable environment.
And in 2019, 11 years later, we learn GHG emissions are much higher than industry reports.

Connect the dots. Harper govt approved health, safety, & environmental risks effecting Albertans & climate change for profit.

Is it any wonder why Cons reject Bill C-69 so vehemently?
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Sunshiny
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!