Sunday, March 19, 2023


Why most plastic can’t be recycled

Stuart Braun
DW
March 17, 2023

With only 9% of annual plastic waste recycled, the myth that we can recycle our way out of a mounting plastic pollution crisis doesn't add up.


Around 85% of plastic packaging worldwide ends up in landfills.

In the United States, which is by far the world's biggest plastics polluter, only around 5% of over 50 million tons of plastic waste produced by households in 2021 was recycled, accordingto Greenpeace.

With plastic production set to triple globally by 2060, plastics made primarily from oil or gas are a growing source of the carbon pollution fuelling climate change. Much is also ending up in oceans and severly impacting marine life.

Promises by major plastics producers like Nestle and Danone to promote recycling and include more recycled plastic in their containers have been mostly broken.

The plastics lobby, along with supermarkets in countries from Austria to Spain, sometimes avoid this responsibility by lobbying againstdeposit return schemes that include plastic bottles.

But there is hope. New universal plastic regulations are currently being negotiatiated as part of a global plastics treatyaiming to streamline the production, use and reuse of plastic using a circular economy model.

Still, circular product design also relies on the myth of recycling, which in its current guise is doing little to ease a mounting plastics crisis.




Separating seven types of plastic doesn't add up

Most plastic packaging is produced from seven grades of plastic that are largely incompatible with each other, and are costly to sort for recycling.

Apart from PET, or Polyethylene terephthalate, the world's most common plastic labelled with a #1, and high-density Polyethylene (HDPE), which carries the #2 symbol, five other plastic types might be collected but are rarely recycled, say Greenpeace.

PET is the most recyclable plastic and there is a strong market for its byproduct used to make drink bottles, food containers or fibers for clothes.

But the harder plastics numbered 3-7 have a very small market since the value of the raw material is lower than the cost of recycling.

"It's difficult to reprocess and sort through all the plastic," said Lisa Ramsden, Greenpeace USA Senior Plastics Campaigner. Mixed container recycling bins contain a lot of contaminates that make plastic unrecyclable, she added.

"Recycling is not the problem, plastics are," Ramsden explained. With new virgin plastic often cheaper than recycled material, plastic recycling is not economical, she said.
 



Virgin plastic is too cheap

The post-consumer plastic resin created from recycled material is being undercut by cheaper prime material, limiting the market for recycled plastics.

Reporting by New York-based market analysts S&P Global, shows demand for raw recycled plastic slowing due, among other factors, to rising transport costs for recycling businesses in Asia and a slowdown in the construction sector that creates plastic building materials.

Ironically, plastic bag bans in Africa and Asia have limited the amount of feed material, which, in addition to low recycling rates globally, is also raising the price of recycled material.

While the price of virgin plastic is at the whim of fluctuating oil and gas prices, these fossil fuels are often subsidized. According to Sander Defruyt, who leads the New Plastics Economy initiative at the US-based non-profit, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, recycled plastic would be more competitive if fossil fuel subsidies were phased out.

But companies that produce waste could help undercut low virgin plastic costs by subsiziding plastic recycling schemes under the principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR), DeFruyt said. Such corporate subsidies have been key to the success of waste recycling schemes in EU countries like Germany and France, he added.

The raw material created from recycled plastic can't currently compete with virgin oil or gas-based plastic
Image: Ozan Kose/AFP/Getty Images


Lightweight 'flexible' packaging booming but non-recyclable

The lightweight packets that keep food and snacks likes chips or chocolate bars fresh, constitute around 40% of the world's plastic packaging, according to Defruyt.

Known as flexible packaging, the lightweight, multi-layered single-use packets are used to wrap around 215 billion products in the UK alone.

Only around five European countries are currently attempting to recycle these packets, noted DeFruyt. In the US, flexible packaging made up only 2% of residential recycling in 2020.

When not ending up in landfill or burnt, the packaging is easily lost or discarded in the environment.

Part of the problem is their multi-layered composition that is sometimes lined with foil, making it very expensive to separate into recyclable parts. Flexible packaging is also often "super-contaminated" with food waste, which also makes it impossible to recycle, noted Defruyt.

The packaging industry claims that flexible packaging has environmental benefits as it's lighter than more rigid plastics and causes less transport emissions while also keeping food fresher for longer.

Efforts by the flexible packaging industry to make the packets part of a circular economy are doing little to raise recycling rates.


Bans a part of the solution?

In a 2022 survey of over 23,000 people across 34 countries, nearly 80% would support banning types of plastic that cannot be easily recycled.

This would include a global ban on products and materials made from hard-to-recycle plastics. Authors of the survey, conducted by international conservation organisation WWF and Australian-based campaigners Plastic Free Foundation, said "any meaningful progress in reducing global plastic waste" needs to include bans of "the most harmful and problematic types of single-use plastics, fishing gear, and microplastics."

The EU has made some steps in this direction, having banned 10 single-use plastics products that not only blight Europe's beaches but contravene a circular economy model via which all disposable plastics in the EU will be reusable or recyclable by 2030.

Meanwhile, more than 30 African countries have either completely or partially banned lightweight plastic bags. One goal of a global plastics treaty will be to harmonize these piecemeal bans into a coherent worldwide regulation.

Edited by: Tamsin Walker

Waste pickers of Dakar

In Senegal, thousands of waste pickers scavenge one of the world's largest dump sites for plastic and other trash they might be able to sell. But the area is a massive environmental hazard.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images



On the hunt for plastic and metals

About 2,000 waste pickers work at the Mbeubeuss landfill outside the Senegalese capital, Dakar. With an iron hook, they scour the waste for recyclable plastic, or burn the trash to find valuable metals.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images



Wholesalers buy recyclables

The workers make their money by selling recyclable material to wholesalers. Some of them can make more than 100,000 West African CFA francs (about €150/$180) per month, according to the NGO Wiego — an income on the lower end in Senegal. But many pickers earn far less than that.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images

Stench of new trash

To earn this living, the pickers don't only have to face brutal heat but also the stench of the landfill. Every day, they wait for trucks to dump new trash on the massive mountain of garbage in the middle of the site. Then they start picking as fast as possible.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images


Cattle roam the dump site

Overall, 230 trucks bring about 1,300 tons of waste to the landfill site every day. The trash also attracts cattle and birds, who wander the 114-hectare site (280-acre) to scavenge for food.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images

Pickers are 'always the losers'

Pape Ndiaye, spokesman for the waste pickers association, says it's becoming increasingly hard to make a living at Mbeubeuss. Besides the competition, there is also the problem of stagnating wholesale prices for the waste. Though the pickers are providing an environmental service by helping recycle, they "are always the losers," he told news agency Agence France-Presse.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images

An environmental hazard

Mbeubeuss is known as a major environmental hazard. When the workers burn the waste, toxic smoke wafts through the entire dump site, reaching surrounding residential areas. A lake on the outskirts of the landfill has turned red from the pollution.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images



Dump's days are numbered

But after neglecting Mbeubeuss for decades, the Senegalese government has now decided to close the open-air landfill. In 2025, it will be turned into a waste separation center. For the pickers, that will mark the end of their livelihood.Image: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images





FSIN chief doubles down on blockades after Saskatchewan First Act passes final reading

FSIN chief Bobby Cameron (left) and Global News reporter Nathaniel Dove (right) spoke about the Saskatchewan First Act on the latest episode of Focus Saskatchewan. Global News

The Saskatchewan First Act, also known as Bill 88 has been met with controversy in the province, especially with First Nation communities.


The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN) Chief Bobby Cameron has been a vocal leader against the act since its announcement last fall.


READ MORE: Saskatchewan First Act passes final reading

The FSIN said it would take action, including blockades, to oppose the Act as they feel it infringes on inherent treaty rights.

Focus Saskatchewan’s Nathaniel Dove sat down with Cameron in an exclusive interview to discuss the Act, after it passed its third and final reading in the Saskatchewan legislature on March 16.

Q:  The Saskatchewan First Act is progressing. I want to get your reaction to the latest developments on it.

A: “Well, first and foremost, we definitely oppose it. They’ve made comments that it doesn’t infringe on treaty, but yes, it does. Scott Moe and your MLAs, yes, it does. You can stop saying that because our knowledge-keepers, our people out on the land know it. They see this. They tell us.”

Q: What is the state of treaty rights and their protection in this province?

A: “I want to start off by saying the provincial government was formed in 1905. That’s when this became the province of Saskatchewan. Treaties were signed and negotiated in the 1800s, long before the Saskatchewan province was formed. We are of international law. We didn’t sign treaty with provincial government. We didn’t sign treaty with federal government. It was with the British Crown.”

“And in there, it clearly states your way of life will continue on these lands and waters. And that’s all of these lands and waters as far as we’re concerned. These Crown land sales that they’re auctioning off online are illegal. They breached the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. And right now, we have launched legal action and we’re taking them to task. And they’re going to lose. That’s how confident we are. That’s how powerful our sacred treaties are.”

Click to play video: 'Saskatchewan First Act passes final reading'
Saskatchewan First Act passes final reading

Q: Calling the treaty sacred, with respect, I think only your side sees them as sacred. If the Saskatchewan government is violating them, they’re obviously not sacred. How do you make them respect those rights?

A: “We have many First Nations who have reached out and are ready to protect their lands and waters. If that means blockades, if that means other avenues, then you know, so be it. They’re doing what’s right by their First Nations communities. They’re doing what’s right and what they feel is proper and ensuring our lands and waters are protected so future generations can and will enjoy our lands and waters.”

Q: What can you tell me about the plans for blockades?

A: “We’re going to be communicating with the First Nations and there will be a coordinated effort to get their input, their direction, in order to advance their initiatives. We all live in this province that you call Saskatchewan – we call it on our treaty traditional territories – and that’s what this is about.”

“And to have exclusion of a certain group, which are First Nations, it’s not going to work. It’s just not going to happen. We’re going to remain vocal and we’ll exhaust all avenues, technically, politically and legally. And in the end, if we have to, our people are ready. Our people are ready to protect their lands and waters like they did in the Oka crisis in the ’90s.”

Questions and answers have been shortened for clarity. 

 

BC

Fraser Valley bus union threatens ‘indefinite’ strike to begin Monday, First Transit responds

“HandyDART will operate at essential service levels for passengers requiring treatment for cancer, multiple sclerosis, and renal dialysis.

“If the job action goes ahead Monday, it will halt public buses in Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Mission, Hope and Agassiz-Harrison until a “fair deal is reached,” the union said in a statement.

Click to play video: 'Fraser Valley bus drivers to launch full scale strike'
Fraser Valley bus drivers to launch full scale strike

READ MORE: Fraser Valley bus drivers to halt service Monday, Tuesday in contract dispute

It will be the third strike for the union after it said three days of negotiating failed to bring a new collective agreement.

“CUPE 561 members, who work for First Transit, will commence a full walkout on Monday,” union staff said

Union president, Jane Gibbons, described the full shutdown as a result of the employer’s unwillingness to budge at the table.

“This employer has completely refused to meaningfully discuss the regional wage disparity and lack of a pension,” Gibbons said.

“It’s gotten so bad that we’re left with no alternative but to shut down services.”

CUPE 561 is arguing its members are paid up to 32 per cent less than workers in Metro Vancouver.

READ MORE: Fraser Valley bus drivers issue strike notice, could stop fare collection Thursday

First Transit said it feels strongly that its offer given to the union is a “solid foundation for continued collective bargaining.”

“We are disappointed that CUPE Local 561 is choosing to withdraw transit service from the citizens of the Fraser Valley,” a company spokesperson said in an email.

“We feel strongly that our offer provides a solid foundation for continued collective bargaining, which has consistently been our goal.

“First Transit has reached six renewals in B.C. since the fall of 2021, which has allowed us to hire and retain skilled operators who have done great work serving their communities.”

First Transit said it has proposed a five-year settlement, with total wage increases of up to 16 per cent over five years.

“This wage proposal, if taken, would mean that members of CUPE Local 561 will have seen wage increases in aggregate of approximately 20 per cent since 2017,” the spokespersons said.

“We have also proposed adding 15 full-time operator positions with benefits packages to the bargaining unit – increasing the full-time workforce serving the Fraser Valley.”

READ MORE: Central Okanagan transit system acquired by new overseas company

BC Transit, the crown corporation responsible for transit in the province, contracts operating companies to deliver services in Metro Vancouver.

“We sincerely apologize for the difficult impact job action has on everyone. We’re closely monitoring and will update you as soon as we can,” it said on Twitter.

The union also directs some blame at BC Transit as well.

“Given First Transit’s steadfast refusal to address the concerns of our members, it’s clear that BC Transit’s confidence in Transdev is grossly misplaced,” union staff said.

“In our mind, BC Transit is abandoning the communities it is entrusted to serve. It is leaving our community and transit users at the mercy of a profit-driven foreign conglomerate with no connection to the Fraser Valley.”

Transdev is a global corporation that recently purchased First Transit, the union said.

ECOLOGYInvasive snails are helping an endangered bird make a comeback in Florida

But relying on a non-native ‘surrogate’ can have detrimental impacts on an ecosystem, expert says

A medium-sized gray raptor with a thin, hooked bill flies in front of a blurred green background.
A male snail kite glides over the Florida Everglades. The bird was on the brink of extinction, but appears to be making a comeback thanks to an invasive species of snail. (Robert Fletcher/University of Florida)

Since island apple snails invaded the Florida Everglades, an endangered species of bird known as the snail kite has bounced back from the threat of extinction.

It's a rare case of a destructive invasive species having a positive impact, says Robert Fletcher, a professor of landscape ecology at the University of Florida who also directs a snail kite monitoring program.

"There was a lot of concern that this bird that was already endangered was really on the brink of extinction. And then entered this non-native snail," Fletcher told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

The Everglade snail kite is a hawk-like raptor that relies on wetland ecosystems to feed almost exclusively on Florida apple snails.

In the early 2000s, severe droughts in the Everglades caused the population of these local apple snails to dissipate. And since snail kites relied on them as their sole food source, their numbers plunged from more than 3,000 birds in the late '90s to approximately 700 in 2009, according to a 2022 report by the conservation organization Audubon Florida.

Birds adapt to new prey

Cue the non-native island apple snail.

After they showed up in the southeastern United States, the snail kite population in Florida bounced back to approximately 3,000 birds today.

But when the non-native snail was first spotted in 2004, Fletcher said people were very worried that it was "going to exacerbate the extinction risk of [the snail kite] and essentially really push it even closer to extinction." 

The main concern was that these non-native snails were up to five times bigger than what the birds were used to capturing with their talons and extracting with their bills. 

"Scientists quickly saw snail kites trying to forage on this non-native snail, but they were largely unsuccessful. They would drop the snails quite often," Fletcher said.

Two swirly beige and yellow snail shells, almost identical in appearance sit side by side. The one on the right is roughly three times bigger than the one on the left. There is a white measuring tape laid out in front of them.
The shell of a Florida apple snail, left, compared with the shell of an island apple snail, right. Non-native snails from South America are two to five times larger than native snails. (Robert Fletcher/University of Florida)

Once the non-native snails had expanded through much of the Everglades and overtaken the native ones, however, the snail kite population began to rise.

And the birds who bred in wetlands with the invasive snails fared far better than birds forced to survive without them as a source of food, says Fletcher.

"It was incredibly surprising," he said. "We couldn't understand how the birds were handling such large snails."

He and his students had been monitoring the snail kites for years, banding them as they fled from their nests in order to measure many things about them, including the size of their bills.

The data they'd been collecting showed their bills were getting bigger every year in order to accommodate the baseball-sized snails.

What this means for the local ecosystem 

Samuel Chan, an invasive species expert at Oregon State University, says the island apple snail from South America likely got loose and established themselves in Florida through the pet or aquarium trade. Since this species of snail was more resilient to dry conditions, it out-competed the native species and took over.

Although the snail kite's emerging recovery is good news, it appears to be almost completely based on the occurrence of exotic snails, Chan said. The bad news, he added, is the native snails have not made a comeback. 

"I think the birds are telling us a story about what's missing in their habitat," he said. "The reality is that this invasive species is filling a hole, but there will be repercussions in other layers of the ecosystem." 

A female snail kite with patchy brown, yellow and orange feathers perches in its nest with her hatchlings beside. She has blue and grey tracking bands around her feet.
A female snail kite guards her hatchlings in their nest. She has bands around her feet so that Fletcher and his students can monitor her. (Robert Fletcher/University of Florida)

Chan referred to the non-native island apple snail as a "surrogate" food source for the snail kites, which have adapted their feeding as a survival strategy. 

"But a surrogate host can't be a solution. It's not just saving the snail kites; it's doing other things, too. And that's the part that is worrisome. The surrogate is not going to stay still," Chan said.

Fletcher admits it's a complicated situation and he also has concerns about the potential impact the species will have on the Everglades in the long term. 

While the island apple snail may appear to be saving the snail kite, it is known to be destructive, Fletcher says. It has decimated agricultural fields and feasted on aquatic vegetation in many areas of the world.

"It's a tricky one," he said, "because depending on the situation, there can be lots of lots of consequences when new species come into areas — but sometimes there can be benefits."

A man wearing a baseball cap, grey hoody, black life jacket and sunglasses around his neck holds a young snail kite bird in his right hand.
Robert Fletcher, the director of a snail kite monitoring program in Florida, holds a young snail kite that is ready to fledge from its nest. (Robert Fletcher/University of Florida)

Fletcher and Chan both refer to the Florida apple snail population as a barometer for the health of the local ecosystem.

In order for the snail kite's comeback story to have a happy ending, says Chan, native diversity and resilience is required. If the endangered bird continues to rely exclusively on non-native invaders, there could be detrimental impacts on its ecosystem.

"If we're going to recover the native snail kite, we need to recover the native snail," he said.

Indigenous-led group still pursuing Trans Mountain ownership as costs spiral

Construction costs for the pipeline have risen to US$30.9 billion


The Canadian Press
Published Mar 17, 2023 •
Pipes for the Trans Mountain pipeline are unloaded in Edson, Alta. 
PHOTO BY JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES
Article content

CALGARY — An Indigenous-led initiative says it is still pursuing ownership of the Trans Mountain pipeline, in spite of the project’s ballooning price tag.

Project Reconciliation managing director Stephen Mason says his group isn’t going away just because Trans Mountain Corp. announced last week that construction costs for the project have risen to US$30.9 billion.

The Trans Mountain pipeline was bought by the federal government for US$4.5 billion in 2018 after previous owner Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. threatened to scrap the pipeline’s planned expansion project in the face of environmentalist opposition.

Construction on the pipeline is still ongoing, and is expected to be completed later this year.

The federal government has indicated it does not wish to be the long-term owner of the pipeline, and has said it is open to the idea of Indigenous ownership.

But due to existing contractual agreements with oil shippers, only 20 to 25 per cent of the rising capital costs of the project can be passed on to oil companies in the form of increased tolls.

Indigenous-led prospective buyer 'not going away' even as Trans Mountain costs spiral

Project Reconciliation in Calgary working to facilitate 

purchase for 129 First Nations

A replacement pipeline segment is lowered into the Coquihalla River
 by Trans Mountain near Hope, B.C., on Aug. 9, 2022. (Trans Mountain)

An Indigenous-led initiative is still pursuing ownership of the Trans Mountain pipeline, in spite of the project's ballooning price tag.

"We are not going away, just because it's $30.9 billion. We are entering into the early stages of negotiations," said Stephen Mason, managing director of Project Reconciliation, a Calgary-based group that is working to facilitate the purchase of a major equity stake in the pipeline for the 129 First Nations along the route.

"Yes, there are a couple of other proponents out there, but I think the federal government has recognized our readiness."

The Trans Mountain pipeline — Canada's only pipeline system transporting oil from Alberta to the West Coast — was bought by the federal government for $4.5 billion in 2018 after previous owner Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. threatened to scrap the pipeline's planned expansion project in the face of environmentalist opposition.

Construction on the expansion is still ongoing, and it's expected to be completed later this year.

However, capital costs of the project have been steadily spiralling. Last week, Trans Mountain Corp. announced its estimated price tag for the project has increased once again, this time to $30.9 billion — a 44 per cent increase from the $21.4-billion cost projection placed on the pipeline expansion project a year ago, and more than double an earlier estimate of $12.6 billion.

The federal government has indicated it does not wish to be the long-term owner of the pipeline, and has said it is open to the idea of Indigenous ownership.

But due to existing contractual agreements with oil shippers, only 20 to 25 per cent of the rising capital costs of the project can be passed on to oil companies in the form of increased tolls. (Tolls are the rates oil companies pay to ship product on a pipeline).

A report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer last June found the federal government stands to lose money from its investment in the pipeline, and suggested that if the project were cancelled at that time, the government would need to write off more than $14 billion in assets.

Mason did not say what his group is prepared to bid for a stake in the pipeline, but he said the ultimate selling price will only be what a buyer is willing to pay and will therefore reflect the anticipated return on investment.

"It's commercial value. It doesn't matter (who the buyer is), they will only pay what the commercial value is and what the tolls will support," he said.

Trans Mountain Pipeline project 80% done

The pipeline expansion employed an average of 2,409 people in the Valemont area.

Arthur Williams
a day ago


Trans Mountain's 600-bed work camp, located just outside Valemount, 
is seen in an undated handout photo.

The $30.9 billion project to expand the capacity of the Trans Mountain Pipeline is close to 80 per cent complete, and on track to be done by the end of the year.

The expanded oil pipeline is expected to be mechanically complete this year and in operation in the first quarter of 2024, according to information released by the company. The project employed an average of 2,409 people in the Valemount/North Thompson section of the project between October and December last year.

“Canada has among the world’s highest standards for the protection of people, the environment, and Indigenous participation when building major infrastructure projects. By including these commitments into the project design and development from the beginning, we have ensured the project will provide economic benefits to Canadians well into the future,” Trans Mountain Corp. president and CEO Dawn Farrell said.

Once the expansion project is completed, the pipeline’s capacity will nearly triple from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. The 1,150-kilometre pipeline between Strathcona County, Alta. and  Burnaby was first built in 1953.


An independent economic impact assessment on the project conducted by Ernst & Young LLP (EY) in March estimated that during construction the project will contribute a total of $52.8 billion in gross output, including $11 billion in wages. Once complete, the project is expected to contribute to $17.3 billion to the economy, including $2.8 billion in wages, over the next 20 years.

 OPINION

In the spring of 2018, the American pipeline company Kinder Morgan gave up on the Trans Mountain oil pipeline, despite having government approval to triple its capacity between Edmonton and Vancouver.

It was a fraught time in the oil business. Prices for Canada’s No. 1 export were low for a fourth consecutive year, yet rising output in the oil sands stoked worries about adequate pipeline capacity.

The federal Liberals were about to pass major climate legislation, including a carbon tax. They had also approved two large export pipelines – TMX and Line 3 to the U.S. Midwest – but rejected a third, Northern Gateway in British Columbia. A fourth project, the Alberta-to-Texas Keystone XL, was mired in the U.S. courts.

The spectre of TMX’s demise spooked Ottawa. Alberta wanted pipelines, especially to the West Coast to reach Asia, but no one in industry stepped up. Ottawa paid Kinder Morgan $4.5-billion for the existing pipeline and the expansion, whose budget was $7.4-billion. The deal was billed as a “sound investment opportunity.” Ottawa suggested it would sell before construction was complete.

Five years later, Canadians still own the pipeline and TMX’s budget is, as of last week, $30.9-billion, up more than 40 per cent from a $21.4-billion estimate a year ago and four times greater than in 2018. It is supposed to be moving oil by this time next year.

The cost escalation – and the consistent understating of costs by Trans Mountain Corp., the company Ottawa bought – is a financial disaster. But the project is a political necessity: the landlocking of Alberta oil would have had disastrous consequences for national unity.

Several independent analyses last year, including one by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, showed Ottawa will lose money on Trans Mountain – and that’s when TMX’s cost was $9-billion lower. TMX now looks like the biggest industry bailout in the country’s history, coming as the oil industry is enriched by windfall profits.

Trans Mountain casts the blame, of course, on inflation and supply chains. It also blames mountainous terrain in B.C., where the old pipeline runs alongside a major highway. It even blames the challenge of building a new pipeline through urban areas of B.C.’s Lower Mainland. One wonders why pipeline executives and engineers were surprised to discover mountains and cities during construction.

A year ago, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland declared no more public money for TMX. So Trans Mountain got a $10-billion loan from the banks – guaranteed by Ottawa. Trans Mountain is again looking for loans. Presumably, Ottawa will again guarantee the debt. It’s not public money, but Canadians will be on the hook for it.

Bankers have told Ottawa the expanded pipeline will make an EBITDA operating profit of $2.4-billion a year. This appears ambitious. Capacity will triple to about 900,000 barrels a day – but annual EBITDA profit at 300,000 b/d is about $200-million, less than 10 per cent of the expected profit.

Ottawa still wants to sell the pipeline. It has shielded Trans Mountain from some debt, holding it instead in several public entities: Canada Development Investment Corp.’s TMP Finance Ltd., and the “Canada Account” at Export Development Canada. Companies that will ship oil are also shielded, responsible for only a small portion of the new costs.

But once oil flows, and if it garners a higher price per barrel as Ottawa and industry promise, oil company profits will be bolstered. Alberta’s treasury could see several extra billion per year. The only losers are Canadian taxpayers.

TMX, however, could be pragmatically cast as a necessary evil. In 2018, the prospect of no new pipeline at all seemed grim. TMX solves the capacity question – Canada will never need another new oil pipeline again. And when it opens, it will lessen Canada’s dependence on U.S. buyers.

Of the pipelines planned in the 2010s – TMX, Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East – it was always TMX that made the most strategic sense. Still, when Canadians look back in 2050, spending more than $30-billion on a fossil fuel pipeline, all of the cash either public money or backed by the public, will not seem like the savviest investment.

It’s clear that TMX has not turned out to be a sound investment opportunity, as Ottawa first said. To the contrary, it’s a failure, financially speaking. But given Canadian political realities, TMX is a necessary failure.