THE CURRENT CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST 
AND THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM;  KURDISTAN

A Letter I have sent to Her Majesties Loyal Opposition in regards to the Parliamentary Debate On Air Strikes

Dear Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Dewar;

 I am a concerned Canadian who sees the current ISIL Iraq Syria strategy as flawed as do you.

Mr. Dewar you were there, you know who is fighting on the ground and who is not. It is the democratic, progressive Kurds who have overcome forty years of sectarianism to come together to fight ISIL early on, to fight them in Syria as the only opposition we should support in Syria.

They declared a unilateral ceasefire and peace negotiations with Turkey, who has refused to this date to become involved either in the Syrian conflict or the defeat of the ISIL and other Islamic Jihadists. It is the Kurds who stand alone defending embattled Yezidi, Christians, Sufis, and Shia minorities. 

The Yezidi in particular feel strongly about their autonomy in any post ISIL situation, which would only occur if we were to recognize Kurdistan and make that a condition or recognition.

There is no Iraq it is a failed country now, a century after its creation by the British after WWI. There is Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq. In effect in the last twenty years, Kurdistan has come into existence as a political, geographical, historical, economic and military fact.

After  the invasion of Iraq by the US this became even more evident in post Saddam Iraq as the Kurds controlled the North of the country where there is oil. The Shia and some Christians, and Sufi's in the South also have control of oil there.

It is the Kurds in Syria who are our natural Canadian ally, they are pluralistic, secular, social democratic, feminist, and fit Canadian valuesmore than any other group in the region.

Here is the third way, a way to effectively change the military political geographical and historic conditions in the Middle East, recognize or begin talks to recognize Kurdistan with the Kurds, to settle Kurdish and especially Yezidi refugees, to provide military aid as well as humanitarian aid to the joint armed forces of Kurdistan, the Pershmarga.

No one has made this an issue. Because of Turkey and its influence in NATO and hoped for entry into the EU, but that impacts us little we can afforded to make this effort because we are removed from those impediments.

I urge you to please consider that great debate tactic we see so little of in these Yes No debates, the alternative affirmative.

Yes we will support a humanitarian and limited mission to aid the Pershmarga specifically, the Kurds in general and begin Canadian government talks to recognize Kurdistan by giving it limited diplomatic recognition in order to show our seriousness, and to taketheir issue for independence and recognition to the UN, and other world forums during this discussion of Iraq and Syria, because  NO ONE else will.

I have advocated this for the past year in social media, it is at this late hour as we prepare for war that I write you to consider this seriously. It is unexpected, it is a win win for Canada and Kurdistan, it is historic to be the first country to recognize the Kurdish State which is doing its best to defeat the Islamic State in the Levant.

In solidarity,

Eugene Plawiuk

Edmonton East

HEY I GOT A REPLY TO MY LETTER ON KURDISTAN FROM TOM MULCAIR
OF COURSE IT IS BOILERPLATE AND TAKES NO CONSIDERATION OF POINTS I MADE
OFF MESSAGE
NDP on combat mission in Iraq
KURDISTAN

Thomas Mulcair

2:05 PM (45 minutes ago)

to me
Thank you for taking the time to get in touch regarding Canada's role in Iraq.

As you know, just four weeks after deploying Canadian Special Forces to Iraq—with no debate or vote in Parliament—Stephen Harper and his Conservative government are seeking to approve a major escalation of Canada's involvement in that war, with no clear end date.

In doing so, the Prime Minister will be sending young Canadian women and men to fight, and perhaps die, in a foreign war without answering the most basic questions on the nature and breadth of our commitment, such as:

- What are this mission's objectives and how do we define success?
- What rules of engagement are in place to prevent civilian causalities?
- How much will this mission cost?
- How many years are we willing to be embroiled in Iraq?
- How can we effectively contain ISIS without deploying substantial ground forces or expanding into Syria?
- What is our exit strategy?
- Do we have a plan to take care of our veterans after we leave Iraq?

These are not hypothetical questions. Like Iraq, Canada's mission in Afghanistan began with only a handful of Special Forces. In the end, more than 40,000 Canadian soldiers served there over 12 long years—160 would never return home, more than 1,000 were wounded, and thousands more still suffer from PTSD.

Watch my speech here http://tinyurl.com/mk9k8fs to hear more about why the NDP can't support this combat mission.

When George W. Bush gave his now infamous "Mission Accomplished” speech less than two months after his initial invasion, he arrogantly proclaimed that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. But tragically, this was only the beginning of a horrific sectarian insurgency that laid the groundwork for the crisis we see today.

While the name "ISIS” may be new to most Canadians, the group was first formed in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion and has since rebranded itself from "al-Qaeda in Iraq” to the "Mujahideen Shura Council” to "the Islamic State”—and now "the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (Syria).”

Everyone agrees that ISIS' brutal actions utterly shock the conscience, but the lessons of the past decade must not go unheeded in our response to such an evil. Simply put: there is no reason to believe that six months of aerial bombardment will succeed where more than ten years of occupation by the world's largest and most sophisticated military failed.

As author and journalist, Jeffrey Simpson, has noted: "The least that can be said for this mission is that everyone associated with it knows – or should know – that air power alone cannot win a victory, presuming the bombing powers can define 'victory'.”

Mr. Harper insists that this war will not be allowed to become a "quagmire,” but his reassurance is cold comfort given that this is precisely what we've seen in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The Conservative government's own Foreign Affairs Minister—in a moment of uncharacteristic candor—acknowledged that there are "no quick fixes” in Iraq. He called the fight against ISIS, and groups like it, the struggle of a "generation.” Indeed, that may well turn out to be an understatement.

Terrorist organizations have thrived in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries lack stable, legitimate governments capable of maintaining peace and security within their own borders. Canada's first contribution should be to leverage every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to strengthen political institutions in both those countries and to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground.

It's often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. That's why Canada, for its part, should be wary of any response that will further destabilize an already volatile region by alienating the very civilians we seek to protect. Peggy Mason, Canada's former UN ambassador for disarmament and special advisor to Joe Clark, has warned that: "Harper's plan to send Canadian warplanes to join the U.S.-led coalition's bombing of Iraq may just make matters worse.”

The struggle against ISIS won't end with yet another Western-led military intervention in Iraq and Syria. It will end by helping the people of Iraq and Syria build the political, institutional, and security capabilities they need to achieve lasting peace themselves. With the credibility Canada gained by rejecting the catastrophic 2003 invasion of Iraq, we are well-positioned to take a lead in this initiative and we should not squander that opportunity.

Again, thank you for your message on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Tom Mulcair, M.P. (Outremont)
Leader of the Official Opposition
New Democratic Party of Canada

THE MYTH OF CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE,

IT’S NOT CLEAN OR GREEN

Eugene Plawiuk,

5^th Class Certified Power Engineer

Last week Saskatchewan Power announced with much fanfare the first ever North American Carbon Capture and Sequestration or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project at Boundary Point Power Plant.

This coal fired power plant will capture carbon dioxide (CO2), hence the name carbon capture, compress it and place it in geological formations underground to be held infinitum. The federal government and provincial government of Saskatchewan touted this as great for the environment, for the climate, for Green House Gas (GHG) reduction and for creating some strange alchemical beast called clean coal.

I am afraid that like clean coal and other unicorns, Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage have nothing to do with cleaning anything from the climate, to coal. In fact what most news reports, especially those from the home province, did not report the real reason for the creation of this vastly expensive, untested technology.

While reporting almost verbatim the talking points of Sask Power and the conservative provincial and federal politicians touting this project, the media overlooked one simple fact, dirty coal goes into the power plant, dirty coal is burned giving off toxic gases to create electricity for our homes there is nothing clean about it.

An extension on the exhaust towers and use of scrubber technology has been around a lot longer would also reduce toxic emissions and is cheaper. But utility companies have resisted these retrofits in the past, so why their sudden enthusiasm for the expensive greening of dirty coal fired power plants using Carbon Capture and Storage?

For oil, oil in the Bakken shield in Saskatchewan but more importantly for oil still insitu underground in conventional wells. And potentially in oilsands in Northern Saskatchewan and Alberta, and in heavy oil in the provinces southern city of  Lloydminister. In fact along with Saskatchewan and the federal government, Alberta too put money into these projects.

However this fact was hardly ever mentioned in the media boosters of this project, or if it was it was thought of en passant, as they say in chess. Perhaps a sentence or two three quarters down the page.

The headlines said nothing at all about oil, it was all about how this magical process still to be put on line and proven to work, would clean coal, scrub clean the climate and cost taxpayers billions. This is and will be the constant claim by the coal and oil industries and their backers in the government

The Alberta government in 2008 announced a whopping $2 Billion dollar investment fund for Carbon Capture and Storage technology development, supposedly for the oilsands industry to reduce its carbon footprint. It is this fund that invested in the Sask Power project that still exists and has yet to fund a single oilsands project around CCS technology.

Why, well because Carbon Capture and Storage, sounds great, doesn’t it, it rolls off the tongue of politicians especially right wing ones who promote business over the environment. Why would these folks who call opponents of dirty energy like coal and bitumen, radical environmentalists, eco terrorists, embrace a green anything.

Because it is not green, does not clean coal, and does nothing for climate change contrary to all claims made for it. It is about taking Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from coal emissions from power plants and then compressing it into a liquid pumping it through a pipeline and then pumping it into underground chambers full of fractures that absorb the carbon dioxide and hold it forever.

The story often stops here. What does the carbon dioxide displace underground?

Oil, the storage areas are oil fields that can no longer be tapped using conventional methods. Yet almost 60% of the oil remains making it viable for extraction by a variety of methods, including fracking as well as steam extraction such as done in the oilsands now.

Once the carbon dioxide is sequestered it displaces the oil pushing it to the surface along with some residual carbon dioxide. The rest remains underground; the residual CO2 that escapes with the oil to the surface is minimal according to several scientific studies.

And here is the point not a single scientific study, easily found by Googling Carbon Capture and Storage, says that this process is about doing anything other than being used to create what the industry calls Enhanced Oil Production (EOP) and in fact many industry and scientific  studies are entitled CCS for EOP.

Search Results

Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery

Is CO2 storage safe position paper - DNV

The most recent studies state that any so called green impacts are minimal, from reducing the impact on climate change to magically turning dirty coal clean. 

That is not its purpose never has been never will be. For the Alberta government the big lie they used was that Carbon Capture and Storage will reduce carbon emissions from the oilsands. And yet when oilsands researchers were offered money for CCS projects they all said no because it has nothing to do with oilsands or reducing their carbon footprint.

When coal powered utilities claim they are creating a cleaner form of energy and helping green the environment because they are capturing storing and pumping CO2 from coal into oil fields, well that’s more than a fib it’s a big lie.

The engineering and science behind CCS has always been part of the process of extracting oil from old fields. It was developed fifty years ago at the same time the oil industry was developing fracking and  steam extraction technologies. It was used with existing naturally occurring and some man made CO2. Eventually the natural sources of CO2 have disappeared and in order to extract more oil we would need to produce what the industry calls, ironically enough, ‘anthropogenic’ CO2, this man made CO2 can only be effectively made by coal fired power plants.

The coal, oil and utility companies and their allies in  engineering and scientific R&D in post secondary institutions and private industry have all known about the potential of this technology for half a century, why have they waited till now to develop it.

Because our conventional oil and gas reserves will be tapped out by 2020 in Alberta, Saskatchewan as well as in Europe and the US the conventional oil fields are drying up. They still contain lots of oil it’s just harder to get to.

Fracking is big right now and is being widely used in these fields as it has for fifty years, it is controversial because now it is being used for shale gas and oil fields, and currently CCS will not replace it because CCS is so expensive. But if CCS could be developed for use in conventional as well as shale oil fields and eventually even tar sands then it becomes more cost effective.

How does old King Coal the oldest of our fossil energies, benefit from this, after all oil and gas are its competitors. It’s about keeping the existing coal fired power plants working rather than replacing them with natural gas fired ones, or nuclear powered ones.

While Canada, the US and Europe are reducing the use of coal fired plants they are increasingly being used in India, China and the BRICS where they have produced a Fordist manufacturing economy of coal, steel, cars.

The potential for this technology is that it will be needed in the future for use on EOP fields, and it can benefit countries that want to reduce their emissions, while still using coal. It’s a win-win-win except for the environment, and you and me.

The environmental concerns we have with fossil fuel use both coal and oil, will not be addressed by CCS. But you and I will be told it will be because we are paying for it.

The industry has not developed CCS for EOP because it is too costly, so who better to pay for it than you and I, the taxpayers of Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Billions of tax dollars as credits, loans, subsidies, research and development grants, university funding for CCS projects etc all this has not cost the coal or oil industries a penny. But it is costing us.

In order to sell us on this waste of money, doing nothing for the environment while investing in more oil production, business, lobbyists, politicians, oil, gas and coal spokespeople and their  paid  scientific talking heads do not deny this is for Enhanced Oil Recovery, its just that they talk about Clean Coal and Green Energy and stopping Climate Change more. The benefits they tout are the same as those for the Emperors clothes.

It is the ultimate in Green Washing, the advertising campaign to make things appear healthy and good for you when they aren’t. It’s a way of directing more taxpayer money to the already ludicrously wealthy energy industry.

It is also good for right wing politicians to pretend to be doing something for the climate and environment in a single sound bite Carbon Capture and Storage sounds so Green until you finish the sentence; ‘for Enhanced Oil Production’.

                                                  ---------------30----------------

Olivia Chow for Mayor

)