Fear not, dear readers, I haven’t forgotten my blog but have been busy elsewhere – namely over at Science Borealis where we’re making plans to ensure the long-term sustainability of our science blog syndicating project. While I haven’t blogged here in a week or so, I had a guest editorial up at Science Borealis as one of the Earth & Environmental Science editors (and this is my plug to all you Canadians interested in earth and environmental science – start blogging, we’d love to have more blogs in this subject category!).
I was writing about the Northern Gateway Pipeline, a project recently approved by the Federal government, and whether or not the process used by the Joint Review Panel to assess the risks and benefits of the pipeline project was science-based. You can check out the entire post here.
“A couple of weeks ago, our science policy editors Karine Morin and Pascal Lapointe discussed the Northern Gateway Pipeline (NGP) decision, and challenged bloggers to address the science behind the decision itself. Several Canadian science bloggers stepped up to the plate – David Ng and Meredith Hanel – though there were no responses in the Earth & Environmental Science category.
So this week your Earth & Environmental Science editor is taking on the science behind (or lack thereof) the NGP decision, specifically the concerns outlined in the letter that 300 scientists sent to the Prime Minister opposing the review process, which was completed by a three-person Joint Review Panel (JRP) mandated by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Minister of the Environment.
Why is this an environmental science topic? Because the key risks of the NGP are primarily environmental: impacts on species, risks of oil spills, effects on climate change…the list is longer than you might think.”