{"id":781155,"date":"2026-07-05T05:03:14","date_gmt":"2026-07-05T05:03:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/781155\/"},"modified":"2026-07-05T05:03:14","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T05:03:14","slug":"mixed-emotions-from-b-c-environmental-groups-on-albertas-pipeline-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/781155\/","title":{"rendered":"Mixed emotions from B.C. environmental groups on Alberta\u2019s pipeline proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mixed emotions from B.C. environmental groups on Alberta\u2019s pipeline proposal<\/p>\n

Published 4:00 pm Friday, July 3, 2026<\/p>\n

Alberta\u2019s plans for a new oil pipeline to B.C.\u2019s coast that runs close to or alongside the current Trans Mountain were met with mixed reviews from environmental groups.<\/p>\n

On the one hand, it does not require chopping down a giant swath of forest and lifting the moratorium on oil tankers docking on B.C.\u2019s North Coast, as a northern route would.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s still an oil pipeline that would be more than 1,000 kilometres long.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe decision to uphold the North Coast tanker ban and not proceed with a northern pipeline is a huge victory for the many coastal First Nations, businesses and concerned residents who have spent years fighting to protect it,\u201d said Flossie Baker of Sierra Club BC in an email. \u201cHowever, Alberta and Ottawa\u2019s pivot to greenlight a pipeline to British Columbia\u2019s southern coast is a repeat of a dangerous and economically misguided decision: the infamously over-priced TMX pipeline.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Thursday, the federal government agreed to fund billions of dollars<\/a> in infrastructure in British Columbia and to keep the tanker ban in place. And Premier David Eby committed not to oppose a pipeline in court.<\/p>\n

Later in the day, Alberta announced its proposal<\/a> for a new southern pipeline with the Trans Mountain and Pembina Pipeline corporations on board to help build it. The estimated cost is $35.2 to $43.7 billion.<\/p>\n

The feds also promised a slew of new environmental protections for the coast and pledged to create a liability fund if anything goes wrong with the pipeline itself.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis agreement puts in black and white specific commitments around the environment and climate that we would not have otherwise had the opportunity to get,\u201d Eby said on Friday.<\/p>\n

Eby said he shared the concerns of environmental groups about a new pipeline, but pointed out that the province doesn\u2019t really have the power to stop it from getting built, as the fight over the Trans Mountain Expansion showed.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy we entered this agreement, in part, was to set out as many protections as we could get,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

First Nations that potentially would have been impacted by a northern route expressed relief. This includes the Coastal First Nations alliance and the Gitxaala Nation.<\/p>\n

But groups such as Climate Action Network Canada say it is the wrong direction, calling for clean-energy nation-building projects and increased adoption of renewables.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s what Canada should focus on building\u2014not another costly, divisive oil pipeline,\u201d the network said in a news release.<\/p>\n

West Coast Environmental Law expressed a similar sentiment. Supportive of keeping the tanker ban, but unwilling to accept the trade-off.<\/p>\n

\u201cEnough with the grand bargains \u2013 some things are too precious to sacrifice,\u201d staff lawyer Anna Johnston said in a news release. \u201cIt is time for Alberta to recognize the environmental, legal and financial risks of any new oil pipeline and tanker proposal and stand down.\u201d<\/p>\n

At this stage, that does now seem to be what Alberta has in mind. It plans to fast-track the project, intending to begin construction as soon as Sept. 1, 2027.<\/p>\n

READ MORE: Playing pipeline politics: B.C. left out of rumoured Alberta MOU talks<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Mixed emotions from B.C. environmental groups on Alberta\u2019s pipeline proposal Published 4:00 pm Friday, July 3, 2026 Alberta\u2019s…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":781156,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194299],"tags":[903,49,48,87674],"class_list":["post-781155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-surrey","tag-british-columbia","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-surrey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/781155","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=781155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/781155\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/781156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=781155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=781155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=781155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}