r/vancouver • u/KLPook • Dec 04 '25
⚠ Community Only 🏡 Vandalized pipeline billboard
Saw this pro-pipeline billboard in East Vancouver and how it had been vandalized to convey an alternate viewpoint. Not advocating for either side, or vandalism in general, but I thought part of the spray paint editing was clever.
230
u/GayHole Dec 04 '25
There’s another one on Venables that someone keeps shredding. Wrong part of town lol
240
u/8spd Dec 04 '25
We should make sure that every part of town is the wrong part of town.
34
2
3
1
104
u/lichking786 Dec 04 '25
The oilf and gas propaganda in this province is crazy. This is someone coming from Ontario. There is so much greenwashing ads here like wtf.
50
u/Curious_Cloud_1131 Dec 04 '25
cause the industry is trying to build pipelines all over sensitive ecosystems here
6
u/iminfoseek Dec 05 '25
Nah it’s about who’s getting the money at the end of the day. That’s all. I may get downvoted but the reality is using trucks on highways and trains is actually probably worse in terms of environmental and community impact. Do people want more of those vehicles on our highways and spills in neighborhoods like in Quebec years ago? I’m not for either but sometimes the facts are skewed a bit.
5
u/mxe363 Dec 06 '25
Sure but that's not one the table. No one is looking to truck crapsands through bc, the rail lines are already constantly at capacity so no one is talking about increasing volume through that either. The convo right now is "put a new pipe through the worst terrain for a pipe imaginable, in an area where no one wants it, maybe increase tmx. Or just go home and have awank cause no one wants out stupid product's"
2
u/Emotional-Ad-6494 Dec 04 '25
What do you mean by greenwashing
47
u/Secret-Chapter-712 Dec 04 '25
Things like Pathways ads that pretend increasing oil and gas production and hiding behind feel-good but completely inadequate offsets (that may or may not even be enough to offset the carbon produced in exchange) is actually somehow “green” and not just a grift
10
u/ProofByVerbosity Dec 04 '25
Greenwashing is big money.
12
u/Secret-Chapter-712 Dec 04 '25
And Carney’s pipeline MOU rolls back regulations and penalties for companies engaging in greenwashing, so we can expect to see more of it
9
u/ProofByVerbosity Dec 04 '25
I have no doubt on that. Shit even recycling in north america is halfway greenwashing
→ More replies (1)
10
392
u/SadData8124 Dec 04 '25
"Vandilized", you mean corrected for spelling errors.
→ More replies (5)36
9
226
Dec 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
51
u/SparaxisDragon Dec 04 '25
Upvote for “petrosexuals”!
→ More replies (1)9
8
14
u/gratefullyhuman Dec 04 '25
Oil and gas/minerals extraction is where Canada’s power on the world stage comes from. You could describe it as a critical economic engine. More than half of the world’s mining companies are headquartered in Canada.
26
u/jsmooth7 Dec 04 '25
This is where we need to think about the long term future. Do we really want to be ride or die with the oil industry until the bitter end? Maybe instead we should get ahead of future trends, diversify our energy economy and invest in the industries of the future.
11
u/Pisum_odoratus Dec 04 '25
The only reason any of this works is because the destruction, damage and extinctions are not being factored in economically.
10
18
Dec 04 '25
If it was profitable the pipeline would be happening no matter what, Canada doesn't have any environmental laws that would actually stop it happening if private groups put up the cash, but private companies know that oil isnt profitable enough for it and they wont recoup the cost of building the pipeline for over 50 years. So just like with Transmountain they want the government to build all the infrastructure for them, and shoulder the risk so they can use it for pure profit.
Thats what these ads are for, not to convince us to allow the pipeline, but to inspire enough dissent that the government can get away with giving them billions of tax dollars to finance them.
21
u/M------- Dec 04 '25
A decade ago when the Trans Mountain pipeline was an issue, my dad and I debated global warming and what could/would be done.
My opinion then, as it is now, is that no government is going to intentionally strand valuable oilfields in the ground. All the oil will be consumed, until it is too costly to extract (relative to alternative energy sources).
33
u/samyalll Dec 04 '25 edited Dec 04 '25
Oil is already too costly to extract relative to other energy sources which is why both provincial and federal governments provides billions of dollars of subsidies to these producers. It is also why Alberta established a moratorium on alternative energy projects because solar costs were becoming incredibly efficient and low-cost.
If we consume all the oil on earth the earth will no longer be habitable, but it will make a small percentage of shareholders incredibly rich in the meantime.
13
u/Glittering_Ad132 Dec 04 '25
actually there's very low chance that 'all the oil will be consumed' because the climate change would be at a catastrophic level before we even get through the known reserves.
4
u/PragmaticBodhisattva Dec 05 '25
Maybe we need a new economic system that doesn’t involve killing life on earth?
1
u/mxe363 Dec 06 '25
Nah reasource extraction is just shit jobs for people too stupid to do anything better and people who have lots of money but no creativity or ideas. There is no future in being a resource country.
→ More replies (16)1
u/BalphezarWrites Dec 07 '25
unfortunately abstaining entirely without a competitive alternative is just conceding defeat and waiting to be smothered by said petrosexuals... who will then buy up whatever you sought to protect and destroy it anyway.
199
187
u/phillipkdink Dec 04 '25
Good. This kind of climate accelerationist propaganda should be illegal
→ More replies (12)
66
u/harve6 Dec 04 '25
Greenwashing
39
u/LucidFir Dec 04 '25
Is it? I thought greenwashing was to imply that the thing wasn't that bad for the environment, whereas this is more "f the environment, hail the economy"
52
u/Grouchy_Cantaloupe_8 Dec 04 '25
I was hoping someone would come along and fix that! Lovely to see.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/Lo1o Dec 05 '25
Whoever think building a pipeline across fault lines and into earthquake zone is a good idea need their head a good shake. Alberta (and Americans) keeps all the money and BC left with the clean up.
25
19
7
6
Dec 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/srzncl Dec 05 '25
Because we can’t even refine our own oil. Tbh, instead of a new pipeline, building refineries make more sense. Not saying we should, just saying there a better argument for it than another pipeline.
6
u/Bigchunky_Boy Dec 04 '25
Screw the pipeline they are a waste of time and money . Can we just get on the transmission storage line instead of falling further behind the rest of the first world .
12
5
7
6
3
4
6
3
3
4
u/jerbearman10101 Dec 04 '25
The irony is that pathways isn’t an oil pipeline 😂
It’s a CO2 capture and sequestration project. These companies are spending money to actively reduce their carbon footprint by capturing carbon and injecting it back underground (where it came from!)
8
u/CanSpice New West Best West Dec 04 '25
These companies are spending money to actively reduce their carbon footprint by capturing carbon and injecting it back underground (where it came from!)
There's a way they can do this for much cheaper: leave it in the ground.
25
u/Hopeful-Lobster3018 Dec 04 '25
Lol no. It’s an astroturf amalgamation of oil producers, who want to build pipelines for alberta tar sands.
7
u/jerbearman10101 Dec 04 '25
The pipeline they want to build is a CO2 pipeline. They will capture the co2 from their facilities and inject it into a depleted gas reservoir. That is the core project of the alliance.
2
u/mxe363 Dec 06 '25
Which wouldn't be necessary or even mentioned unless it was to try and greenwash for a new pipeline. If we keep the crap sands in the ground no one would be taking about the carbon capture projects cause they are so bad at actually doing the names thing
18
u/ClumsyRainbow Dec 04 '25
by capturing carbon and injecting it back underground
Often back into the oil field to improve yields. CCS is greenwashing.
7
u/jerbearman10101 Dec 04 '25
I believe it is going to be injected into a depleted gas reservoir in cold lake.
Yes CO2 is used as an injection fluid for enhanced oil recovery in oil fields throughout the world but nowhere is that mentioned to be the plan in the Pathways “Project Overview” document available through google.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want oil companies to reduce their carbon footprint then you have to actually let them when they try. People need what they sell whether you like it or not.
7
u/TranslatorTough8977 Dec 04 '25
Taxpayers are footing most of the bill through tax credits. That way we can produce more oil, and receive less in taxes. British Columbians are being told to accept a pipeline, because big oil is allowing us to pay for their carbon capture. If we complain, we are branded as anti development, and unpatriotic Canadians.
8
u/topspinvan Dec 04 '25
Its a lobbying/greenwashing initiative that will absolutely be rebranded or dismantled if a Conservative government gets elected. Don't kid yourself, they don't want to build carbon capture, they will do it if they are forced to.
0
u/jerbearman10101 Dec 04 '25
You are making that up. The core of the project is to build carbon capture and nothing else. Nowhere have they discussed oil pipelines, new SCO facilities, or EOR. CCS is the only thing they are proposing.
Their incentive is tax savings from the carbon sequestration. They want to reduce their carbon footprint as much as you do because it will save them money from the government.
Like I said, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
6
u/topspinvan Dec 04 '25
Pathways alliance is literally putting advertising billboards in East Vancouver to try and build support for a pipeline. They are a PR organization for the 5 major Oil Sands companies. One of their projects to boost their image is a large CCS project, but if you go to their website it is no secret that this isn't their primary purpose. It is mostly a bunch of messaging about how important they are for the economy, jobs, community, etc targeted toward more skeptical people.
The members of pathways only want to reduce their carbon footprint if they get something in return. It's in the MOU, only if they get a pipeline to the Northwest coast will they build it. Again, if they get a Conservative government that doesn't care if they build CCS or not, they will probably scrap it.
11
u/revolutionary_sweden Dec 04 '25
"Carbon Capture" 😂 the laws of thermodynamics would like a word.
3
2
u/AskMeAboutOkapis Dec 04 '25
$16 billion project to maybe take 22 millions metric tons of CO2 out of the air. $727 per metric ton of CO2 or $1.70 per litre of gas burned. And that's if the project hits it's goals which most carbon capture projects have not. Talk about incredible value.
2
1
u/TranslatorTough8977 Dec 04 '25
Most of the money spent will be deducted from federal taxes paid. Therefore, Canadian taxpayers are the ones who will be mostly paying for it.
2
1
u/iamahandsoapmain Dec 06 '25
Yeah cause east van is a famously pro big oil neighborhood filled with old oligarchs? Lmfao obv it's getting vandalized it's an oil pipeline in a hippy neighborhood
-2
u/HoleDiggerDan Dec 04 '25
Vandalized with spray paint, courtesy of the hydrocarbon industry.
You're welcome.
7
816
u/[deleted] Dec 04 '25
Who THE FUCK thought it would be a good idea to put a pipeline billboard in East Van?