You can almost hear cringing coming from Alberta every time federal Environment Minister Peter Kent opens his mouth these days.
If Kent and his equally combative cabinet colleagues think they are somehow helping companies in the oilsands with their relentless verbal attacks on environmental groups and, by extension, anyone with legitimate questions about oilsands and other major energy projects, they are not paying attention.
Alberta politicians, academics, even business people are openly talking about the need for a “social licence” backed by strong environmental performance to successfully do business, even about a carbon tax, in some cases — a lesson hammered home during the Keystone pipeline debate.
The Conservative government in Ottawa, meanwhile, undermines attempts to build that social licence and gain wider public support at every turn.
The lesson the federal Conservatives seemed to have taken from Keystone is to throw everything you’ve got at those who disagree with you, along with a good helping of mud, block them or shut them down if you can and, if all else fails, put up your dukes.
How is that working?
Well, if those around the world who pay attention to these things had a vague sense that Canada had evolved into a laggard environmental citizen that produces dirty oil before the budget bill was tabled, they now have a new pile of evidence to support their beliefs.
Among other things: a budget bill that devotes more space to undoing environmental and fisheries protection laws and taking aim at environmental charities, than to fiscal measures; a damning environmental commissioner’s report and a take-no-prisoners view by the government toward environmentalists.
The undoing of environmental regulations is being rushed through in a manner that suggests the government is less than interested in hearing what opponents have to say and might even have something to hide.
Why should those in the oilsands, who have oil the world wants, care what anyone thinks about Canadian environmental policy? Because it matters. Because without a social licence to operate, business can be uncertain and even unprofitable. Many companies have learned that the hard way.
But try establishing a social licence to operate in the climate the federal government is creating. Not only is it counterproductive, but the federal government’s vitriolic approach to the environment creates a climate of uncertainty that makes it even harder to do business.
Kent, who doesn’t seem pugilistic by nature, has come out swinging at environmental groups, an odd stance really for an environment minister. His most memorable jab was use of the term “money laundering” — a phrase he repeated — in reference to some environmental charities.
His cabinet colleague Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, meanwhile, sneered about foreign radicals and jet-setting celebrities in an open letter earlier this year in a reference to opponents of the Keystone pipeline.
The federal government is so defensive and tone-deaf on the environment that it actually risks hurting its own cause, and the cause of Canadians inside and outside Alberta, most of whom want a healthy economy that is managed in an environmentally responsible and sustainable way.
That’s what Alberta’s recently re-elected Progressive Conservative government says it wants, too. Ken Hughes, recently appointed energy minister in Alison Redford’s cabinet, talked to The Globe and Mail this week about the concept of social licence.
Alberta must prove to people beyond its borders that “we are conducting ourselves appropriately so that we have a social licence to continue to develop our resources,” he said. “There are strategic challenges we face around our ability to develop the natural resources we have, do it in an environmentally appropriate way and tell the rest of the world how we’re doing that in an environmentally appropriate way.”
Hughes is not the only one talking about social licence with regard to Alberta’s oilsands. Redford has also raised the issue, as have some business people.
Many, including some oil and gas companies, are openly talking about the need to put a price on carbon. That would end regulatory uncertainty, would help the carbon capture projects both the Alberta and federal governments have invested heavily in make financial sense, and would tell the world that Alberta oil makes economic and environmental sense.
As chief salesperson for her province, Redford is busy making that case and will continue to do so at the Rio+20 summit in Brazil next month. It is a relatively easy case to make if Canada begins to take environmental sustainability and green policy more seriously, or at least it would be if federal cabinet ministers could just keep their mouths shut for a while.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Elizabeth Payne
If Kent and his equally combative cabinet colleagues think they are somehow helping companies in the oilsands with their relentless verbal attacks on environmental groups and, by extension, anyone with legitimate questions about oilsands and other major energy projects, they are not paying attention.
Alberta politicians, academics, even business people are openly talking about the need for a “social licence” backed by strong environmental performance to successfully do business, even about a carbon tax, in some cases — a lesson hammered home during the Keystone pipeline debate.
The Conservative government in Ottawa, meanwhile, undermines attempts to build that social licence and gain wider public support at every turn.
The lesson the federal Conservatives seemed to have taken from Keystone is to throw everything you’ve got at those who disagree with you, along with a good helping of mud, block them or shut them down if you can and, if all else fails, put up your dukes.
How is that working?
Well, if those around the world who pay attention to these things had a vague sense that Canada had evolved into a laggard environmental citizen that produces dirty oil before the budget bill was tabled, they now have a new pile of evidence to support their beliefs.
Among other things: a budget bill that devotes more space to undoing environmental and fisheries protection laws and taking aim at environmental charities, than to fiscal measures; a damning environmental commissioner’s report and a take-no-prisoners view by the government toward environmentalists.
The undoing of environmental regulations is being rushed through in a manner that suggests the government is less than interested in hearing what opponents have to say and might even have something to hide.
Why should those in the oilsands, who have oil the world wants, care what anyone thinks about Canadian environmental policy? Because it matters. Because without a social licence to operate, business can be uncertain and even unprofitable. Many companies have learned that the hard way.
But try establishing a social licence to operate in the climate the federal government is creating. Not only is it counterproductive, but the federal government’s vitriolic approach to the environment creates a climate of uncertainty that makes it even harder to do business.
Kent, who doesn’t seem pugilistic by nature, has come out swinging at environmental groups, an odd stance really for an environment minister. His most memorable jab was use of the term “money laundering” — a phrase he repeated — in reference to some environmental charities.
His cabinet colleague Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, meanwhile, sneered about foreign radicals and jet-setting celebrities in an open letter earlier this year in a reference to opponents of the Keystone pipeline.
The federal government is so defensive and tone-deaf on the environment that it actually risks hurting its own cause, and the cause of Canadians inside and outside Alberta, most of whom want a healthy economy that is managed in an environmentally responsible and sustainable way.
That’s what Alberta’s recently re-elected Progressive Conservative government says it wants, too. Ken Hughes, recently appointed energy minister in Alison Redford’s cabinet, talked to The Globe and Mail this week about the concept of social licence.
Alberta must prove to people beyond its borders that “we are conducting ourselves appropriately so that we have a social licence to continue to develop our resources,” he said. “There are strategic challenges we face around our ability to develop the natural resources we have, do it in an environmentally appropriate way and tell the rest of the world how we’re doing that in an environmentally appropriate way.”
Hughes is not the only one talking about social licence with regard to Alberta’s oilsands. Redford has also raised the issue, as have some business people.
Many, including some oil and gas companies, are openly talking about the need to put a price on carbon. That would end regulatory uncertainty, would help the carbon capture projects both the Alberta and federal governments have invested heavily in make financial sense, and would tell the world that Alberta oil makes economic and environmental sense.
As chief salesperson for her province, Redford is busy making that case and will continue to do so at the Rio+20 summit in Brazil next month. It is a relatively easy case to make if Canada begins to take environmental sustainability and green policy more seriously, or at least it would be if federal cabinet ministers could just keep their mouths shut for a while.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Elizabeth Payne
No comments:
Post a Comment