As always, the argument is simple, and narrowly framed: 1. Canada has a lot of oil and the U.S. needs oil. 2. We don’t have enough pipeline capacity to handle our ambition for unconstrained growth in oilsands production. 3. Building the pipeline will create jobs.
What could be simpler? Nothing — as long as you pretend climate change doesn’t exist and don’t make it part of the conversation.
Post-Hurricane Sandy and scorching heat waves in the mid-west, that’s becoming a less tenable argument, at least in the U.S. In his second inaugural address, Obama called attention to the need for action on climate change, calling for America to lead the transition to sustainable energy sources. It’s an important reminder that we need to look at the issue through a different frame, one that pipeline project proponents and many in government are trying hard to avoid.
Scientists are telling us that, to avoid the worst effects of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by 2017 and drop drastically by 2050. The International Energy Agency (IEA) — a leading voice on energy research and analysis of which Canada is a member — recently reported that unless we change course, by 2017 the energy infrastructure will be in place to produce the emissions that will take us across the 2°C warming threshold. The U.S. and Canada (under our current federal government), along with many other countries, have agreed to work to avoid crossing this threshold, the point at which our climate may become seriously destabilized. Furthermore, the IEA tells us that, to stay under 2°C warming, two-thirds of all known fossil fuel reserves will have to stay in the ground.
Against this backdrop, we are facing multiple proposals to build huge pipelines, which would greatly increase our fossil fuel export (and hence development) capacity. These pipelines are not short-lived investments: this infrastructure is designed to last far into the latter half of this century, far beyond the point at which we know we must be significantly weaned off of fossil fuels. This can hardly be sold as a transition strategy — certainly the pipeline companies, the oil companies, and the investors are all envisioning those pipelines being as full as possible throughout their entire design-life.
Right now, planned growth in oilsands development is driving pipeline capacity, but at some point, that same pipeline capacity will be used as the argument for expanded oilsands development, so profits and investor returns can be maximized, and jobs can be extended. If you are of a certain age, this is eerily reminiscent of how overproduction of fish processing plants in Newfoundland made badly needed cuts to the groundfish fishery politically difficult, not to mention socially and economically painful — that is, until the fishery collapsed entirely, making the argument moot.
So, which is the wiser course: proceeding as quickly as possible to approve (or lobby for) infrastructure that we know the planet will soon not be able to handle? Or asking that we only make such decisions once we have an honest and transparent assessment on what effect these pipelines will have on climate change, and on our government’s ability to meet its own emissions targets?
Until project proponents and our political leaders, including Premier Wall, are willing to have that discussion, they can expect pipeline proposals such as Keystone XL and Northern Gateway to get an increasingly rough ride in civil society, and they can expect to see — in Canada and abroad — continued erosion of social license for the oilsands industry in general.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Josh Laughren
No comments:
Post a Comment