Topic
ENERGY & EQUITY: Before you make oil sands and pipeline decisions, can you answer these queries?
Barrelling forward: Key questions not yet dealt with in media and Parliament.
Foreign interests gave millions to help prime the project, but years later there are no known binding commitments by customers.
Native groups likely to cite evidence they weren't consulted as required by Supreme Court decisions.
Emails show how a Washington lobbyist enlisted Canadian officials to beat back climate regulation.
Find more energy reporting on The Tyee.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper vows to rebrand Canada as a global energy "superpower" with bitumen exports.
His government is pushing hard for the Chinese-supported Enbridge North Gateway Pipeline, which is predicated on tripling oil sands production. That may or may not happen, but such an extreme development would aggravate the project's already significant economic, social and environmental liabilities in a stagnating global economy.
It would also make Stephen Harper's 2007 promise to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 65 per cent by 2050 technically impossible.
To date, the following economic and political questions have gone unasked or unanswered in the media and Parliament:
1. Why aren't some oil sands revenues being set aside for future Canadians?
The federal government now makes approximately $5 billion a year in corporate taxes from tar sands development, or more than the government of Alberta. By some estimates, unlimited oil sands growth could deliver $500 billion to government coffers over the next 25 years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) both recommend that oil rent, an unsustainable source of income, be saved for future generations. Canada has ignored these recommendations. To date, Norway has saved $500 billion of its oil wealth while Ottawa has saved nothing for working Canadians. Given rising income inequality in Canada and proposed pension reductions, why has the federal government not set up a fiscally accountable sovereign fund to save this one-time inheritance for the benefit of all Canadians and future generations?
2. Are we harming our democracy?
Petro states represent hydrocarbons and their developers as they increasingly rely on petro dollars instead of taxes to provide essential public services. In so doing they co-opt and buy votes. But by breaking the vital link between taxation and representation, petro states diminish political and electoral accountability. "An unusual combination of dependence, passivity and entitlement marks the political culture of petroleum exporters," explains U.S. political scientist Terry Karl. How will Canada's elected representatives prevent oil revenue from undermining the nation's democratic institutions?
3. Are you aware of 'Dutch Disease,' and if so, how do we prevent it from eroding vital parts of Canada's economy?
Every nation that depends on oil exports eventually inflates its currency and thereby destabilizes its manufacturing and agricultural sectors. "A severe case of Dutch Disease has dramatically reduced the breadth of the Canadian business sector over the past decade, hollowing out manufactured goods exporters and making the nation increasingly reliant on commodity demand," reported the independent research firm, The Macro Research Board, in 2011. Economists estimate that half of 340,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector over the last decade are due to rapid expansion of bitumen exports. What policies does Ottawa propose to deal with the hollowing out of the Canadian economy by the "Dutch Disease" and the "Resource Curse"?
4. Have you examined the geopolitical risks of tying our fate to China as superpower?
The proposed Enbridge pipeline would send unprocessed bitumen to China, the globe's new powerhouse and the world's second largest consumer of energy. Given that China and its growing military ($150 billion a year) will eventually challenge the global leadership of the United States, why hasn't the Canadian government examined the political risks of becoming an oil supplier to an industrial Communist superpower?
5. Are we boarding an economic roller-coaster that could crash?
Bitumen, the world's most expensive hydrocarbon, now costs between $85 and $102 a barrel to produce. It takes $8 billion to put a million barrels of oil a day into a pipeline in the Middle East. In contrast, extreme bitumen requires an investment of at least $45 billion to grow the same volume of bitumen plus another $100 billion for upgrading the heavy crude. As a consequence the mega-project is highly vulnerable to volatile global petroleum price swings, improbable events and disruptive technologies.
Moreover the world's economic crisis is directly related to the high cost of oil. In 2007 the Canadian Parliament recommended that Ottawa conduct rigorous cumulative impact and socio-economic assessments of the oil sands (Recommendation 11). Why has the Conservative government repeatedly failed to do a basic economic risk assessment on expanding the world's most expensive and difficult oil source in a stagnating global economy?
6. Why aren't we taking a strategy that would directly shore up our own energy security?
Quebec and Atlantic Canada are nearly 100 per cent dependent on foreign oil supplies from Venezuela, the North Sea and the Middle East. The majority of these imports come from unstable petro states or declining oil fields. Why does the Canadian government place energy security for an authoritarian Chinese regime ahead of energy security for ordinary Canadians?
7. Why raise fears about charities whose foreign funding is a tiny percentage of what China invests in Canada's economy and politics?
State-owned Chinese corporations are among the world's largest oil firms and famously corrupt. They have invested more than $16 billion in the oil sands. Even Richard Fadden, the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), has warned that China is one of several foreign powers trying to influence Canadian politics. In contrast, U.S. charities have invested but $30 million in Canadian environmental groups to contest Big Oil's interests in a democratic society.
Why is the Canadian government more concerned about the impact of $30 million worth of charitable donations than $16 billion worth of hardcore Chinese state investment on Canada's economy, politics and sovereignty?
8. Does becoming more oil rich mean we also will become more militarized?
Petro states typically waste their oil wealth by aggressively building their militaries. Most OPEC countries, such as Saudi Arabia, spend three times more on military hardware than non-oil exporting countries. Even Norway, a key oil exporter, has become the world's seventh largest weapons exporter. Canada now spends more on its military than it did during the Cold War and ranks as the world's 13th largest military spender. Why is Canada spending petro dollars building up a military machine? And for what purpose?
9. Have we abandoned commitments to lower carbon emissions to help prevent catastrophic climate change?
Environment Canada estimates that total carbon emissions from the oil sands will likely grow from 49 million tonnes today to 92 million tonnes by 2020. At that point the industry will surpass the ocean acidifying emissions of Canada's buildings, agriculture or entire passenger car fleet. Any further expansion of the oil sands nullifies Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2007 promise to reduce pollution by 65 per cent by 2050. Why does Canada not have a national carbon tax that removes two kilograms of carbon out of the economy for every kilogram produced by the oil sands?
10. Why not refine it here, creating jobs and lowering risks?
Energy expert David Hughes has calculated that existing pipeline capacity can accommodate as much as 100 per cent growth in the oil sands over the next decade. In other words, the Northern Gateway project is not needed. Instead of building excess capacity to ship bitumen unrefined, why do Alberta and Canada not have a conservative plan for the oil sands that adds value, lowers carbon risks, slows development and puts the interests of Canadians first?
11. Were you elected to hasten pollution and increase cancer risks for Canadians?
A half dozen studies have concluded that the Alberta government and Ottawa have systematically failed to monitor pollution in the oil sands at current production levels. Yet the Gateway project would worsen acid rain, water contamination, cancer risks, caribou extinction and groundwater depletion in the oil sands.
In 2011, the Office of the Auditor General declared that "incomplete environmental baselines and environmental data monitoring systems" had made it impossible "to consider in a thorough and systematic manner the cumulative environmental effects of oil sands projects in that region."
Why have the Alberta and federal governments not addressed this environmental deficit and acted on key recommendations for a monitoring commission in a timely fashion?
[Tags: Energy, Politics, Environment, Labour & Industry.] ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
24
Login or register to post comments
freebear
1 year ago
All good questions
Will we ever hear MPs' answers?
Hugh
1 year ago
Good questions
I sent the link to my MP.
Hugh
1 year ago
How can we allow the northern
How can we allow the northern gateway pipeline, when at the same time the BC govt is forcing the BC public sector to purchase $millions worth of carbon offsets?
terrencew
1 year ago
These are all questions that
These are all questions that need to be asked. And answered. I'm going to save this article and use the questions in posts to comment sections on news stories about Gateway, oil sands, et al. I especially like to emphasize the "Dutch Disease" angle when dealing with publications in central Canada, which is bleeding manufacturing jobs at twice the rate of the U.S. due to our high dollar.
George Smith
1 year ago
Simple answers to some very difficult questions
1. The Harper neo-cons are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel corporate elite. It is very obvious by their actions to date they have absolutely no concern for present or future Canadians. It is also very obvious Canadians either don't know what is happening or they know but don't care. So it's a no risk situation for the cons.
2.The Harper neo-cons have a profound hatred of democracy and their clear objective is to marginalize the entire democratic process.
3. The Harper neo-cons have no interest in Canada other than to facilitate the liquidation of all resources as quickly as possible. The more dependent they can make the Canadian economy on the extraction of non-renewable resources the easier it will be to succeed in their primary objective.
4. The Harper neo-cons view China as nothing more than another investor. They have no concerns regarding environment, ethics, integrity or the future viability of the Chinese investment.
5. The Harper neo-cons are among the best politicians money can buy and as such, their psychopathic profiles are incapable of recognizing "frivolities" like socio-economic or risk assessments. These are tools for commies.
6. Energy security? Who cares?
7. Harper neo-cons believe the most effective strategy to discredit anyone concerned about the neo-con environmental terrorism is to "call the kettle black". "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists". Sound familiar?
8. Harper is just another foreign controlled petro-state dictator. These dictators arrange for the extraction of the resources from their state paid for primarily in exchange for obsolete but deadly military hardware usually employed to suppress and slaughter their own citizens. Of course these weapon are produced by corporations whose primary shareholders are the same oligarchs who reaped the huge profits on the initial resource extraction. It's a "win,win"! It's also know as CRONY-CAPITALISM.
9. Harper neo-cons aside from their psychopathic profiles are wholly evangelical climate change deniers. What, me worry?
10. Harper neo-cons' core strategy is to maximize corporate profit in the minimum amount of time. That includes pipeline corporation profits. In addition, as noted above they have absolutely no concern for Canada or Canadians therefore creating jobs and lowering risk simply makes no sense particularly in light of this core strategy.
11. Harper neo-cons obviously have no concern about Canadians, their environment or any other "externalities".
The real question is: WILL CANADIANS EVER WAKE UP?
Thanks again Andrew and The Tyee!
bfearn
1 year ago
Remember when...
the Conservatives were going to meet to determine why oil prices were so much higher than the per barrel price would suggest. That searching for an answer was a waste of time because the answer was and is, because the oil companies charge what they want.
The answers to these questions are the same and have everything to do with greed and little to do with good government with long term solutions that benefit the majority of Canadians.
freebear
1 year ago
Why use "oily" ?
And then I remembered the article was meant to be directed at MPs; 'greasy' politicians eh!
And the Oil industry makes and uses grease/oil to coat, smear, or lubricate the politicians eh!
Fiat Lux for benevolent King of Canada!!!!
lynn
1 year ago
Pimping Canada
Some vital questions being asked by Andrew Nikiforuk.
George Smith, you nailed it!
Their traitorous plans are to facilitate the drinking of Canada dry. The well-being of Canada and Canadians is of negligible/nil concern to them in achieving that end.
It tells us everything about the sick kind of psychology that inhabits such so-called human beings.
Aware and outraged
1 year ago
Northern Gateway - distraction from the real plan?
The Watershed Sentinel has an article that suggests that the Northern Gateway furor may be a case of "bait and switch". A must read:
http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/tar-sands-express-enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-or-railway-or-both
cw
1 year ago
This rebranding thing
I don't see Stephen Harper rebranding Canada as a global energy "superpower", rather as a "global" oil conglomerate subsidiary.
Fiat lux
1 year ago
No, thanks freebar. Never
No, thanks freebar. Never wanted to give, or take orders to, or from anybody.
All I would like to see is a world, where people can think freely and have no ruling classes, by remembering that "wealth can can not be created, only taken".
Excellent article and comments !!!!!!
Will the politicians listen ? No bloody way.
For one thing they have little brains and what little they have has always been controlled by religions and ideologies, causing death and destruction.
The history of the world is the chronicle of incredible stupidity and never worse than now.
Ed Deak.
Franke James
1 year ago
Great questions for my MP, Joe Oliver!
Terrific to see this article by Andrew Nikiforuk -- it will be helpful to me... I'm taking my MP – Joe Oliver – up on his offer to meet with Environmentalists! Here's my public letter to Minister Oliver (which was also sent by email and fax):
http://www.frankejames.com/debate/?p=10467
I've received confirmation, and spoken to Min. Oliver's staff in Toronto and Ottawa. Fingers crossed, I'll get that meeting....
thereginamom
1 year ago
Thanks, Andrew!
Yet again, I'll be linking here when I post my update on this issue at thereginamom.com and rabble.ca
I'm so very energized by the support I see coming to this issue. Peter Lougheed would do well to speak out on it again. He'd catch the attention of a few more moderates, I think.
cw
1 year ago
Thanks, Aware and outraged
That link was excellent. And if rail is such an easy-to-ramp-up transportation capability, as long as we're using the stuff, why couldn't we transport it within Canada instead of to ports for offshore (and onshore?) disasters, reducing or removing our use of foreign product?
Skywalker
1 year ago
Excellent questions Andrew.
Keep 'em coming!
igbymac
1 year ago
MPs at large
...don't seriously give a shit about such things. They address these issues in passing, but ultimately they have signed on to follow orders from above. They are the prototypical servants to power.
This is why Party politics does not work for Canadians. The interests of the people are not allowed to flow back uphill and direct the politicians.
mhjm
1 year ago
Question #10 answered
All good questions, except for #10, which can be easily answered. We cannot refine oil for export because finished products like gasoline and diesel are explosive and unsafe to transport by pipeline or tanker. At best you can upgrade it into synthetic crude oil, which we already do for about half the oilsands output, but until Albertans accept $15 an hour like Texans (not to mention who's going to pay for the extra upgraders), it will always be hard to compete.
PatJ
1 year ago
Sorry, MHJM
So where do you suppose all of Vancouver's gasoline and diesel come from? What about all of the Jet Fuel going to the airport ( current pipeline expansion notwithstanding). A small amount is refined at the Chevron Plant in Burnaby, but the Shell, PetroCanada, and Ioco refineries are now just storage depots for manufactured products brought into Vancouver by ship, barge, and pipeline.
shedding_light
1 year ago
Very well thought-out article!
Thank you for another great article. This expresses so well the things pipeline-supporters don't want us to think about!
rhill
1 year ago
For question 11, I prefer
For question 11, I prefer this phrasing:
Were you elected (by a minority of Canadians, less than 38%) to hasten pollution and increase cancer risks for Canadians?
lynn
1 year ago
Dysfunctional Functionaries of Oily World
It is quite clear when you read Andrew's questions that they have been formed through a process of critical thought and logic. At the heart of all the excellent questions he asks are the deeper queries: "what makes sense?"...."what is the right and intelligent thing to do?"...."what will prove worthy and sustain our future?"
In contrast, the kind of thought process operating in 'Oily World' is the skewed illogic of the reckless, and the ultimately criminal - clear evidence in itself of the highly dysfunctional bent of the kind of so-called 'thinking' that such loathsome behaviour stems from.
gypsylee
1 year ago
my MP's answers
I sent these questions to my MP, Jim Hillyer (Conservative for Lethbridge AB). Here's his answers...
1. Why aren't some oil sands revenues being set aside for future Canadians? Some Are
2. Are we harming our democracy? No
3. Are you aware of 'Dutch Disease,' and if so, how do we prevent it from eroding vital parts of Canada's economy? Yes. I do not accept that our economy is too dependent on the export of natural resources, our economy is still highly service based.
4. Have you examined the geopolitical risks of tying our fate to China as superpower? Yes. Interacting and trading with China is not the same as tying our fate to China.
5. Are we boarding an economic roller-coaster that could crash? We cannot avoid being on an economic roller coaster. We know it has the danger of crashing – it has in the past and several countries’ economies are crashing now. We are constantly making decisions to help protect our economy from crashing.
6. Why aren't we taking a strategy that would directly shore up our own energy security? We are always seeking ways to do this, but we do not want to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world in so doing.
7. Why raise fears about charities whose foreign funding is a tiny percentage of what China invests in Canada's economy and politics? We are not raising fears, we are pointing out the fact that many so called charities are funded by foreign, radical organizations who do care about the economic well being of Canada. I am aware that China only cares about the economic well being of Canada to the extent that our economic well being can contribute to theirs.
8. Does becoming more oil rich mean we also will become more militarized? No
9. Have we abandoned commitments to lower carbon emissions to help prevent catastrophic climate change? No
10. Why not refine it here, creating jobs and lowering risks? There are plans to do so, but it takes years to create the infrastructure so we also will continue to find ways to export it.
11. Were you elected to hasten pollution and increase cancer risks for Canadians? No
aDriftwood
1 year ago
@ gypsylee
Congrats on providing the reasons which demonstrate why this corrupt form of government is unable to meet the needs of the electorate which unwittingly votes for it. Have just recently read Andrew Nikiforuk's book 'Tar Sands' and although he demonstrates the corruption which leads Canada to the Gordian knot of deception, he never deviates from the current political paradigm to provide solutions. There is a solution in BC, and that is to have our own people controlled government control our resources and access to OUR lands and waters. Ottawa and Alberta will just have to do their own without us. Because our vision is to have a healthy coastline and a healthy economy without any regard whatsoever to foreign investment.
aDriftwood
1 year ago
And congrats to thetyee
which consistently bans my comments from 'best comments' in their efforts to control democratic debate. That is only when they don't outright ban me for speaking a little truth about the current status quo and the current state of democracy here in BC.
Thanks David Beers - you, like the ownership of Huffington post, have an ulterior motive in exploiting the alternative media.