Pick your battles, choose your targets: Pipelines
You can’t win them all. So strike where it hurts the most.
Opposing the Northern pipeline is a potential winnable, but not with environmental threats. Right now – its all about jobs. And that’s where to hit hard.
-> "Any pipeline transporting raw bitumen is shipping good long-term Canadian jobs to other countries."
Say this over and over in different ways - that will resonate with everyone.
- - -
The tar sands do Not produce crude oil, they yield thick bitumen. It has to be diluted with solvents like naptha or varsol just to make it flowable enough to pipe somewhere. It should go directly to an ‘Upgrader’ where its converted into synthetic crude in a ‘coker’.
Then the synthetic crude oil must be further processed in a Refinery to produce the end-products; gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, lubricants and base stocks for petrochemicals.
In building a pipeline carrying bitumen, we forfeit all the best long-term stable jobs in the Upgraders and Refineries, in exchange for short-term migrant construction-camp jobs in the middle of nowhere. As well as losing the construction jobs building the Upgraders and Refineries.
It’s a short-sighted cash-grab by oil companies and an enormous long-term net loss for Canadians.
n.b. If we build the Upgraders and Refineries we can use BAT (best available technology) to mitigate pollution. If its processed in Texas or China, that's unlikely.
But we need to stay on message = jobs.
- David Barclay's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
There is another powerful message here.
While I won't get into the difficulties I have with the message in this post, I will note that there is another more powerful message here, and that is the health of our children, and theirs. What is the point of creating jobs which only serve to leave behind a planet even more at risk? And what have all the job creation schemes in the past delivered to us in the present?
I respect your concern and
I respect your concern and opinion.
The point I was trying to make (not very successfully) is that it is unrealistic to expect we can completely shutdown the tarsands. If you agree with this, therefore what can we do that is achievable? We should be pushing for - more responsible development. Until we can transition totally to solar, and renewables, we need some interim strategy.
Currently the extraction of the tar is accelerating at a furious pace, faster than it can be processed. Without having any increase in corresponding nearby upgrading or refining capacity, the oil companies want to build enormous pipelines across the continent to ship raw bitumen cut in solvent. This makes matters worse, because it encourages uncontrolled tarsand mining, as well as dangerous pipelines etc.
By insisting on local processing capability and shutting down the pipeline projects, the additional tarsand extraction will have to be cutback to be in sync with local processing until state of the art upgraders and refineries can be built. Its not ideal, but it may be better than nothing.
The way to stop the pipelines and achieve this is to win the majority support of the population by focussing on jobs.
If there's a better strategy, I would be all for it.
It's about much more than jobs.
The neocons and big oil already focus on the jobs issue, and I believe that would water down any impact that your argument may have, especially given that "big money" and big media seem to support the pipeline.
But you are correct that arguments about short term benefits seem to outweigh longer term consequences. Humans seem to be hard-wired in that direction, and that likely has contributed to the collapse of many previous civilizations. "What about the future for our children, and their children?" is a question rarely asked, and rarely pondered.
And, as I have asked elsewhere, what is the point of creating jobs which contribute to the ultimate destruction of our biosphere, or at least degrade it to the point where human life is no longer viable? Isn't that just neocon thinking "lite?"
So, I don't think that focusing on the jobs issue is a strategy at all. As a critic, and not a strategist, I can't see any "quick and dirty" solutions, but I do see the signs around us that change is happening. Look for example at the overwhelming number of people who are speaking against the Enbridge proposal. Look at the EU's condemnation of tarsands products (for whatever that's worth).
One strategy I have been using successfully in arguments is to ask that question from above: how exactly have all the job creation projects of the past benefited us in the present? We have economic chaos, high unemployment, a gutted middle class, value-added jobs exported willy-nilly, further environmental risk and destruction, a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, rising poverty rates, CPP and now OAS at risk of significant reduction, and other problems almost ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Shouldn't we be looking for different solutions?
And that's typically where I leave things. When I say "successfully," I mean as a way to motivate people to at least think beyond the surface and the shallow veneer the neocons place on the issues. We can't bludgeon people into doing the right thing (unlike the neocons). And, in my opinion, we can't resort to arguments that just play into the hands of big oil. The critical mass for real change will have to come voluntarily from people who see that need.
You are asking good
You are asking good questions. And as stimuli for thought they are useful.
However, one good action is worth a thousand good intentions. I do not see any proposal in your comments other than hoping for some kind of awakening. Even then, there would need to be a long-term strategy and short-term tactics to effect change.
And I think it borders on abdication to pontificate about the evils of our industrial culture without concrete proposals.
If you take a graduate level course on EIAs (environmental impact assessment); you will discover that the 'heart' of a correctly executed EIA is the evaluation of 'alternatives'. Otherwise its just an incorrectly run exercise in risk rejection or acceptance. Normally the latter is the outcome.
The concrete has already hardened.
On the other hand, there are some problems where quick fixes are just not in the cards. The long term solution is IMHO education, education, and more education, and giving up in the short term to become just a part of the problem is most definitely abdication and/or risk acceptance.
Given the almost overwhelming forces massed in favor of pipelines, tarsands developments, and continued environmental destruction, there are precious few alternatives which can in the long term gain the support of the majority. Education IS action which has led to some great gains already, and that is the action I have chosen. So far, it has been far more effective than most of the other actions I have witnessed.
Education is not an
Education is not an 'alternative'; it is the mental preparation that enables envisoning and designing alternatives.
Sorry, but the type of abstract complaining you are engaging in, without any substance is exactly what discredits the environmental movement as a bunch of 'whiners' who still use all the benefits of our society .
When you can offer a reasonable 'choice' then you can make a good case. When you simply 'oppose' with absolutely no alternative suggestion, you normally lose. And that's exactly what has happened to the environmental movement far too often.
n.b. Keep in mind that the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal is only Harper's 'back-up' plan. Its main function is to force the hand of the U.S. to approve the Keystone pipeline. And that's what's extremely likely to occur no matter who wins the Whitehouse.
He is 'setting up' the environmental movement; by our opposing it on stricly environmental impacts to B.C. and the Pacific, it opens the door for reversion back to the XL Keystone pipeline where he can say, 'see I've acquiesced to your concerns.'
We should not allow any pipeline to go ahead, and should stop it by any means. It sets a precedent where our water will be next. As you haven't offered any real suggestions, your 'holier than thou', 'all or nothing', idealistic stance may feel better, but it is without efficacy.
Efficacious is as efficacious does.
The environmental movement discredits itself when it plays into the hands of big oil by saying that tarsands developments are somehow okay if we just process the dirty products "in house" rather than send them abroad. This sends the message that a little bit more environmental degradation is okay, and where does that stop? If jobs are the issue, then Hazel Henderson and others point out that green industries create far more jobs than the polluting industries.
Promoting this sort of development is a slope made even more slippery by the product in question.
And, if idealistic stances are without efficacy, then I suppose we'll have to rewrite history and eliminate references to all those idealists who have managed to have an enormous impact on various civilizations. I'm sure you don't need a list of names.
Oh, and I note that I said that education is an ACTION. Adding to that, there are many alternative actions, and the one I choose is to educate.
You seem impervious to logic.
You seem impervious to logic. 'Messaging' on quality jobs is the most effective means to stop the pipeline(s) - now. And if that's a compromise with the devil, so be it.
Your strategy to educate the public at large will not stop the pipeline(s) given we have a Harper government for 3+ years. That's just reality. Once its built, there will be signed commitments to fill it for decades, and future more progressive governments will not be able to shut it down.
This doesn't preclude you from educating the masses, nor does it stop the provinces or future federal governments from promoting green energy industries.
Logic is nowhere to be found.
Given that the neocons are determined to push through a pipeline (another "no-brainer" to Mr. Harper), given that they have already focused on the jobs issue, and given that they have already proven that they are more than happy to allow jobs to be exported, exactly what is the mechanism whereby focusing on "quality" jobs will stop this pipeline? Where is the quality in jobs that further degrade our environment?
We may lose this battle (but I have my doubts, given the involvement of so many groups including the First Nations), but why should we capitulate on the war in the process?
You have convinced yourself that there is some sort of logic in this, and (judging from your passion and protestation) seem to have some sort of personal vested interest in this "solution," but it is a sell-out, pure and simple. Call it what it is.
'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'
To try to answer your questions:
The mechanism is to ally with the CEP (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada) and solicit support from other unions, economists, business groups, and other political parties. (I thought this would be self-evident from E.May’s blog, but it is my fault for not stating it.)
Since the tar sands are not going to be shut down under a Harper government; adding and capturing ‘full value’ for a product/service is one of the most basic principles of business. Its hard for anyone on the right or left to argue against this. (Export furniture not logs.) So its just my opinion, but I believe its winnable - the pipelines can be stopped under this scenario.
The quality refers to the life-style and type of job created; stable, long-term verses, short-term nomadic. The bitumen is going to be processed one way or another.
I am sorry to have been unkind towards your position. IF… we had a progressive government that taxed polluters instead giving them concessions, that promoted building infrastructure that enabled green energy instead of fossil fuel… (the list is long), then we would likely be in agreement.
However we have a reactionary government that is attempting to retrench grey industries by building infrastructure for them. So the next 3 years will be an exercise in ‘damage control’, trying to limit the degree of regression and capture some control for a future government. Especially, prevent getting stuck with infrastructure that is even more hard to reverse once its in place.
I don’t think that trying to minimize, mitigate the damage Harper can do is selling-out, I believe it is the harsh reality. I realize you do, and understand your feelings.
Too many inconsistencies
But, is it not also retrenching grey industries if we expand refining capacity in house, and hang the future of those "long term" jobs (not all that long term, by the way) on a dirty industry? Once the Harper "government" is gone, there will be a better opportunity to fully analyze the environmental consequences, the EROEI and how that is playing out with our natural gas supplies, and whether or not the bitumen will continue to be processed.
As far as capturing "full value," you seem to be making the same error that virtually all neoclassical economists make, in that the environmental costs are not being factored in - you know, the "externalities." There is no value in the long run in further degrading our environment, and these are not quality jobs in that sense. I mean, if we are looking for long term stable jobs, why not just legalize, say, meth and create a large industry around that (no, I'm not serious about that)? Stability and longevity are some of the least important factors in determining quality, if we are considering the future for our children.
Your long-term strategy makes sense
But what about short-term - just wait for a new government. That’s your position. What if Harper wins again by splitting the progressive vote? We are going to have a mix of energy sources for a long time, we need to maintain the control to manage and assess them properly (as you point out), therefore, push for the lesser evil which allows that control and flexibility.
My vested interest? Expose Harper as a fraud to the 10% swing voters that won him the election. They fell for his self promotion, ‘I’m the best economic steward in difficult times’.
His decision to export raw bitumen is in fact even contrary to the outdated 19th century classical economics that those 10% believe in. It may even demoralize his 30% base. Its all politics my friend.
You are preaching to the choir. I want to peel off his uncommitted support. Attack his self-professed strength, demonstrate his betrayal to his constituency. Its a golden opportunity, that knocks once.
What if the short term undermines the long term?
Promoting dirty jobs as a short term strategy undermines the long term strategy. Going back to what you said earlier about unions, the reports say that various unions are already divided about the pipeline. I do not see how lobbying them will be successful, especially given that they historically are not part of Harper's constituency. I still believe that the best short term and long term strategy is support for those many groups who are opposed to the pipeline for environmental reasons, coupled with education and activism aligned with what true environmentalists truly believe. If, as Elizabeth May said in her recent interview, we are only a few short years from runaway climate change, that IMHO makes it even more imperative for us to focus on our children and the type of planet we are creating for them.
Mr. Harper has shown himself to be impervious to alternative ideas, and I've seen no evidence that voters in general are changing their minds about right wing economic policies and practices (despite all the negative evidence here and in the U.S.).
But there is a very strong ad hoc environmental coalition forming around this issue, again including First Nations and many others. That, I believe, is our best hope for creating the critical mass necessary for killing this idiotic and destructive pipeline proposal. If, and how, the Green Party chooses to align itself with that coalition are matters for discussion, but I personally am excited by the possibilities. And in this case, there would not be any "compromise with the devil."
I believe that we have an opportunity to kill this project for the right reasons, not the wrong ones, and that that would carry over to Keystone XL as well.
You are quite selective in the points you do/don't discuss
Your suggestion will not stop the XL pipeline (the Gateway is just a ploy), and more strategically: it does not expose Harper's betrayal of his constituency.
This is a political party, not a Sunday school class.
In my opinion, this type of, a la morté, no compromise, narrow-minded, self-righteous preaching that you engage in, is why it is has not grown beyond a few percentage points in popular vote.
Good discussion though.
Selective? No. Not if you look at my posts in total.
Sorry, I don't get into ad hominem attacks.
What exactly are you fighting?
You seem focused on Mr. Harper (seemingly to the point of obsession), but isn't it really the ideology he presents and represents that is the enemy?
Stephen Harper is just one iteration of a very pervasive and destructive ideology. Without him, there will just be another to take his place ("the graveyards are full of irreplaceable people"). For example, George "WMD" Bush is gone, but there are numerous wannabes rushing in to fill that ideological niche. And Canadian examples abound.
Are you really using your energy productively?
I've already outlined
I've already outlined everything you ask in detail. And how to strip off the 10% swing voters that don't really feel comfortable with neo-con theology, but voted for the Conservatives based on their proporting to be the best economic stewards in troubled times. I refer to 'Harper' because it is a convenient label. Its not a personal vedetta. Everyone has a reason for what they do, however misguided. As long as the Conservatives retain their 40% popular support, they will continue to maintain a majority and degrade our country. - That's what has to change to answer your question (What are you fighting?). And its what you should be fighting, if you are sincere about saving the planet.
If you take the time to read my answers, I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand, if you wanted to. I think you are simply sticking to your own equally extremist and impractical theology: oil=bad, green=good. A binary system of thinking that polarizes and is self-defeating, as evidenced by the stagnation of this party's support level.
A refinery located in Ft. Saskatchewan (Edmtn. area) could be used in future to refine natural light crude instead of synthetic crude from tarsand. A state-of-the-art upgrader in Ft. Mac could be used to replace the aging upgraders there, while holding production of synthetic crude level and then reducing it. If you want to stop a train, you have to slow it down first.
You are correct, I am not using my energy productively as your 'all-or-nothing', position is as hypocritical as it is comfortable. If one uses a car, taxi, plane. If one's living quarters are heated. If one uses electicity, then one is contributing to the burning of fossil fuel. That's a fact of life you may ignore if you wish. So to then announce, 'no compromise with the devil', as your personal motto is hardly convincing.
I don't usually ask personal questions. Perhaps it is outside the normal limits. However, in this case, you have declared yourself to be an educator, somewhat condescendingly, so I think it is a fair question. If someone declares he is an engineer or doctor, then its fair game to ensure he is what he says he is. There's no obligation to answer. Its just a question.
The ad hominems begin...
...usually as the last resort of someone who knows they have an untenable argument.
Where there is a way there is a will
Is that all we have to offer? dirty oil. Clean energy we could sell too. We don't really have to go that way. Actually we don't need to produce for other countries and we can produce our own Green, clean and renewable energy. I know a man name David Weston that knows a great deal about the subject and wrote about it many decades ago. Many people and other countries are practising just this. check it out, it doesn't hurt.
anne marie benoit
Merci beaucoup Anne-Marie,
Merci beaucoup Anne-Marie, vous avez raison, et je suis complètement d’accord.
Maleureusement, présentement, nous avon un gouvernement exceptionnellement difficile et dur. Mais je vais faire des recherches sur ‘David Weston’ quand même. C’est bien apprécié.
bonne année aussi,
Exactly, Anne Marie.
Thanks.
And by your affectation of
(reply to Rick Shea)
And by your affectation of being personally affronted, you evade entirely the critical points of debate I have made.
Therefore I do apologize and retract my question. It is, as you rightly point out, superfluous to the tenets of the argument. (Moderator: could you pls remove the last paragraph in: "I've already outlined" for me, there is no 'edit' function on the 'reply' in question, thanks.)
If the mission of the GPC is to act solely analogous to an environmental advocacy group. Subsist with the barest minimum of public support, to be a pure voice for the ecology of the planet, then you are entirely right and your views consistent with this purpose. And that, in itself, is still quite a worthwhile objective that will have some indirect influence. No argument.
If the mission of the GPC is to become a bona fide functioning political party that; reflects all the needs of Canadians proportional to their concerns, grows in support, participates fully, has increasing influence, makes and breaks alliances and coalitions (as real parties do), enabling it to be effective in directly advancing a progressive governmental agenda (incrementally – that’s unfortunately how politics work), then your immovable position which does reflect the current party-line, is poorly chosen.
The results of the last election and the many years of data showing the flat level of support (if you do a statistical analysis, you will see, there is no trend) demonstrate this clearly. The advice from Canadians to the GPC (Nanos research poll) was: “Broaden policy views”. It is about choice, and perhaps we should leave it there.
No charge for "ad hominem" lesson.
"Poorly chosen?" Not at all. It is a position chosen after (too many) decades of observation and thought, and not as a result of selling out to political expediencies. If the Green Party is going to take the position that a little bit of environmental degradation is okay as long as we create (dirty) jobs, then it will no longer be a true party of the greens. Greenish perhaps, but not green.
So, is it all about getting elected in the near term? Panic mode? Power at any cost (like other parties)?
Or is it really about a consistent message of concern, and blueprint for action, for the future of this planet and for our children?
The Green Party already has quite broad and comprehensive policy views, but Canadians at large don't seem to be aware of that. Why not?