Pipeline Debate (again)

It has been argued that Alberta, to maintain its economy, needs access to markets that need oil, and that the USA market is not as accessible or as open as once presumed. Therefore an expansion of the pipeline to B.C.’s shores is required. The argument for this position is reasonably compelling. Alberta is a landlocked province; it has no access to the rest of the world without transporting its oil through another jurisdiction. As well, it does not get in the US full market value for their product. A year ago when it was clear that the US government was not going to allow the TransCanada Keystone pipeline to proceed, it seemed as if Alberta needed another way of getting its product to market. As well, because of new drilling techniques including fracking and horizontal drilling, the US is able to access more of its own buried oil. Therefore the need for Alberta to find new markets was obvious.

However, if the above assumptions are not true, then the need for the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline is less obvious. I came across a report from the Parklands Institute – an Alberta non-partisan centre that suggests that the above assumptions are inaccurate. The report titled Will the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tidewater Access Boost and Save Canada’s Oil Industry? argues that (1) that the two pipelines slated for either expansion or development to the USA will be approved and that there is still the possibility that the Trans Canada East pipeline, which is still under review, will be approved – once these pipelines are built, there will be enough capacity to ship Alberta oil;  (2) that if Alberta oil is shipped to Asia, it may sell for less than it is sold for in the US due to the cost of shipping; (3) that US still needs to import 46% of its oil from off shore and that its primary sources of Venezuela and Mexico may not be reliable

If the above report is accurate and reasonably unbiased, the argument that BC has some responsibility as a member of a federation of provinces to at least consider the wellbeing of other citizens in that federation and therefore should not block the Kinder Morgan pipeline on principle alone, holds significantly less water. There may be all kinds of reasons why the pipeline expansion should not go through including the fact that it may cross over unceded First Nation land. There are also could be compelling reasons why it should. 

It may be that we need to have, as a country, some sort of discussion as to what we can do to both protect the environment and ensure that all Canadians have equal access to supports and service. Unfortunately most of us do not know all of the facts to participate in that discussion. Furthermore, I am convinced that it is almost impossible to have the discussion in a calm, rational way. I suspect that facts, which should be absolute, can be (mis)interpreted in a myriad of ways that will ensure that no one will want to, or be able to look at the issues from a critical point of view.

Part of the problem is that both sides of the debate are afflicted with tunnel vision. The environmentalists can only see oil producers (and all of the businesses that are associated with it) as being intentionally evil, ruthless polluters whose only reason for existing is to get rich while raping the planet. Anyone who supports such people is equally as bad and deserves to be shouted down and not listened to. On the other hand those who are engaged in the extraction of crude see environmentalist as naive tree huggers who live in a fantasy world where everyone but them pays more taxes, where service are free and we can all run our cars on air. Of course neither characterization is accurate, but people cling to them. It is so much easier to feel victorious in a debate when one can demonize the opposition.

We teach or at least I hope we teach young people that when they debate an issue, while one can attack an opinion, one should never attack the person expressing that opinion. If we were ever taught that - we clearly have forgotten it. Until we adults can get to the point where there does not have to be a winner and a loser in the debate; until we can accept that some if not most of the people on the other side are not that different from us; until we can learn to look at fact in a rational way, no solution can be found that will allow us to move forward together. We really need to grow up and learn how to talk to each other as friends and neighbours – not as the enemy.

Donald Trump is Right

Donald Trump is right - that is a statement that I never thought I would make - but he is. There is no doubt that if the USA fully followed/enacted/pursued the Paris Agreement on climate change to the fullest extent possible, that many US businesses would be negatively affected. All of those companies that are involved in the production of carbon based fuel, the owners of oil fields and coal mines, the private hydro generating companies that use dirty coal, the automotive manufacturers, and perhaps even all of those large box stores that rely on the thousands and thousands of trucks that are on our highways to maintain their “just in time” retail model would either lose money or some cases go out of business. Hundreds of the richest people in the USA might end up with less money in their bank accounts. At the other end of the financial spectrum there will be a large number of individuals who may not be able to make the kind of intellectual shift required to working in and using complex technologies. To many of us in the centre, we may want for example, to embrace a lifestyle that produces little or no carbon emissions but will struggle to be able to afford to buy that new electric car. The changes that we all face – will be a challenge and we, in the short term, may find them uncomfortable. So from Mr. Trump’s small, ever elevated ivory tower – as far as he can see , it is understandable that he believes that reducing the USA’s carbon footprint will negatively impact that old economy he has promised to make great again.

 

Of course the man is a fool who clearly cannot see past the end of his nose. By focusing on what is best for his country in the next few years, he ignores what will be best not only for the USA a decade from now, but in fact what is best for the whole world. By limiting his country’s participation in a new and exciting economy where innovation and creativity will be both celebrated and rewarded, he condemns that country to having to play “catch-up” when they finally realize that they have no choice but to adapt.

 

However, what is particularly sad and frightening about Trump’s decision to renege on his country’s commitment towards the Paris Agreement is that it is a classic example of a protectionist state that assumes it has the right to only engage with the rest of the world when it is advantageous to them. Mr. Trump and his like-minded citizens see nothing wrong in taking as much as they can from developing countries, of making obscene profits from the selling of those resources and then turning around and suggesting that the USA owes nothing to those countries. Trump’s business model of taking whatever you can and to maximize profit regardless of anything/anyone else is no longer a particularly effective model for corporations. That model may have worked in a world where countries, companies and people were at best only connected by telegraph wires – but in a world where most of us accept the fact that we are all connected, that what happens in Texas or Kabul does affect us all – sometimes surprisingly quickly, companies can no longer ignore that what they do today will affect the rest of the world. Trump by supporting this narrow view that one county, place or person is more important than any other is condemning his country to become a second rate influence in the world.

 

By refusing to participate in a world wide effort, Trump has re-confirmed an isolationist policy that refuses to take any responsibility for the USA’s contributions to the climate change problem. He has rejected the argument that the USA has any moral responsibility to the rest of the world. What makes this a particularly dangerous approach is that it opens the door for other countries and major international companies to argue that they too do not have a moral responsibility to be good citizens.

The Man Who Would be King (Maker) (part 2)

No one could/should ever say that Canadian politics are boring. While they may be less bombastic than those to the immediate south of us, our politics at both the national and provincial level can be just as complex and at times full of backroom deals. The convoluted dance that the British Columbia Green Party has just had with its two prospective partners is a case in point.  

 

Weaver, along with his party of two other Greens, has within the last 24 hours made clear which of the two partners they will be taking to the national stage. It should surprise no one that in the final analysis, the BC Greens had no choice but to partner with the NDP.  For the Green party to ally themselves with the B.C. Liberals – their provincial adversary in so many battles - for any period of time would have offended far too many of the Green supporters. On the surface, it would appear that the agreement between the NDP and the Greens is, if not a match made in heaven, at least an arrangement that will be not lead them back to that part of hell known as the powerless opposition. But both parties need to be cautious of being seduced by the glamour of it all. While Weaver may see their new “relationship” as an equal partnership – they are in fact hooking up with a partner with a lot of baggage.

 

The Greens have allied themselves with a political party that may “owe” certain interests – i.e. the unions. As noted by the Globe and Mail, the B.C Teacher’s Federation has already indicated that it will be asking for more money for the school system. It is so easy to promise the near impossible when one is on the opposition side of the legislature – it is so much more difficult to deliver on all of those promises. Those who follow Ontario politics know all too well how union supporters can turn against “their” party when they don’t get want they want. I also note via Facebook, that the Union of BC Indian Chiefs has said that it is time to implement all of the various recommendations that have been made to at least try to rectify our rather disastrous relationships with First Nation communities. I suspect that there are other interest groups in the province who are assuming that they will have their needs addressed. It is unlikely that everyone will get all of their issues resolved. Compromises that may satisfy no one will need to be made.  

The NDP need to understand that the Greens have little to lose by being demanding in terms of priorities and solutions. They will try to wave the whip for the next four years or until such time as the NDP get tired of being bossed around by a three person non-party. One has to wonder how stable the agreement to work together will be when the NDP cannot quickly deliver on all of its promises, or how long NDP backbenchers will sit quietly by while their issues are not being addressed.  

I support the concept that that environment must be, if not the first thing that is considered when discussing provincial policy, a critical component in any decision. I think that means that the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipe line, the building of the Site C dam and Liquefied Natural Gas projects in North Western B.C. are all back on the table. It is hard to see how any of them can be approved. I am however, most curious as to how the new government will generate sufficient income to support its plans to expand health care and education funding while maintaining a balanced budget. While it is tempting to suggest that (1) there is some waste within the government that could be cut and (2) that some people (the rich) need to pay their share (and more) – is suspect that is not enough. The provincial of government will need to expand its income and clearly it will not be from the expansion of any of the present industries. I cannot help but remember the negative and unsupportive response of “big” business when Ontario voters elected an NDP government.

The Greens are gambling that the next four years will be smooth sailing and that they will get enough of their agenda on the table to please their supporters, and to garner new ones; The NDP party is gambling the same thing. I am not sure if both parties can be winners at the end of this coalition.

Who will send in the Clowns?

A day or two ago, the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus had its last show. After 146 years of preforming to millions of people – the show is no more. That circus and its various reincarnations had, as one commentator said, been around longer than had baseball. For at least some of those millions of people who saw the circus at least once - it is the end of an era. For some of us romantics - there is one less place to run away to. For the thousands of people who made at least part of their living through the circus – they will earn less money next year. For the relatively small number of people who worked at the circus full time, they have not only lost their jobs – they have lost a way of life.  While there are a lot of reasons why the show closed after struggling for years to survive financially – it is still, in many ways, sad.

 

There are a lot of people who are celebrating the closing of the circus. All of those people who moaned about the cruelty towards the animals, how unfair it was to cage animals so that both city and country folk could pay money to be both afraid and amused at the antics of animals doing things/tricks that were unnatural to them. The great wail of anguish that arose whenever people thought of fierce jungle cats bowing to the authority and power of the man with the chair and the whip; of the obscenity of some great bear dancing or pretending to wrestle his trainer; of elephants walking /moving in time to some unheard beat – only to stand on a far too small platform; of horses endlessly cantering around a sawdust covered circle while their riders danced on and off their backs and the dogs – small breeds usually- sometimes wearing silly customs, doing tricks for little rewards. The very existence of such animal acts proves that mankind still believes that we have the right to use our power to dominate other animals regardless of those animals’ innate intelligence or nobility. All such acts are proof that we have a long way to go in demonstrating that our humanity extends to all beings.

 

While I am sympathetic to those lofty concerns that drive people to quietly boycott or loudly protest such things as circuses, I find the duplicity somewhat troublesome. At the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto and at countless hundreds of small and large town fall fairs around the country, animals are put on display; some like the fancy chickens are placed in small cages and left there for hours so that the folks can admire and be amused, while the larger animals such as horses are required to prance, jump and pull heavy weights at their owner’s’ command. At dog shows, the over bred, over-washed and manicured “man’s best friends” are paraded around – and are required to be perfectly and unnaturally behaved.

 

I am not sure who one should feel sorrier for. The lion that spends his life confined to small cages and when let out it is obliged to jump through hoops of fire, or the dog that is so well bred that it is almost guaranteed to health problem in what should be its healthy middle years. Both animals have been bred and trained for our pleasure and all too frequently to prove that we can at least control something in our lives.

 

The circus may be a form of entertainment that has passed its time. Its end may be a sign that we as a species are more aware of our obligations to other beings. But I am not too sure if the closing of a world famous circus is proof of anything except that we have found other ways to get our pleasure and to demonstrate our control. At best it is an incredibly small victory that means little in terms of how the animals we say that we love are treated. At worst it is just pretend. The big money makers in the growing pet industry will on one hand help with the celebrations and other hand rake in even more cash.

The Man Who Would be King (Maker)

Andrew J. Weaver – the leader of the B.C. Green party is poised to be the person in control of at least part of the next B.C. government’s agenda. He or other members of his party were not elected by a significant percentage of the B.C. electorate for that job, nor do they represent a cross section of B.C. voters – in fact all three of their newly won seats come from Vancouver Island. However, because of some perhaps unusual voting patterns, the Green Party may now hold the balance of power in a Liberal minority government. That makes him and his two fellow Green party members a powerful force for shaping a government that has, at least in part, a clear vision of how to run a province from an environmental perspective. The real questions are : is there really a clear vision of how to do that and td they have a mandate to do it?

 

One has to believe that never in their wildest dreams did the Green Party think that in 2017 they would be in such a position. I have to assume that they would have been excited if they had just gained two extra seats. Their primary goal was in all likelihood to get enough seats so that they could become a party as defined by the legislature and therefor get government funding for its operations within the Legislature. They, unlike the two other parties, spent very little, if any time thinking about what policies they would want to be presented in the Throne Speech. It is a giant step to go from a small – perhaps one could say insignificant opposition force within the Legislature - to a party that holds the balance of power.

 

It is interesting to note that their first priority is to be given the status of an official party (a party needs to have four elected members in the legislature before they are awarded that status). Their second stated priority is to have the rules as to who can and cannot contribute to political parties. If the Greens have their way, neither unions nor large corporations will be allowed to donate. While this change is frequently seen as a way of leveling the playing field especially as the Green Party does not accept such donations, one cannot assume that this guarantees that the Green’s coffers will fill at the same rate as the Liberals. In fact I would argue that in other jurisdictions where this policy has become law, dominate parties continue to raise the most money from individuals.  I think that it is worth noting that the first two demands that Weaver made public had to do with how, in his mind, the Green Party could be made stronger. I don’t think his position is unusual or even inappropriate, but they feel more than slightly self-serving.

 

Weaver in more recent days has started to discuss the Green Party’s general opposition to both the building of the Site C dam and the expansion of the Kinder-Morton pipeline.  I suspect that the first item will get a fair amount of support from the general public. Unless someone does a much better job than in the past in selling the concept, there does not appear to be a lot of support for it to be built – at least in the short term. It is an issue internal to B.C. that affects no other province.

 

The Kinder-Morton pipeline is another issue. While it is true that a significant part of the expansion will occur in B.C. and that the highest places of risk in transporting the partially processed oil, including the loading it on to ships, is in B.C., a decision to not allow the pipeline’s construction generally affects people outside of the province. There are thousands of people in Alberta and elsewhere who depend upon the income they earn from oil production. If the pipeline is not built, there will be fewer jobs – jobs that Albertans need to maintain their economy. If Alberta cannot, at least in the short term, earn the money it does from oil revenues, then they will not be able to sustain their economy. Families will be forced to re-locate, small business will not thrive, house prices will continue their downward trend and Alberta as a province will stop paying into the Canadian Equalization Plan. Alberta will not be able to transition to another type of economy if the economy is not vibrant.

 

Whether we like it not, there is a demand for the oil. If it is not shipped through a pipeline, it will be shipped by train – something that is far more dangerous and less well controlled. CN and CP do not need any permission to transport as much oil as they wish through whatever territory they want. Rail transport is not a viable alternative. The only viable alternative to the pipeline is to shut down oil production. And I don’t have a problem with them but...

 

It seems to me that the people who are advocating for less (or no) oil to be shipped from Alberta are the people who will suffer the least from such an embargo. The people who voted for Andrew Weaver will not suffer one little bit if jobs are lost in Alberta or if there is a major train derailment in the Rockies. They will continue to live on their nice island (as I do), driving their generally overly large vehicles and enjoying what traditionally has been the warmest climate in Canada. There will be no cost to them. They will continue to enjoy their pleasant life style AND get the chance to pontificate upon how wonderful they are because they stopped the pipeline. It seems to me that if people like me are opposed to oil productions (and fracking for natural gas), then we should pay some sort of price. Are we prepared to significantly reduce (or stop) our use of gas; are we prepared to invest the millions and millions of dollars in developing affordable alternatives; are we prepared, at least in the short term, to financially support the people of Alberta as they go through a transitional process from oil production to....? Of course, for the majority of people, the answer to those questions is no.

 

The Greens have this rather scary opportunity to demand implementation of their election platform– in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of people voted for them. While that might be great for the planet – and for that reason I support them – it is not democracy.

Cultural Appropriation

To be absolutely clear – there is no doubt that the western/industrial/mainly European world has for centuries felt entirely free to use/appropriate anything from another culture it felt like. It has done so without any consideration of what such appropriation felt like to those of that culture. Clothing designers, musicians, writers, movie producers and others have all felt entitled to use another culture’s images or stories to enhance their product. Groups such as the Rainbow Family or those Europeans who are so immersed in First Nation culture that one argued with me that “he was more Indian than the Indians” have assumed that because some of their values are, if not aligned with traditional North American First Nation’s values, are at least parallel to them, that that gives them the right to use any part of that culture that they want to. No matter how distorted that use becomes. Such appropriation is at best profoundly misguided.

 

In the last week or so there has been a significant amount of discussion within the various media in Canada on the issue of cultural appropriation. It appears to have all started when an editor of a magazine, attempted (he says) through humour to initiate a discussion as to when can an non-aboriginal Canadian use Aboriginal character, story lines and other artifacts in their creative works. His words were, very understandably, not appreciated by the Aboriginal community. Other non-aboriginal writers got involved in the discussion and some of them such as Jonathan Kay, editor-in-chief of the Walrus have also faced some public censure.

 

One of Kay’s points was that it does little good to call someone a racist just because they have appropriate a piece of another’s culture. I think he is right in that while the act of appropriation may be and perhaps should be labelled a racists act – if the individual did so not understanding why such appropriation is potentially harmful – is he or she a racist? I don’t think so.

 

Those of us who are of the elite – and by that I mean of European decent – and certainly people of a certain age - have been raised in a world where certain things were understood. To be clear – these were cultural understandings. A white person in Alabama in 1960 would have assumed that there would be/should be two drinking fountains – one labelled for white use, one labelled for non-whites. Clearly that is horrendously racist. But the white person could not have recognized that because it was the only world they knew. Similarly, I grew up playing “cowboy and Indians”. No one wanted to be the Indians – they always lost. My world view of First Nations people was in general formed by television and perhaps some books (my father’s boyhood books by G. A. Henty that I devoured as a boy were more than a little bit racists). While the play activity may have very clear racist overtones – the act of playing “cowboy and Indians” did not make me a racist. However, now that I know better, if I allowed my son or grandchildren to play such games, without me having a conversation with them to redirect them – then I would quite clearly be a racist. As a human I have the capacity to learn and to adapt to new cultural understanding. I, on occasion, may need some time to make those adaptations.

 

There are some (many?) people who in spite of ample exposure to the other side of the issue, refuse to deviate from their long held cultural beliefs. For example, they continue to believe that as white people, they have the right, if not the obligation to be in charge and to decide what is right for other people; that their skin colour alone makes them and their culture better in every aspect. These people and their activities need to be clearly labelled as being what they are: racist. But I would argue that there are far more people who are struggling with the issue of what is or is not okay. We search out information; we want to talk with those Canadians from First Nation communities; we acknowledge that we have been wrong in our approaches and our attitudes. The last thing we want to do is to oppress or hurt someone. And we need help to understand.

 

Is it fair that the victims of oppression are continually required to educate me and folks like me? Is it right that the very people who have had so much of their culture denigrated or more likely completely destroyed have to defend what is theirs? Is it even reasonable to ask those peoples to have patience with me and to not get angry or frustrated as I fumble my way though it all? Probably not.

 

But if not them – then who?

 

Apologies to Air Canada

On my last blog, I may have cast aspersions upon Air Canada. It was as if I was preparing myself to be disappointed and getting ready to rant loudly against a big powerful company. I do so like being the David against the Goliath. But alas I have absolutely nothing to complain about.

Every step of the way from check-in in Nanaimo to the recovery of my pack from luggage in Sudbury was almost seamless. While one plane left a bit late and another was put into a brief holding pattern, the connections were easy to make with no fears of missing the next plane. Even the arrival and departure gates were not too far apart. It is not that it was a pleasurable journey. I left my home at a very uncivilized hour, spent too mush time waiting in airports, once got squished into a seat beside a rather large person (mercifully for a short flight), was almost the last out of both of my short flights,  all of the planes seems overly loud - to the point that I could not hear the announcements and of course, none of the seats were comfortable. But It was all very manageable, the service or at least what passes for service was pleasant, no one was grumpy, the pilots seemed competent and to the best of my knowledge none of the other passengers had any major complaints.

Was it a great experience - no. Was it better than i thought it would be - yes. So I guess that is a win for the small guy. Although it needs to be stated that I had such low expectations that it would not have beeen hard to be almost pleasantly surprised.