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.