A Rolling Pipeline

It is clear that in spite of the federal government’s commitment to expand the pipeline to the west coast, there is a surplus of oil waiting to get to a refinery and no way of it getting anywhere. The Canadian expansion faces months and months of hearings and debates, eventually I suspect ending up in front of the Supreme Court again. Even after all of the political horse trading that will happen both in the mass media and behind closed doors, there is no guarantee that the pipeline will ever get built within my lifetime. A pipeline route to the south of us seems to be almost as unlikely.

I am not sure if I understand why our reduced capacity to ship Alberta’s raw crude the the USA means that we get less for it, but apparently it is worth less as we can’t ship it in any large quantity. Personally I think the international oil companies are just messing with us. Regardless, Alberta has a problem, its revenues are down and it needs money to operate. If the NDP government of Rachel Notley does not appear to do something, not only will there potentially be a significant shortage of operating funds but they will resoundingly lose the next provincial election - the party could even be reduced to almost no standing in the provincial legislature. One of her short term solutions is for the Albertan government to buy more rail cars so that the crude can be shipped by rail.

This may be the only solution - it is not a good solution.

1) It is an expensive option. According to the Globe and Mail (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/cn-to-buy-200-locomotives-from-ge-as-freight-volumes-surge/article37418466/) each engine could cost three million (US), a new oil car could cost up to $150,000 each (https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/alberta-plans-to-buy-7000-railcars-to-ease-crisis-in-oil-price-differentials)

2) The carbon footprint to manufacture those engines and cars would be significant

3) As much as there is a legitimate fear of a pipeline cracking and leaking hundreds if not thousands of litres of crude oil before the flow is cut off, there is an equally legitimate concern as to the risk of an train derailment and the resultant spill. At least some of the thousands of miles of railroad tracks in Canada go through remote parts of our wilderness where there is no road access. Cleaning up any spill would be difficult and very expensive. Furthermore, at other times, the tracks go through major population centres and any accident involving a train derailment could cause an incomprehensible amount of damage to both the city’s infrastructure and to human lives.

4) Our rail system is already over crowded. As frequent readers of this blog are aware, our national passenger rail service is a disgrace with cross-country trains running a minimum of 12 hours late on a regular basis. Putting more cars on to those tracks could be the death blow to our passenger rail transportation. VIA rail, outside of southern Ontario could go the way of the Greyhound bus.

5) There is some doubt as to whether or not there are enough trained engineers to operate the existing trains never mind adding more. According to CBC (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/ottawa-warns-of-dangerously-exhausted-train-crews-as-alberta-ramps-up-oil-by-rail/ar-BBQmQr0?li=AA521o), well before Notley’s announcement, Transport Canada express concern that rail crews were all ready over worked with insufficient time off to rest.

Shipping crude oil by train is expensive, dangerous and could be the death blow to our transcontinental passenger train system. I am am not too sure if the potential damage is not as great if not greater than the shipping our crude by pipeline.

One has to wonder as to why more people are not expressing more concern.

Somethings Make Me Smile in Sadness and Despair

A week or so ago the federal government announced that it was going to allocate funds to assist the mainstream media - specifically the press in adapting to the new environment where it has become increasingly difficult for the print media to compete with the internet etc. Conservative politicians including a provincial premier immediately started to suggest that such government handouts would ensure that print media would become biased in favour of the government because they could not/would not ever bite the hands that fed them.

The conservatives of this country could, in some small way, be correct. Reporters who knew their jobs were slightly more secure might think twice about getting on certain bandwagons and bashing the ruling party. But those politicians who suggested such biases were possible, acted as if the print media was at present, unbiased. To suggest even the possibility that the media were not influenced by outside sources demonstrates at best a profound naivete and at worst a disturbing capacity to publically ignore or discuss the obvious truths of the world we live in.

The truth is that the print media has always been biased. Only someone who buried their head in the sand all of the time could miss the obvious biases of various newspapers either to the left or the right side of the spectrum. Certain newspaper editors (under the direction of the publishers) predictably support certain political parties at election and at other times. These biases exist because the print media is now and always has been a commercial enterprise. It makes or at least it is supposed to make money for the owners.

The money comes from advertisers, advertisers want their advertisements in newspapers that are read by potential customers - of course the newspapers print news, that at the very least, is slanted towards what the readers want to read. It is not so terrible that media is biased. There are at least two sides, two perspectives to every story. What is bad is the media not acknowledging that there is a bias in their writing/reporting. It is their denial of their political leanings, their incapacity to be honest with the reading public that allows both for people to argue that “news is fake” and for politicians to rant about how unfair it is that one political party may be trying to bribe the print media. One should not necessarily be concerned about the possibility that the media are biased - of course they are; the real concern is that they pretend not to be.

As a side note, I think there was a time when it was legitimate for the smaller political parties who were never able to gain any real political traction to argue that the mainstream press was too aligned with the parties in power and thereby making it difficult to get their platforms/ideas out to the public. It is far more alarming when parties (e.g. Republicans or Conservatives) who have historically held power at least as nearly as often as other parties make that claim. It is difficult to see those parties as the underdogs who are at a disadvantage. It is a cheap ploy to attract attention - to make people feel sorry for them. Something one would expect of a young child and hopefully something that any reasonable adult would see through.

Ethical/Moral Dilemma

For a senior, I probably take less medications than some, but it still can be expensive. My medication to control my blood pressure is about $28.00 every 45 days - certainly not very much. More recently however, it has been suggested that I start to take some medication to reduce the side effects of my CODP. That medication is more expensive.

The medication originally prescribed, needs to be take four times a day and cost $48.00 for thirty days. It is also rather inconvenient to use. I have to get up early in the morning (5:00AM) to take the first dose as well as having to remember to take the enhaller with me if I am going to be out of the house around 11:00 AM. There is however, another choice. I could take a similar medication but only once per day. That medication cost approximately twice as much ($102.00 for 30 days).

The moral dilemma occurs when I think about whether or not to access my province’s Pharmacare program for seniors. For me, at my income level, the plan will cover all drug costs above $550.00 per year. That means that if my only two prescription costs are for blood pressure and the cheaper, more inconvenient COPD medication - I will not receive any financial assistance. If, however I switch to the more expensive and far more convenient medication, the additional cost for the medication will be covered by the Pharma Care plan.

The Question is- do I utilize the government’s funds to pay for my convenience? It could be argued that I paid taxes all of my life and there it is my right to take money from the government. It could be argued that the drug plan is there to assist seniors and that it is my right to use it if needed. It could even be argued that everyone else does it so why shouldn’t I? If I raised the issue amongst some of my friends and suggested that I might be needlessly spending government money (and that there was not a bottomless pot of it) those friends would argue that there was a shortage of money because the rich were not paying their fair share and therefore I should not feel guilty for their greed.

But I do feel guilty. I think I know that it is wrong to use the system just for my convenience. It does not matter how much I have or have not paid in taxes, the people who are supporting my medication use are the people younger than me, people who are burdened with ever increasing costs but not increasing pay cheques. I know that the government’s money pot is not bottomless and regardless of who could/should pay more, I should not take out more than I need. And for me that is the crux of the matter.

It is not how much I deserve to have, it is how much do I need to have. At the core of my “philosophy of life” is the basic belief (which is a weird combination of socialism and macrobiotics) that we should never take more than we need. I have always explained it by saying - if there are 10,000 apples in the world and 10,000 people than everyone gets one apple each. If someone takes more than one apple, the balance gets upset. It does matter if my apple tree has produced more apples - to be fair and just - I only get one.

I need to take some medication - I do not need to take the one that is more expensive just because it will make my life a little bit less inconvenient. I do need to do all that I can not to upset the balance of life by taking more than I need.

Not-For-Profits: Leave Me Alone!

My father once told me that he always tithed a certain percentage of his yearly income. He did it because it was part of his faith. Whether he was an active church goer or not - he always gave money as his Christian duty. I too, give a percentage of my yearly income. Not because of any specific religious beliefs or commitments but because I believe that those of us who have - need to share with those who have less. But we can all give something - whether it is money or time in our communities.

For the last decade or so, I have not given very many Christmas presents. For the last five years I have given none. I do donate, on behalf of my two adult children, money to an international charity. Right now my favourite is Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders). The two younger grandchildren choose what kind of animal they want me to give and I send the money to Plan Canada; my two older grandchildren in Sudbury pick a local charity that I can donate to on their behalf. When they were younger they did chose animals for a few years and then moved onto choosing an individual to support through KIVA.

It makes Christmas shopping very quick and easy. I avoid all of that hassle of worrying what I am going to buy and whether or not they will like it. The lack of any gifts from me under the tree makes Christmas morning a bit anti-climatic for me and I do have to resist the urge to run around on Christmas Eve buying presents. But I know that what I am doing is a good thing, hopefully because the money is needed and well used but also because my grandchildren may remember when they are adults that giving to strangers is part of being a good citizen of the world.

But what I do not like is the daily reminders from groups that I have donated to or I have decided not to donate to (e.g. my universities) that it is "giving Tuesday". I resent the constant reminders that if I give today I can double the value of the donation or that some poor family in some other part of the world needs my help. It is worth noting that the only reason why these organizations have my email address is because I gave it to them when I donated money. Perhaps some folks respond well to being nagged. I am not one of them. I dislike it so much that I am almost inclined to not donate next time. Getting redundant emails is marginally better than those same organization wasting my money on mailing me stuff, but it still annoys the hell out of me.

I suppose that there is never enough money for all of those good organizations to do everything they feel needs to be done. There will (apparently) always be a war somewhere in the world, and that war will inflict upon the local people unimaginable pain, suffering and dislocation. Someone needs to something to help those people. The possibility of working to eradicate wars by reducing or even better stopping the sale of weapons and equalizing the distribution of resources seems to be an impossible dream. So for the foreseeable future, good people are going to need to nag and harass other good people to donate money. But I wish they could take my name of the mailing list at least for a little while after I have donated my money.

All of the commercials tell us that it is the season for giving. I would never negate the importance of sharing this time of year with family and friends, and of demonstrating our affection for them. However, we, who in this country are so blessed with reasonable security and some hope of the rule of law, should not need to be reminded that there are others who have nothing - no food, no shelter, no security and no where to call home. We need at the very least need to extend our definition of family and community.

And we should not need to be nagged to do so.

General Motors - Death of a Dinosaur

As with so much information that I read -my thoughts as to the announced closure of the GM plant in Oshawa are somewhat mixed. GM said it its announcement that they were shutting down the production line so that they will be better able to adjust to the new market conditions. The new conditions include increased interest in electric cars and a ever declining interest in sedans.

As former resident of the Oshawa area I am well aware of the extraordinary influence the plant had over the life of Oshawa and surrounding area. At times, the world seemed to revolve around the plant's routines. Parents working various shift scheduled appointments at what seemed to be random times to fit into their work schedules, summer holidays had to happen during shut down times and of course whenever there was a strike, the city slowed down.

The geography of parts of Oshawa was shaped by "the motors". Shift change was a major event and people learnt not to get caught up in the traffic anywhere near the plants at those times. As well, like every city that is dominated by a major employer, Oshawa's charities, adult and youths sports teams and every cultural edifice were enhanced by the generous donations of both the company's and the workers' participation. The future plans of a couple of generations of students revolved around the fact that one could always get a job at one of the plants. Countless university degrees were financed by summer jobs at the plant. Over the last decade or two, General Motors has gradually reduced the number of workers as robots and downsizing have taken their toll. Yesterday's announcement is, in fact the last of a rather long list of layoffs and plant closures. I am sure many if not all of the remaining workers are in a state of shock. There is nowhere else for them to go. It is understandable why they feel angry and betrayed.

How Oshawa will be able to thrive without GM remains unclear. Property values which were always driven by the needs of GM employees may decrease, some of the stores, restaurants and service industries may become unsustainable. Commercial property whose value was directly proportional to proximity to the plant may be near valueless. The Region of Durham that depended upon GM for tax income to fund hospitals, schools and other social services will need to scramble for other monies to manage their needed programs and services.

The good news, in terms of the environment, is that GM is going to invest monies in building electric cars - the bad news is that they are not going to do it in Canada. The writing was written clearly on any wall one wanted to look at. If the politicians (including the union leaders) had been honest with themselves and their constituents, they would have started ten years ago to make alternative plans. But instead Canada bailed out GM during the last recession while (apparently) getting no guarantees of continued employment. Successive federal and provincial governments chose not to invest in technology for the future or support the development of a high tech work force. Instead they bragged about a highly skilled work force - a work force that demanded high wages and that was skilled in one of the skills that other workers earning far less can do almost as well - manufacturing.

I am delighted that at least one car manufacturer is getting out of the business of building cars that consume a petroleum product - although I wish they would also get out of the business of building personal use pickup truck and SUVs. But I can't help but feel as if we have missed an opportunity to be part of the new wave of personal transportation. Thousands of Canadians will be displaced in some fashion by this announcement. There is nothing that can be done to ensure that their quality and standard of life can be maintained. The best that we can do is to attempt to catch up to the rest of the world. We need to make things that a sustainably focused consumer wants and needs.

I fear we are starting far too late.

Good News....Sort of

The BC government announced this week that by 2040 all new cars sold in BC will be zero emission. That is good news. There is no doubt that reducing the number of vehicles on the road that use carbon based fuels to operate will reduce the amount of carbon that is spewed into the air. Forcing car companies to produce more zero emission cars is a great place to start but there are a few problems with this announcement.

1) The announced plan only covers light use vehicles. I think that means that people will still be able to buy pick-up trucks and SUVs that use some form of petroleum. Given that a number of the car companies have already decided to stop making sedans (see my blog of May 15 of this year)because there is limited demand for such vehicles, I am somewhat unconvinced as to whether or not the government's plan will make a big difference. It will only affect those people who are already committed to buying smaller vehicles.

2) While the government has made a commitment to provide some rebates (up to $5000) for those who purchase a new vehicle, the costs of a new electric or hydrogen cell vehicle are still prohibitive for many people. According to a BC Hydro website (https://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/electric-vehicles/owning-an-electric-vehicle/options.html) one can by a small two-seater electric vehicle for just under $27,000. By the time one adds any options, the cost quickly escalates to over $30,000, not including shipping, taxes etc. Larger vehicles start at the mid $35,000 range, again before options and taxes etc. I am clearly not a buyer of new cars in part because I have an aversion to going into debt for five to seven years, but it feels as if that is a lot of money to spend on a small vehicle that as of yet, we have no sense of its resale value after those seven years.

3) The lower price cars have very limited range, no more than a 100 kilometres before recharging. Even the mid range ones can only travel for 120 kilometres. While these distances may be great for those who only drive a few kilometres each day, the vehicles lack the range to even make a round trip from Duncan to Victoria. For anyone living outside of a major city, it strikes me that the range is insufficient for most users. If I had to buy a new vehicle in 2040 I would be forced, unless there is significant improvement in both price and distances to buy a non-electric SUV.

4) 2040 is just too far away. If we are going to make the switch, let us do it sooner. If the car companies know that we are serious about making the change, then perhaps they will get more serious about increasing production/reducing costs and looking at ways of extending distances travelled. I appreciate that there is a significant amount of work that needs to be done in terms of infrastructure etc, but until people see that there are sufficient recharging stations across the province and access to repairs etc, few will get on the bandwagon.

The reality is that in 2040, I will be over 90 and in all likelihood I will not be driving so it is all a moot matter. That is probably true for most of the BC cabinet members who made the decision. It was an easy announcement to make. Any cost will be insignificant for this or even the next government and it keeps the Greens happy. It looks as if someone is doing something to protect the planet. It was particularly easy when none of the members will have to face any of the consequences or figure out how to either enforce it or to pay for it.

It is well past time when people need to stop paying lip service to environment policy and start actually doing something meaningful.

Just Another Oil Spill

It was more than a little bit depressing to type the above title. Depressing because it is, apparently for many people, no longer newsworthy or perhaps even morally correct to become outraged that there is yet another oil spill in some ocean. In spite of the obvious dangers of drilling down into the rock beneath the oceans, especially off of such places as the coast of Newfoundland where the winter storms can blow for days, we continue as a country to insist that off shore drilling or the transportation of oil products in large quantities is safe.

Last week, at a site 350km off of the coast of Newfoundland, at least 250,000 litres of crude oil were spilled - I say "at least" because no one really knows how much oil was spilled as the seas are too rough to either determine the extent of the leak or for that matter ensure that the problem is resolved. The oil well could be still leaking and we just do not know. According to the Financial Post (https://business. financialpost. com/ commodities/ energy/n-l-s-largest-ever-oil-spill-is-now-impossible-to-clean-up-regulatory-board), it is probably now too late to even think about any type of clean up as the spill has been broken up too much by the storm. While there is some concern that the flocks of murres and dovekies are at significant risk, the risk to plankton and all of the species that live off of plankton, either directly or indirectly is incalculable.

We can get really excited when a picture of a cute kitten is posted on Facebook, we can get all outraged if Trump says or does something outrageous (which is an almost daily occurrence) but there is almost no news on what happened just last week, something that will have consequences for months if not for years. If we feel that the risk to the coastline of British Columbia is far too great to allow the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, should we not be just as angry about governments approving off shore drilling on our other coast?

Why don't we care? It may be that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is just a bit too isolate, a bit too far removed from the rest of Canada (Newfoundlanders may feel that way all too often) for anyone to care; it may be that somehow we value some parts of Canada more than others, or it may be that most of us, most of the time, are just selfish, self-centred, two faced twits who lack the capacity to exercise any foresight at all. Regardless of why, we need to develop a cross-Canada awareness of the dangers of oil exploration/exploitation. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador allows for off shore drilling for exactly the same reason that Alberta has allowed the development of the Tar Sands - they need the money generated by the production of oil to pay its bills. We need to change how the country supports the different regions. We collectively need to discuss and then determine how we want to support each region without expecting them to put their soil, their air or their seas at risk. We need to decide what is important and we need to, again collectively, decide if we are prepared to pay the price of doing the right thing.

But in the meantime, perhaps we could use the various social media platforms to talk about the important stuff; perhaps we need to spend less time posting pictures of cute pets, what we ate or some wise words that some famous person may have said (or not said)and instead to actually share ideas and solutions with each other.