The Most Consequential Decision of the Decade

This is the time when we commonly look back over the year, or decade, or century, and pronounce our choice of the most significant event or events. There are endless events to choose and a multitude of rationals for our different choices. So many in fact I weary of making the attempt. I do, however, take an interest in choices made by others, at least others I respect. And this year I'm taken by a choice of David Smith, the Guardian's  Washington DC bureau chief.

Mr. Smith suggests in his article "The decade that shook America" that Trump's decision to deny climate science and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accords "may prove the most consequential decision of the decade." I'm inclined to agree.

This may not seem as consequential a decision as the hands-down winner of the previous decade—George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq—but it could have even more profound and longer-lasting effects. One might ask, however, how do you top a decision that destroyed a country, further destabilized the world's most unstable region and unleashed ISIS?

We might answer: because of its immense affect on humanity's greatest threat, indeed humanity's greatest threat of all time—global warming. On a country basis, China has edged out the U.S. as the world's top polluter, but countries don't pollute, people do. And the average American produces well over twice the emissions of the average Chinese. Indeed, Americans, along with Australians and Canadians, are the top emitters of the developed countries.

Considering Americans' pathetic pollution performance and considering also that the U.S. is the world's most powerful and most influential nation, Trump's decision does serious damage to global climate responsibility. By withdrawing from the accords, the U.S. not only illustrates its own malfeasance but sets a powerful example for every other country that is tempted to become a slacker, and there is a long list of those.

So in two consecutive decades, we have the most consequential decision in each made by an American president, both decisions frightfully bad and made by incompetents. What, I wonder, will the U.S. presidency have in store for us in the '20s.

War Rooms and Coal Barons

Alberta's recently constituted "war room," sometimes known as the Canadian Energy Centre, is off to a rocky start. First we learned it plagiarized its logo and now it turns out one of its spokesmen has been misrepresenting himself as a reporter. Not an auspicious beginning for the ministry of truth.

But then it's only really interested in half the truth. Individuals and organizations concerned about the climate crisis will attract its attention, but individuals and organizations that attempt to undermine climate science will not. Take, for example, Robert E. Murray, former CEO of Murray Energy, Tea Party funder, avid Trump supporter and global warming denier. Murray Energy is the largest private coal company in the United States, still operating despite having lapsed into bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy has not halted the coal baron's spendthrift ways, however. This year, he paid himself $14-million and earmarked another $1-million for global warming denial. He has over the years funded an array of PACs and other conservative organizations including groups that deny anthropogenic climate change. Among those groups is the Canadian organization the International Climate Science Coalition. The coalition claims climate is “always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.”

Premier Kenney and his UCP colleagues are outraged by American funding of Canadian environmental groups, but we can be assured their "war room" won't be challenging Mr. Murray's beneficiaries. It will not be checking their alternative facts. Covering both sides of the issue would be an attempt to ensure a fair debate, i.e. a debate Kenney et al. cannot win, so Mr. Murray may freely fund fibs about climate change to his heart's content and need have no fear of war rooms. In any case, he has enough on his plate with bankruptcy court.

Time Recognizes the Adult in the Room

What a time we live in when children have to tell adults to behave responsibly. But such times these are.

Consider Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump. Which, we might ask, is the adult in the room. Greta, who has the wisdom but no power, or Donald, who has the power but no wisdom. Greta, the teenager who knows we must listen to scientists, or Donald, the buffoon who thinks he knows better than the scientists.

For what it's worth, Greta has been chosen as Time magazine's Person of the Year for 2019, which has apparently made Donald cross. And Donald, being Donald, reacted by making unkind remarks about Greta. And Greta, being Greta, responded by wittily one-upping Donald ... all on Twitter of course.

Time states that they chose Greta because she "has succeeded in turning vague anxieties about the planet into a worldwide movement calling for global change." She has indeed. And Donald? Well, Donald has just created more vague anxieties.

So of course Greta is the adult in the room. As to Donald, I won't say he is the child in the room because that wouldn't be fair to children, most of whom are much better-behaved. Donald is yet another one of our surplus of political leaders who lack the good sense to listen to the best people we have on the worst problem we face.

Greta richly deserves to be recognized as person of the year. If there is any hope left for saving humanity from its environmental sins, she represents it.

Is This the Line in the Sand?

Crunch time. How far will Trudeau go to placate Alberta? Premier Kenney may just have drawn the line in the sand. He has said that the federal government faces a stark choice. It can either approve Teck Resources' Frontier Mine or risk leaving the country's oil industry "with no way forward."

The proposed mine is a 292-square-kilometre open-pit bitumen-mining operation 120 kilometers north of Fort McMurray, projected to produce 260,000 barrels of oil a day. It will be the largest open-pit tar sands mine in our history, adding six megatonnes of climate pollution every year. The tar sands are already the fastest-growing source of carbon emissions in the country. To quote avid environmentalist Tzeporah Berman, "All the current national climate policies, including a carbon tax and coal phase-out, would be overwhelmed by this carbon juggernaut."

But it will be hard to resist. Tech has done its homework, signing support agreements with all 14 local Indigenous communities. And big bucks will flow. According to a joint panel of officials from the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the federal government would receive about $12 billion in taxes over the project's lifespan, while Alberta would make over $55 billion in taxes and royalties.

Earlier this year the panel recommended that the project receive federal approval. Nonetheless it recognized problems, reporting. "The project, in combination with other existing, approved, and planned projects, is likely to result in significant adverse cumulative environmental effects to wetlands, old-growth forests, wetland- and old growth-reliant species at risk, fisher, Canada lynx, woodland caribou, the Ronald Lake bison herd, and biodiversity." It also recognized that, "If the project is approved and constructed, it may make it more difficult to achieve Canada's targets and commitments under the Paris Accord." Indeed. The federal cabinet has until the end of February to decide.

Kenney is optimistic. After a friendly meeting with Trudeau, he reported, "At least we have a federal government, a prime minister, that's willing to listen to our case and he indicated an openness." Those can't be words welcome to the ears of environmentalists.

Kenney is oil all the way. His attitude is incompatible with the urgency required to deal with climate change. If Trudeau is serious about dealing adequately with global warming, sooner or later he will have to challenge him. This may be the moment.

Reality is Confirmed

Reality is essentially what science tells us it is. Everything else is speculation. About the worst story about reality that science has been telling us lately is that we are heating up the atmosphere and if we don't stop pretty damn quick we can start writing off global civilization. This is not a pleasant reality to hear about and many turn off their ears.

Quite aside from the evidence all around us—rising sea levels, melting glaciers and ice caps, extreme weather events, unprecedented wildfires, etc.—scientists have been predicting our future based on computer models. What a relief if it turned out the models were unreliable or too pessimistic. No such luck, unfortunately. A paper recently published by scientists from the University of California, MIT and NASA reports, "We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent global mean surface temperature changes."

The scientists evaluated the performance of models published between the early 1970s and the late 2000s by comparing their predictions to observed temperature changes. They were particularly impressed by the skill of the 1970s' models given the limited evidence available at that time. Models have of course become increasingly more complex but the skill shown by the early models "suggests that climate models are effectively capturing the processes driving the multi-decadal evolution of global mean surface temperatures."

So there you have it. Climatologists have got it right. Their understanding of the planet's climate system is solid. Their models have accurately predicted global heating for the past 50 years and can, therefore, be counted on to predict it accurately for the next 50 years.

Scientists checking other scientists is of course part of the process. And in this case it firms up what they have been telling us about our misbehaviour. We are cooking the planet and we are heading precipitously toward apocalypse. Venus, anyone?

OPEC Rides to the Rescue

Although Albertans have always thought of their enviable wealth resulting from entrepreneurship, hard work and the free market, that isn't quite the case. We are an entrepreneurial place and we work hard, although no harder I suspect than other Canadians, but the free market hasn't had all that much to do with it. In fact for half a century or so our wealth has arrived primarily on the back of that nemesis of the free market, government interference in the marketplace. Specifically the governments that make up the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Back in the 1970s OPEC discovered its members controlled most of the world's oil reserves and if you control supply you control price. It's called a monopoly. They jacked up prices multi-fold and they, and Alberta, became very rich.

Ever since, they have been turning the taps off and on to optimize their revenues. With other large producers coming on line, such as Russia and more recently the U.S. with its booming shale oil, OPEC's clout has been considerably reduced but they can still bump prices up when necessary. Indeed, their aggressive management of supply has supported oil prices at $50-$75 U.S. per barrel this past year. OPEC and its allies, led by Russia, have been agreeing to supply cuts since 2017 to counter output from U.S. shale fields.

Last week they agreed to one of the deepest cuts this decade. The deal will apply for the first three months of 2020. According to Gary Ross, founder of Black Gold Investors, along with a weak U.S. dollar and improving economic data, "this should ensure a $60-$65 Brent oil price in the seasonally weak period of next year."

Alberta, as always riding the coattails of unethical oil, can expect its tar sands producers to make money at those prices. Once again, we bow to the sheikhs.

Is Kenney Costing Alberta Investment and Jobs?

Calgary Economic Development CEO Mary Moran reported recently that a tech company that had considered setting up its head office in Calgary had changed it mind. The reason? Talk of separation. "We as an organization just lost a 1,000-person company that didn't come to Calgary, selected another city, because they're concerned about Wexit," she said. The loss of those 1,000 jobs should not come as a surprise—investors do not much like political instability.

And Kenney is at least partly to blame. While he claims to be a loyal Canadian, not interested in separation, he keeps stirring the pot. He rants endlessly about how Ottawa, or more specifically Justin Trudeau, is out to get us. The fact the feds bought us our very own $4.5-billion pipeline has not dampened his rhetoric. He knows separation would be folly but he also knows that it's great leverage to use against the feds. And it's unlikely his pugilistic nature will allow him to tone down the rhetoric even as Wexit talk loses us jobs and dollars.

This isn't the only factor discouraging investment in Calgary's tech sector. This growing field has been a beacon for diversification aided by tax credits, including the Alberta Investor Tax Credit and the Capital Investment Tax Credit, to help startups get funding. Kenney's government has now axed the credits. According to Brett Colvin, CEO of Goodlawyer, an online marketplace for micro-legal services, "When they froze the credit, that was definitely some wind out of our sails. It's definitely going to have a huge impact for my company going forward and many other startup companies and companies in the technology space." Many smaller tech companies have already laid off employees and others have had to consider whether they even have a future in Alberta.

In the same vein, the UCP have cut Alberta Innovates, the province's largest research agency, funded primarily by the provincial government. It will lose up to 125 jobs, 20 per cent of its workforce. Alberta Innovates offers grants and programs to assist entrepreneurs and researchers in a wide variety of industries. Imperial Oil CEO Rich Kruger, emphasizing that new technologies can take a long time to develop, expressed concern about the cuts. "Research is an area where continuity and focus tends to be of a longer-term nature," he said.

Chad Saunders, at the University of Calgary's Haskayne School of Business, suggests the government may be relying on larger companies. Businesses making a profit of over $500,000 per year will enjoy a tax cut from 12 to eight per cent. Let's hope that works.

Aside from dependence on large companies, Kenney has also doubled down on oil. Among those who have noticed this dependence on fossil fuels is Moody's. The credit rating agency has downgraded Alberta's credit rating, observing "a structural weakness in the provincial economy that remains concentrated and dependent on non-renewable resources."

Moody's was also no doubt paying attention to the 30 percent increase in the province's budget deficit under the UCP, due in large part to reducing the corporate tax and ending the carbon tax. Mount Royal University professor Duane Bratt also noted that the agency was influenced by a looming battle with labour. Labour strife, muted under the NDP, now rampant, will not encourage investment.

Nor did the province's environmental behaviour escape notice. The report states, "Alberta's oil and gas sector is carbon intensive and Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions are the highest among provinces." The new government's climate change policies, including rolling back the NDP's climate programs, won't help. Even wiser heads in the oil patch recognize the need for strong measures to deal with global warming. And investors in other industries are likely to look with suspicion on a jurisdiction that appears anti-environment, particularly when the premier displays a hearty aversion to environmentalists.

Cutbacks in health care and education are not likely to help either. Companies looking to set up shop look for more than economic opportunity. They look also for quality of life.

At a recent business forum in Lake Louise, presenters mentioned ongoing environmental criticism, delays in building pipelines, and a surge of separatist sentiment as hurting Alberta's reputation. Kenney is contributing to two of the three. Even as he flits about the continent looking for investment—New York, Houston, wherever—his policies at home undermine his goal.

Kudos to Carney (and Good Luck!)

Mark Carney is a banker par excellence, a Canadian boy who made the big time. He served as Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 to 2013 and is credited with helping the country weather the recession. He then went on to become Governor of the Bank of England, his term ending next year. He will then take on a new role as the United Nations' special envoy on climate action and climate finance.

He has described his mandate thus: “This provides a platform to bring the risks from climate change and the opportunities from the transition to a net-zero economy into the heart of financial decision-making. To do so, the disclosures of climate risk must be comprehensive, climate risk management must be transformed, and investing for a net-zero world must go mainstream.”

He will speak from more than a UN pedestal. Big money has his back. Trillions of dollars controlled by some of the world’s largest institutional investors are shifting toward companies that embrace transition to a low-carbon economy. The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a group of 18 central banks, has been studying how the financial system can provide leadership on climate change.

Carney has used both carrot and stick. On the one hand, he has warned companies to be more open about their "climate change footprint" to avoid asset price changes that could destabilise markets. He has also pointed out to insurers that while the number of extreme climate events has risen threefold in the last few decades the cost of claims has risen fivefold. On the other hand, he has said that transition to an environmentally sustainable future provides an opportunity worth trillions of dollars for companies and financiers.

He has emphasized that climate change is a global problem requiring global solutions, and the whole financial sector is central. In his words, "Carbon emissions have to decline by 45 per cent from 2010 levels over the next decade in order to reach net zero by 2050. This requires a massive reallocation of capital."

Carney speaks the language of business—money—and he can speak to what politicians, Conservatives and Liberals, always put first—the economy. This is someone who understands the business community and how investing works, and he can connect those to the demands of climate change.

Furthermore, he will be coming home to Canada where he is desperately needed. If anyone can deal with the excessive influence of the oil industry on our climate change conversation, he can.

We Spend More Than Enough on Our Military

Once again the Americans are leaning on us to spend more on our military. The new U.S. national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, insists it is an "urgent priority" that American allies set their military budgets at two percent of their GDP. They spend 3.2 percent, we spend 1.3 percent, and that seems to me to be about right.

In the first place, the U.S. is defending an empire, we are not. Secondly, they love to spend money on their military; they are after all a militaristic nation. They spend $649-billion a year, nearly as much as the next eight-largest spending countries combined, including China, Russia and India.

Congress routinely passes the Pentagon’s budgets with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, partly out of warrior worship but also because military spending is a major component of the American economy and defense contractors are masters at distributing contracts across as many congressional districts as possible. The interdependence has been referred to as the military/industrial/Congressional complex.

According to an article in Harper's, "The complex is embedded in our society to such a degree that it cannot be dislodged, and also that it could be said to be concerned, exclusively, with self-preservation and expansion, like a giant, malignant virus."

NATO members have agreed to the target of two percent of their GDP although only a handful have achieved it. Why they agree, other than placating the U.S., is puzzling. The only significant threat to the NATO countries is Russia and their combined expenditure, excluding the U.S., is over six times that of Russia's. If they are spending their money with a modicum of efficiency they should have the firepower to overwhelm Russia with lots of room for mischief elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the Americans will no doubt be pushing their allies for more spending at the 70th anniversary meeting of the alliance in London this week. The word is that Canada will hold the line on its current defence spending, given that it has promised a 70 percent increase over 10 years and, furthermore, our Department of National Defence apparently has trouble spending its current allocation.

Personally, I would rather see our foreign aid increased to two percent of GDP and our military spending reduced to the measly 0.26 percent we spend on foreign aid.

Alberta—the Old South in the Cold North

Reading the book All God's Children, I encountered a section about the relationship of the American South to the Union just prior to the Civil War. As I read on, I realized it was remarkably similar to the relationship of Alberta to our federation today.

Prior to the Civil War, cotton was king. It was the country's major wealth-producer, particularly for the South—America's richest men lived in the Mississippi River valley—but also for the North, from textile mills in New England to banks in New York.

But by the 1850s, the Southerners felt they were under siege. They saw the economic and population growth in the North as a threat to their interests. Most troubling, the North paid undue attention to the trouble-making abolitionists. The cotton industry was founded on the also very profitable slave industry. By challenging slavery, the abolitionists threatened both the economy and the way of life of the Southerners who in turn saw this threat as huge ingratitude for all they had done for the nation.

Furthermore, as the 1860 election approached, the South feared the Republicans would elect their nemesis, Abraham Lincoln, who had famously said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." When Lincoln was indeed elected, the South saw the betrayal as complete, and secession became the only answer.

The South was solid. Ending slavery threatened every white man. As the Edgefield Advertiser stated in 1850, "It is African slavery that makes every white man in some sense a lord." Southern politicians had for years exploited the issue to fire up their constituents. As one planter put it, "You have to say but nigger to the south to set it on fire, as one whistles to a turkey to make him goggle." In the words of a wealthy planter's wife, "nobody could live in this state unless he were a fire-eater."

Substitute "Alberta" for "the South," "oil" for "cotton," "global warming" for "slavery," "environmentalist" for "abolitionist," "Trudeau" for "Lincoln," "Kenney" for "Southern politicians" and "conservative" for "fire-eater" and you've got the relationship between Alberta and the rest of Canada today. History does indeed seem to repeat itself, if in strangely related ways.

Southern distrust of the North was fully justified just as Alberta's distrust of the rest of the country is justified today. The abolitionists did intend to shut down slavery and environmentalist do intend to shut down fossil fuels. In both cases the economies, to say nothing of the ways of life, of the two societies were and are seriously threatened. Unfortunately, the threats were also fully justified, both on the right side of history. Slavery was long overdue for its demise and fossil fuels are long overdue for theirs. But, like the Southerners of the day, most Albertans are exhibiting little introspection. They see the assault on their prize industry, but they refuse to recognize that it is justified and demands accommodation, and all they've got for a leader is a fire-eater. Change can be hard, and change of this magnitude is very hard indeed. So we hear angry voices and talk of secession.

Serious Albertans don't take secession seriously and serious Canadians wouldn't go to war with them if they did. Canadians have a gift for compromise and that is required here, yet you can no more morally compromise with global warming than you could with slavery. Prime Minister Trudeau's challenge is as daunting as Lincoln's.

"Alberta is in danger of becoming the Don Cherry of Canadian politics."

Nothing quite like a good one-liner. Wisdom in a few words. And Graham Thomson, one of the better columnists writing about Alberta politics, started my day off with a beauty in a CBC column about the current Alberta-Quebec contretemps. The column was titled "Alberta Premier Jason Kenney might be bilingual but he needs to learn a new language" with a sub-head that asks the pertinent question "Canada and the world are changing. Can Alberta keep up with the conversation?"

And the one-liner: Alberta is in danger of becoming the Don Cherry of Canadian politics, unable to deal with change.

Comparing the province to the hockey guru whose bigotry finally caught up with him—a classic old white man who can't deal with the changing face of Canada—is as delicious as it is timely. Not that Alberta is bigoted—far from it—but its inability to deal with global warming represents the same kind of reactionary mindset as Cherry's. Unfortunately, its also far more problematic. You can't fire a province.

Would It Help To Dump Alberta?

The G20's Climate Transparency group issued its annual report this week grading all member countries on their climate performance and found them all wanting. The report said only about half the countries are on track to meet their targets for cutting emissions by 2030 and those targets are much too low in any case. And who were the worst performers? Australia, South Korea and—no surprise—Canada.

We are indeed slackers on the global warming front. Not only will our existing plans leave us short of our 2030 goal, but that target is only half what it needs to be. The report gave us high marks for introducing a carbon tax and for implementing tougher environmental reviews for major projects like pipelines and mines, but criticized us for approving the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (for the second time). The report noted we are among global leaders in phasing out coal power but lag on energy use and emissions from cars and buildings. Only two other countries use more energy per dollar of economic production.

That brings us to Alberta, the pollution province. It has 70 percent more emissions than Ontario with less than a third of the population, and whereas Ontario's are declining Alberta's are rapidly increasing. Furthermore, it contributes almost 40 percent of Canada's emissions with only 12 percent of the population.

There have murmurings about separation in the province, so what if we gave it a nudge and sent it on its way. Our emissions would drop 40 percent overnight and we'd be well on our way to meeting our goals. But would we be any better off?

Unfortunately, the answer is no. Alberta would still be out there, prolifically pumping out greenhouse gasses, perhaps the world's highest per capita emitter. And those emissions would continue to contribute to global warming every bit as much as they did before. The fact is we are all in this together. Global warming doesn't recognizes borders. We have to deal with this challenge as human beings, not as members of our various tribes: Albertans, Canadians, Americans, Nigerians, Japanese, whatever.

So we have to deal with Albertans' excessive emissions whether they're in or out. They make us look bad, true, but the answer is not to dump them, but rather to help them kick the habit of high fossil fuel dependence. And that, considering the province's belligerent, reactionary premier, is one hell of a challenge. But it must be taken on. In the meantime, our reputation as a climate change slacker will persist.

Alberta after Fossil Fuels

Alberta and oil are almost synonymous. But if the province is to do its share to avoid the apocalypse that global warming threatens, it must kick the oil habit, or at least the fossil fuel habit. The transition to greener energy is much harder for this prairie province, of course, because of its particular dependence on oil and gas or, if you prefer, bitumen. Nonetheless, we Albertans must face up to the challenge.

Fortunately, Alberta has alternatives to fossil fuel dependence. Oil and gas in themselves have multiple uses other than as fuels. Petrochemicals are used to manufacture thousands of products essential to the modern world: plastics, medicines, fabrics, detergents and other cleaning products, fertilizers, cosmetics, furniture, appliances, electronics, synthetic rubbers, asphalt, pipes, home siding, and yes, solar power panels and wind turbines. Almost all pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents are derived in some way from petrochemicals—they provide both the medicines and the bottles they come in. 

In the 1970s, the Lougheed government encouraged the growth of an ethane-based petrochemical industry and it is now one of the largest manufacturing industries in the province. Rachel Notley’s government instituted a petrochemical diversification program establishing a new propane-to-plastics industry. Inter Pipeline Ltd. and Pembina Pipeline Corp. are now building propane-to-polypropylene facilities north of Edmonton. This is one NDP initiative Jason Kenney has had the good sense to maintain. Alberta provides royalty credits to companies in exchange for building facilities that turn feedstocks into plastics and other products. Not all subsidies to the oil and gas industry go toward fossil fuels.

Another intriguing initiative is producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon reservoirs in situ. Most hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas with carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide released as waste products. If the hydrogen is produced in situ, these gasses would be left in the reservoir. A team of Alberta engineers presented such an in situ method at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry Conference in Barcelona this summer, turning heads around the globe. According to University of Calgary professor David Layzell and energy researcher Jessica Lof, "There is no region in North America that is better positioned than Alberta for cost-effective, large-scale production and distribution of zero-emission hydrogen fuel." Meanwhile, the province's drilling prowess is being applied to a geothermal pilot project that could help unlock the province's considerable geothermal assets.

Alison Cretney, managing director of the Energy Futures Lab, insists that Alberta is almost ideally positioned to capitalize on the decarbonization of the global economy, both because of the skills and education of its population and the opportunity to apply both to a host of new challenges. "We just need to get beyond that view that when we talk about oil and gas it's extract and burn," she says. "The world moves on without us. And we'd miss a huge opportunity for Alberta and Canada to lead that change, to lead the transition, rather than it ultimately catching us unaware down the road. It's disrupt or be disrupted."

Quite aside from oil and gas, Alberta has other arrows in its quiver such as tourism, forestry and, of course, agriculture. The province produces half of Canadian beef and a quarter of its wheat.

As is typical of a mature economy, most Albertans work in services, including finance. The TSX Venture Exchange is headquartered in Calgary, and the city has a robust industry serving the securities market. It also has the second highest number of corporate head offices in Canada after Toronto. Edmonton hosts the Canadian Western Bank and ATB Financial, the only major Canadian banks west of Toronto.

Clearly, Alberta can look forward to a bright future beyond oil. But embracing a future of dramatic change is always difficult. People tend to cling to the past they know rather than embrace a future they don't, especially when that past is based on one of the most lucrative industries this or any province has ever experienced. It can be frightening, and Premier Kenney aggravates this fear when instead of presenting Albertans with a vision for the future, he doubles down on bitumen and then goes on the warpath against Justin Trudeau and assorted environmentalists, even fanning the flames of separatism in order to gain leverage. The wrong leader at the wrong time, holding us back.

Albertans will have to rise above their reactionary government. The potential ls there. And this is a very entrepreneurial place—at one time making money off bitumen was a pipe dream. The feds can help. During the federal election campaign, Trudeau promised a "Just Transition Act" to ensure workers can get the training and support they need. Alberta should be a central focus of that effort.

But how smooth or rough the transition is will depend heavily on Albertans willingness to accept change that must come. As Blake Shaffer, an economist with the University of Calgary and a former energy trader, puts it, "I hope that rather than putting our head in the sand and focusing on where we were 10 or 15 years ago, we embrace the skills and strengths that we have and go forward." I hope so too, Blake.

Can Trudeau Make a Future with Alberta?

Life is full of little surprises. Often pleasant ones. I encountered such a surprise this week reading the Calgary Herald, not a paper usually on my wave length. And yet here was this op-ed saying some of the most sensible things about Alberta's aversion to anything Trudeau I've heard to date. True, it wasn't written by a Herald staffer but rather by Lisa Young, a professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. Still, there it was.

Trudeau could, Dr. Young said, "follow in his father’s footsteps and give the region a figurative middle finger" or, alternatively, he could "make the accommodation of Alberta and the transformation of its economy a central focus of his government."

Wow! Here I was reading, in the Calgary Herald of all places, support not for Alberta revving up for more bitumen production but for transforming the Alberta economy—the approach that has seemed obvious to me but which I thought would not dare be expressed in this province above more than a whisper.

And this indeed is where Trudeau could provide great assistance to Alberta (and Saskatchewan), exactly where it is lacking now—leadership in transforming the economy off carbon dependence. Dr. Young went on to say that "Trudeau must also present a convincing vision for an alternative future," and pointed out that Alberta has rich potential outside of bitumen.

She emphasized that presenting that vision will be challenging. And indeed it will. The first challenge to overcome will be his name. Trudeau is despised by many Albertans for no other reason than he is Pierre's son, he of the infamous National Energy Program. But beyond that he has to deal with two premiers that have little to offer in the way of  climate change programs. Alberta had a half-decent one but the new government has trashed it and offered little as a replacement. Furthermore, the UCP are digging the province deeper into the hole of bitumen dependence while going to war against critics of their policies.

Meanwhile the attitude toward Ottawa is toxic. In a televised pre-budget address, Premier Kenney blamed the Liberal government for Alberta's troubles saying it had "actively campaigned against our province's vital economic interests." Saskatchewan's Premier Moe responded to the federal election with a letter demanding among other things cancellation of the federal carbon tax, rather like asking the feds to fight global warming with one hand tied behind their backs. As to separation from Canada, the two premiers know it would be folly for their provinces yet exploit it to gain leverage.

Provinces producing the major cause of the greatest threat to humanity ought to have powerful programs to deal with that threat. They don't. And they seem much more interested in demanding than giving. Facing intransigence with no quid pro quo on offer, the prime minister has his work cut out for him. All he can do is offer to help them shift their provinces in the right direction and hope they have the vision to imagine a future outside of fossil fuels.

The Climate Case for Impeachment

Will they or won't they? Impeach the Donald, I mean. As the U.S. Congress moves glacially along the impeachment path, I propose impeaching him not on the grounds of his political and legal sins but on the grounds of his unfitness to lead a major nation at a time of anthropogenic climate change. His ignorance and incompetence threaten the security of all of us, not just his own people. I submit the following evidence:

• He has been quoted as referring to global warming as a "Chinese hoax." While he has modified that view he continues to insist global warming is not man-made.
• He has withdrawn his country from the Paris Climate Agreement.
• He has appointed officials to positions of authority over climate-sensitive agencies that are clearly unfit. He most recently attempted (but fortunately failed) to appoint Kathleen Hartnett White who has been described as a "fossil fuels evangelist" to the position of chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.
• He is systematically reversing environmental and climate protections in order to maximize production of domestic fossil fuels.
• He has consistently ignored, buried and undermined climate science. He even encouraged a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator to go on television and argue against it.
• He killed the Clean Power Plan, designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and replaced it with the much weaker Affordable Clean Energy rule.
• He has muzzled government scientists to prevent them from expressing views that illustrate how human behavior affects climate change.
• He has withdrawn funding for important and successful conservation programs even in direct contradiction of instructions from Congress.
• He withheld $2-billion of the $3-billion the United States promised to the Green Climate Fund which helps developing nations reduce their emissions. (Other countries have generously made up the shortfall.)
• He has interfered in attempts by states to implement emission-reducing measures; for example, revoking California’s authority to set its own tailpipe-pollution standards and suing the state over its cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it should suffice for a moral if not a legal impeachment. Unfortunately only the U.S. Congress can bring him to account. Too bad, because the rest of us have a solid case.

The unbridgeable gap: Alberta and Saskatchewan

One result of the recent election is a certain amount of angst about Alberta and Saskatchewan failing to elect a single Liberal. How to ameliorate the alienation felt by this pair of provinces is exercising the imaginations of pundits right and left. It reminded me of a recent post I wrote entitled "Living with the apocalypse." I referenced a New Yorker article in which the author insists that when it comes to global warming, the gap between what is politically acceptable and what is scientifically necessary is too great. We are simply unable to bridge it, so we might as well stop pretending we can deal with the threat and prepare for the coming apocalypse.

It seems to me that Canada presents a perfect example of this unbridgeable gap. What Alberta and Saskatchewan demand politically departs from and conflicts with what is necessary to deal with climate change. While both provinces demand unreserved federal commitment to oil exports, neither is willing to make a similar commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This leaves the country with an awkward problem. If we meet their demands we will have to in effect surrender to global warming. If we don't meet their demands, they will continue to throw tantrums and threaten to secede. It's doubtful that they would—it won't be easier to get oil to tidewater through a foreign country than through a fellow province—but they can cause serious disruption if they don't get their way.

We could of course give them what they want and leave dealing with global warming to everybody else. In fact you hear a lot of that kind of talk in Alberta. We only contribute two per cent of the world's emissions so what does it matter if we cop out? Of course it matters a lot. We, along with the Australians and the Americans, are the industrial world's three top emitting peoples (over three times the global average). Furthermore we, like the rest of the Western world, have both contributed longer to the problem and enjoyed more of its benefits. If we failed to accept our responsibilities it would not only be dishonourable, it would set an appalling example to those countries much less able than us to make sacrifices. What would Greta think?

I am a democrat and the heart of democracy is compromise, but sometimes compromise is unacceptable. We cannot compromise with global warming. It will not sit down at the table and negotiate with us. I believe we should accept our responsibilities like adults and proceed with the measures necessary to deal with the threat. We should also listen with brotherly concern to the very real and legitimate fears of the good people of our two Prairie Provinces. We should be creative and generous in assisting them in making the transition from carbon dependency to renewable energy. But surrendering to global warming should not be on the table.

Apparently I'm a Quebecker

Vote Compass recently published a survey of Canadians' attitudes toward a variety of issues. The results were broken down by province, scaling how much respondents agreed or disagreed with different propositions. Not surprisingly, the survey found that Albertans and Quebeckers frequently have widely divergent views. On the spectrum of agree or disagree, they were often at opposite ends.

Interesting to me personally was that although I am an Albertan, and have been for most of the last five decades, my views are generally much closer to those of Quebeckers.

For example, on the question of how much help the oil industry should get from the Canadian government, only Alberta and Saskatchewan were at the "somewhat more" end. Quebec (and I) leaned furthest toward the "much less" end. On the subject of a carbon tax, needless to say Alberta and Saskatchewan were along the "somewhat disagree" end. All the other provinces, except Manitoba, were on the "somewhat agree" end with Quebec (and I) most in agreement.

This was a common pattern: Quebec on one side, Alberta and Saskatchewan on the other, and the rest of Canada in the middle. Indeed, the trio were often outliers. It would be expected on energy and environmental issues, with Alberta hung up on oil and Quebec the strongest province on the environment, but it showed on other issues as well, including handguns and the treatment of indigenous people.

One issue where the two drew closer together was Quebec independence. While all provinces were opposed (including Quebec), Alberta was closest to Quebec at the "neutral" end. (I suspect, however, that their motives were somewhat different.) They also agreed that less should be done to accommodate religious minorities and unions should have less influence. I can agree with them on the former but strongly disagree on the latter.

Does the greater accord of my views with Quebeckers than with my fellow Albertans mean I'm living in the wrong province? Not at all. I don't feel particularly strong geographic loyalties. My turf is the Beltline, not Calgary, not Alberta. And, in any case, I have lots of company—hell, in 2015 we elected the NDP. Besides, my high school French has long deserted me.

Living with the apocalypse

Is it time to recognize that we are politically incapable of dealing with global warming? Is the gap between what is politically acceptable and what is scientifically necessary too great? American novelist and essayist Jonathan Franzen thinks so. In an intriguing article in the New Yorker, entitled "What If We Stopped Pretending?" he insists "The climate apocalypse is coming ... and to prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it."

I confess my thoughts are increasingly drifting in that direction. The evidence grows stronger and stronger that we have created a crisis, actually a series of crises, that are simply beyond our abilities to solve. Consider a few unpleasant facts:

• The most important country in dealing with the threat, the United States, has an administration that is systematically undoing all the environmental progress that country has achieved over the past 50 years. The president opposes efforts to deal with climate change not only within the federal jurisdiction but at the state level as well and internationally.
• The largest country in South America, Brazil, has a government of climate change deniers, including a foreign minister who has declared it a "Marxist conspiracy."
• Russia isn't about to de-carbonize. Remove oil and gas from its economy and the cupboard is bare.
• The world's largest county, China, has been more progressive on the issue but is heavily dependent on coal and continues apace to build plants. It also feels, justifiably, that being behind Western countries in both development and in creating the problem, it deserves some slack in catching up.
• The three major greenhouse gas emitting peoples in the industrial world—Americans, Australians and Canadians—remain heavily invested in fossil fuels and display little interest in taking the cure.
• Despite the science being clear for decades, we have emitted as much atmospheric carbon in the past 30 years as we did in the previous two centuries.
• At this late date, fossil fuels still provide 80 per cent of the world's energy, and the production of oil and gas rises every year. The efficiencies gained by renewable energy continue to be offset by consumer demand.
• Carbon taxes, promoted by most of the world's economists as the best instrument for dealing with global warming, are often met with fierce resistance by the masses.

The list goes on and on. Good things happen, too, of course: the Greta Thunberg phenomenon, American cities bypassing Washington to take a direct role in climate talks, plant-based products to replace meat, electric cars, and so on. But there is a staggering amount to do if we are to make the transition to a low carbon economy and time is running out. Room for optimism is shrinking rapidly. We may be faced with the inconvenient truth that human nature precludes us rising to the challenge.

Despite his pessimistic prediction, "If you’re younger than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth," Franzen remains surprisingly upbeat. He insists that, despite the destabilization "there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions." At the very least, reducing emissions will lessen the severity of the immediate effects and delay the point of no return. And he points out there is much we can do to make our societies more just and equitable as well as sparing other species from our rapacity. He suggests it's important to maintain functioning democracies and communities in order to minimize the inevitable reversion to tribalism and violence as resources become scarcer and people more frightened. He sees strengthening local communities and reliance on local production offering hope as large scale systems break down.

I admit I find his positive attitude difficult to share. It doesn't take all that much destabilization for people to turn conservative, then fascist, and then violent against the internal and external scapegoats provided by their demagogic masters. But maybe he's right. Perhaps small scale, self-reliant societies could survive the apocalypse.

I'm not going to be around either way, so I'll leave all that to future generations. Homo sapiens has no intrinsic right to its current prosperity and domination, or even to survival. Millions of species have gone extinct, many by our hand, and so might ours. I admit to being fond of our turbulent species and would like us to prosper for many generations into the future, but I'm forced to recognize that if we went extinct almost every other species on Earth would be better off. The dinosaurs dominated the Earth for over 500 times longer than we've been around, but their time finally came. Perhaps ours has as well.

Perfidious America

Early in 2018, U.S. President Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, a deal largely negotiated by and signed off on by his own country. Iran had been keeping its side of the bargain and the other five partners were happy with the results. Nonetheless, Trump walked, leaving the impression that a deal with the United States is only good until the next presidential election.

Now the president has betrayed his country's Kurdish allies in Syria. This week he pulled American troops out of northern Syria leaving the Kurds to the mercy of Turkey.

The Kurds are largely responsible for defeating ISIS in Syria, suffering major casualties in the bargain. But it is the Americans who bear the responsibility for unleashing ISIS in the first place. It was little more than a fanatical gleam in the eye of Islamic extremist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi until the Americans invaded Iraq and disbanded the Iraqi army, inadvertently providing an officer corp for Baghdadi's fighters—ISIS. The extremist army then went on to occupy large parts of Iraq and Syria. In Syria they encountered the Kurds who, in defeating them, did the Americans' dirty work for them. Now Trump has pulled out American backup, in effect delivering the Kurds up to their enemy Turkey, and running the chance of unleashing ISIS again in the bargain. Friend or foe, no matter, Trump's America will betray you.

The French long referred to England as "perfidious Albion" perceiving England as a nation whose word couldn't be trusted. Now that the U.S. has assumed leadership of the Anglo empire, its current president seems determined to take on the mantle of perfidy.

Scapegoating the oil industry

I always admired that great philosopher Pogo. I still remember the picture of he and a friend looking out over their polluted swamp as he uttered those immortal words, "We have met the enemy and he is us." No scapegoating. It was their swamp and they had messed it up. Just as we have done with our planet, including global warming.

There are those, however, that would suggest global warming isn't really our fault. It's those danged oil companies. A recent report by the Climate Accountability Institute has been seized upon to do precisely that. The report points out that the products of the top 20 fossil fuel companies resulted in 35 per cent of the carbon dioxide and methane released by human activities since 1965. Another stat has attracted rather less attention but tells the important story, specifically that 90 per cent of those emissions were from the use of their products. That means us.

Do the oil companies have a responsibility? Of course they do. They produce the product that ultimately causes global warming. Have they vigorously promoted their industry? Of course they have. Doesn't everybody promote their livelihood? And have they behaved badly? Oh yes, at times very badly. But we are the ones who burn the damn stuff. We send the CO2 skyward.

And it isn't as if the relationship between burning fossil fuels and global warming has been a big secret. The theory has been known since early in the 19th century. Edward Teller, he of the hydrogen bomb, was speaking out about the dangers in the 1950s. In 1965, the U.S. government issued a report outlining the climate effects of burning fossil fuels. Furthermore, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. oil industry's largest trade association, concurred with the report and warned about "marked changes in climate." So both government and industry have discussed the relationship publicly for over 50 years.

And the public's response? Just keep on filling the tank. A decade after Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the Americans elected Donald Trump, a buffoon who once said global warming was a "Chinese hoax." In Brazil, South America's largest country, its benighted citizens elected a party of deniers whose foreign minister claimed global warming is a "Marxist conspiracy." But no need to go abroad. Here in Alberta we threw out a government that wasn't doing as much as it should but at least recognized the problem and replaced it with a government that is doubling down on fossil fuels and threatening people who criticize its policies. And federally, we are in the midst of an election where a party of near-deniers may form the next government.

This post is not a defense of the oil industry. I have no interest in that and, in any case, it doesn't need my help. This is about scapegoating. Scapegoating is powerful and tempting to demagogues and ordinary people alike; it's comforting to hear that someone else is responsible for your problems, not you. But whether it's Hitler scapegoating Jews, Trump scapegoating immigrants, or Kenney scapegoating Trudeau, it's wrong. It's dishonest and dangerous.

We have all enjoyed the golden age of cheap energy that the lifeblood of modern industry brought us. Now the bills are coming due and they are much higher than we realized. Too many people don't want to pay them. Or get off the high. Election after election and survey after survey show that while most people now recognize the threat is serious they are reluctant to pay the price of dealing with it. Blaming the oil companies is a cop-out. It's our swamp, our mess. The enemy is us.

Will automation steal all our jobs?

Yet another report predicts we are all going to be replaced by machines. Well, maybe not us, but our jobs at least. The report, issued for Wells Fargo clients, predicts that over the next ten years technology will replace ten per cent of banking jobs. The report's author, banking analyst Mike May, claims the job cuts will be the "greatest transfer from labour to capital" of all time.

Mr. May's report notwithstanding, the replacement of human workers by machines seems to be very slow in happening. The unemployment rate in Canada (and in the U.S.) is the lowest in 50 years. It seems humans are still very much in demand.

Part of the reason may be many peoples' preference for human interaction. From my own observations, people aren't exactly flocking to the machines. Apropos of Mr. May's report on banking, for example, when I visit my credit union I find most customers prefer living, breathing tellers to the ATMs. Similarly, at my local supermarket the cashiers do much more business that the automated checkouts. My local library has had an automated checkout for years, but almost everyone disdains it for a real librarian. And why would you not? Librarians are among the most pleasant and helpful people on the planet. No point in saying good morning to a machine.

Furthermore, machines don't always replace as many workers as they are intended to, as my library automatic checkout illustrates. The replacement predictions are often made by IT people, i.e. engineers, and engineers tend to be more comfortable with things than human beings. To an engineer, any sensible person would choose a fast, efficient machine over a slow, mistake-ridden human being. But most of us aren't engineers and, like the members of any social species, prefer the company of our own kind. So, at least if we are given a choice,  we are often inclined to contrarily choose the person over the machine. At least if we are given a choice; unfortunately often we are not.

And then there's the problem people often have managing the machines. At my supermarket, for example, each machine needs a human being looking over its shoulder.
Customers frequently have trouble using the things and require the assistance of a staff member, so each machine has its accompanying human assistant.

Nonetheless, many jobs are being lost to automation. This has been the case since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed it's been responsible for the increasing efficiency of production and the resulting increase in living standards for everyone. It is happening faster today but, as in the past, new jobs appear to replace those that disappear.

And here is where the real problem arises—the kind of jobs that replace those lost. The political disaster of Donald Trump's election in the U.S., as well as Brexit and other assorted disasters, is in large part due to manufacturing jobs being lost to automation and replaced by service sector jobs, i.e. middle class jobs replaced by precariat jobs and all the accompanying angst.

I suggest we should be less concerned about job losses, the inevitable result of advancing technology, and focus our attention on ensuring that when people lose a good job we can quickly transition them into another good job. That means at least three things: excellent opportunities for education and training, ease of forming unions, and legislation to protect the precariat. When it comes to the jobs issue, politicians should be judged by what they can offer on those three fronts.

Scheer would make us even worse cheapskates on foreign aid

When Andrew Scheer released his party's foreign policy earlier this year it turned out to be in large part a copy of Donald Trump's. Pandering to the Israelis, hypocritical approach to Iran, etc. Now it appears he is also following the Donald' s lead on foreign aid.

Earlier this year, Trump had proposed slashing $4.3 billion in foreign aid already approved by Congress; Scheer has proposed reducing ours by a quarter. Trump had to back off on his cuts after fierce resistance from Congress. Hopefully Scheer won't get to implement his either.

Our foreign aid is already niggardly for a country as rich as Canada. In 1970, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which committed each economically advanced country to "exert its best efforts" to devote 0.70 per cent of its GDP to foreign aid. We aren't making much of an effort at all—our aid budget is currently 0.28 per cent of our GDP. Scheer would reduce it to 0.21.

Unsurprisingly, Sweden is by far the leader at 1.40 per cent. The United Kingdom makes the grade with 0.71. The U.S. only manages 0.17 per cent which even makes us look good.

Canada has never reached the 0.70 goal, coming closest in the 1970s at around 0.50 and mostly declining since. Recently we have slipped below the average of donor countries. Despite being "back," we persist in being a laggard.

The UN resolution establishing the 0.70 per cent resulted from the work of the Commission on International Development, commonly referred to as the Pearson Commission after its head, our very own former prime minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Lester Pearson. One wonders what he would think of his successors.

"We need a carbon tax"—oil company CEO

MEG Energy Corp. is a Canadian oil company focused on in situ tar sands production. Its CEO, Derek Evans, claims the company intends to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The plan is to capture emissions from the production process and inject them into an underground reservoir, i.e. carbon capture and storage.

Evans believes that a higher carbon price would not only encourage more companies to fund such projects, but it would also create more awareness about the emissions problem. To that end, he said, "We need a carbon tax. It would be nice if we weren't sitting around arguing about it, but it seems to be a political football today." He isn't alone in his view. Shell Canada has said that future growth in carbon capture would require carbon taxes rising to about $100 a tonne.

These views aren't entirely altruistic. MEG is seeking Government support for its project. Shell's carbon capture Quest project (sold to Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. in 2017), which cost about $1.35 billion, received $745 million from the Alberta government and $120 million from Ottawa.

Of course, reducing the emissions from production is a minor part of the problem. Only about seven per cent of the emissions from a barrel of oil come from the production end, so that's the maximum reduction even if producers could reduce their emissions to zero. The overarching problem is the 80 per cent of the emissions that are produced when the barrel is burned. But, hey, every little bit helps.

The irony of oil execs promoting a carbon tax is not only that it contradicts Conservatives' opposition, but the execs are suggesting that it's necessary for carbon capture and storage, one of the conservatives' big hopes for dealing with global warming. "Technology not taxes" as Andrew Scheer puts it. The execs are insisting it's both technology and taxes ... and big government handouts to boot.

Trust in science falls—due to global warming?

Greta Thunberg made a statement to the U.S. Congress the other day that, like most of what she says, was simple, profound and obvious at the same time. Simple (only four words), profound (it holds the key to dealing with humanity's greatest challenge) and obvious (ask advice from those who have the answers).

After charming Congress with a speech, she was asked by one member what advice she had for them. She replied, "I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists."

Unfortunately, many of our leaders are not listening. Nor are a great many of us. We are not taking Greta's obvious advice; we are not listening to the scientists. Indeed, a recent survey indicates that Canadians' trust in science is falling. The survey, conducted by Ipsos Group S.A., found that 32 per cent of respondents were skeptical about science, up from 25 per cent the year before, a huge increase.

A lack of trust in science is a strange thing. The only way we can know the truth is through science, i.e. through "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Everything else is conjecture. Why would anyone not want to know the truth?

Scientists make mistakes of course. And we can never know the absolute truth, but science gets us closest to it. Unfortunately, often people don't want to get too close. The truth can be, as Al Gore put it, inconvenient. Or worse. It can shatter your worldview. Such was the case when Copernicus suggested that we weren't the centre of the universe after all, or when Darwin pointed out that we are not all that different from other animals, just one species in a long evolutionary line from pond scum to apes. Those discoveries shook up people's sense of where they stood in the world.

Climate change is one of those big ideas. And if that's not enough to absorb, there is species extinction and the exhaustion of the Earth's resources. We are not just mucking up our civilization, we are mucking up life on this planet. For many perhaps it's just too much, too much guilt, too much sacrifice required to deal with it, so they reject it and retreat to a prettier picture.

The timing is particularly unfortunate. Never before in all our history has it been as important to deal with reality, to follow Greta's advice. Never before has rejecting the truth threatened such tragic consequences, for us and for our fellow species.

Media waking up on climate crisis

I have long been puzzled why the growing climate crisis has not been better covered in the media. For the greatest threat facing humanity it seemed to get few column inches in the press or minutes on the telly. The only newspaper that has consistently provided front page news on the crisis is the Guardian. The Guardian is also the only medium that has adopted appropriate terminology (such as "climate crisis" rather than "climate change") and even included carbon dioxide levels in its daily weather forecast.

But the media are now waking up. In a major new initiative founded earlier this year by the Columbia Journalism Review and the Nation newspaper, termed Covering Climate Now, more than 300 news outlets from around the world are addressing the urgent need for stronger climate coverage. The media include print and digital, TV and radio, with a combined audience of well over one billion people. The lead partner is, who else, the Guardian. I noticed The Toronto Star in the list of partners but not, disappointingly, the CBC.

Covering Climate Now has geared up for the UN Climate Action Summit now underway (September 21-23) in New York, pledging to increase the volume and visibility of their climate coverage. This will be the partners' first large-scale collaboration. The Guardian will make some of its climate coverage available free to partners to help smaller publications serve their audiences.

At the launch of the partnership in May, co-founders Mark Hertsgaard of the Nation and Kyle Pope, editor-in-chief of the Columbia Journalism Review, called for change in how the media covers the climate crisis. In an op-ed in the Review, they observed, "Spun by the fossil-fuel industry and vexed by their own business problems, media outlets often leaned on a false balance between the views of genuine scientists and those of paid corporate mouthpieces. The media’s minimization of the looming disaster is one of our great journalistic failures." It is indeed, and we have seen much of the false balance they refer to in the Canadian media.

The climate crisis is, as the Columbia Journalism Review has written, the defining story of our time. Perhaps the world's media is finally recognizing that fact.

It will be lonely when the birds are gone

I live deep in the city yet I enjoy visits from a number of our feathered friends. In the winter I am occasionally honoured by the visit of a wee chickadee. A bashful fellow, he flits half-hidden among the branches of a tall spruce that towers over my apartment.

Frequently a magpie visits me on my balcony. He throws dirt out of my flower posts, scolds me fiercely to let me know who's boss, and then goes on his way. He’s a nuisance but I love the little rascal. I’d miss his visits if he were not there. And the way things are going, one day he, and all his kind, may not be.

According to a new study, "Decline of the North American avifauna," published in the journal Science, there are almost three billion fewer birds in Canada and the United States than there were 50 years ago, a decline of 29 per cent. Birds that migrate long distances have been particularly hard hit, but even species that do well in cities are disappearing. They face a variety of threats: increased pesticide use, domestic cats, collisions with windows, fragmentation of forests, and habitat degradation by intensifying agriculture, urban sprawl, and fragmentation of forests. In other words, it's all our doing.

Sometimes I think we are like a fungus upon the Earth, spreading across and devouring, and often ruining even for our own species, more and more space. When we exterminate large numbers of our own species, which we do regularly, we call it a holocaust. Should we not then call it a holocaust when we exterminate all of another species? If so, then we are committing holocaust after holocaust after holocaust—thousands of holocausts. According to a comprehensive UN report on biodiversity, one million species of plants and animals are at risk of extinction, half of them due to "insufficient habitat for long-term survival."

There are things each of us can do to save the birds, including keeping kitty indoors (after habitat loss, cats are the biggest reason for the decline), replacing grass with native plants (native plants can provide shelter, nesting areas and food for birds—grass doesn't), avoiding pesticides, and watching birds and helping track them (there's even an app—eBird).

Perhaps we can still halt the decline, but being the rapacious species we are the odds are not good. Birds are our most delightful neighbours. How like us to repay them for the delight they provide by systematically driving them into extinction.

"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard"

Accusing Justin Trudeau of being racist is ridiculous. This is a prime minister who formed the most ethnically diverse cabinet in history, welcomed 40,000 Syrian refugees, condemned a proposed niqab ban, supported a parliamentary study of Islamophobia, launched a federal anti-racism strategy, funded a new "Centre for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics," and who has apologized for every historical slight against an ethnic group he can dredge up. The man doesn't have a racist bone in his body.

So what about the face painting? Well, he has a bit of his old man in him, the flamboyance. He's the life of the party, the guy who would go all out for an Arabian Nights theme—the costume, the makeup, the works. We saw this side of him during his infamous visit to India.

Nonetheless, this will go hard on Trudeau because he is so damn self-righteous. He tolerates no such faux pas from his MPs. His demotion of my MP, Kent Hehr, comes to mind. When he gets on the subject of human rights he turns pedantic; he lectures; the school teacher emerges. Remember him instructing the woman at one of his town hall meetings that she should say "personkind," not "mankind." If you are going to be self-righteous you had best be righteous. But if you get caught out, you must suffer the accusations of hypocrisy, and Trudeau's opponents will make sure he suffers.

Mind you, watching Andrew Scheer accuse Trudeau of racism is a bit much given the neanderthals he has lurking in his party. Yet Trudeau deserves it. The Liberals kicked off their campaign by denouncing Scheer for remarks he made about gay marriage years ago, so now Andrew gets his turn. Tit for tat. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Perhaps the former school teacher will take this as a teachable moment. He may learn a little humility. And he may learn to be a little less self-righteous with his candidates and MPs who sin along these lines. Now that his misdeeds have been exposed, perhaps he can be a little more forgiving of theirs.

And, oh, one more thing. A personal message, Justin. You have apologized profusely and sincerely for your antics. Good for you. Now when am I getting my apology for your betrayal on voting reform?

The ghost of Bible Bill Haunts us still

In the late '30s and early '40s Alberta's premier was the colourful William Aberhart, known as "Bible Bill" for his bible studies classes and radio sermons. Founder of the Social Credit Party, Bible Bill introduced a variety of legislation during his term, some good, some not so much. An example of the latter was his Accurate News and Information Act which would have forced newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories the provincial cabinet deemed inaccurate. Needless to say, the Supreme Court deemed the Act unconstitutional.

I thought of Bible Bill when reading about Jason Kenney's Public inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns. Premier Kenney and his colleagues are mighty angry about Canadian environmental groups receiving donations from Americans. The inquiry has come as a surprise to many. In a democracy one does not expect the government to use the powers of the state to harass those citizens who challenge its policies. But this is Alberta, Bible Bill country even today.

Many may also wonder just what the issue is. So some Americans are donating to some Canadian charities. So? The donations are legal and quite appropriate—after all, greenhouse gasses produced from Alberta fossil fuels don't stay in Alberta. They affect the lives of Americans and everyone else, so all have a right to be involved.

Both donors and charities are environmentalists so naturally they support dramatically reducing the burning of fossil fuels, as do all people with good sense in the face of global warming. And, needless to say, the country's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, the tar sands, catches their particular attention, as it should.

It's not as if the anti-fossil fuel groups are alone in enjoying American largesse. Pro-fossil fuel organizations such as the Fraser Institute are heavily funded by American companies, including oil interests. Not that I'm creating an equivalence. The Tides Foundation's  donations to the Pembina Institute promote its interest in a cleaner, greener world. Koch Industries' donations to the Fraser Institute promote its interest in an industry that's fouling the planet but which makes Koch large sums of money.

And then there's the oil industry itself. In an act of monumental hypocrisy, Premier Kenney attacks environmentalists for accepting foreign money while actively encouraging foreign investment in the industry.

The commissioner of the inquiry, Steve Allen, is a man of substantial achievement and integrity. Why he has chosen to chair this folly is a puzzle. Perhaps he simply believes in public service and when the premier calls it his duty to serve. I only hope his reputation survives the witch hunt.

Ed Whittingham seeks energy/environment middle ground

Alberta lives with two conflicting facts: first, humanity is faced with its greatest crisis ever—global warming—caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels; and second, humanity will have to rely on fossil fuels for the indefinite future and production of fossil fuels just happens to be Alberta's major industry.

The question for political moderates is how to reconcile those two facts into practical policy. One organization that wrestles with that question is the Pembina Institute. The institute, an environmental think tank, presents its mission as reducing the negative impacts of fossil fuels while supporting the transition to a clean energy system by advancing solutions from various approaches.

Earlier this year, a former executive director of Pembina, Ed Whittingham, was appointed by the then NDP government to the Board of Directors of the Alberta Energy Regulator. The regulator's mandate is to ensure the "safe, efficient, orderly, and environmentally responsible development of oil, oil sands, natural gas, and coal resources ... This includes allocating and conserving water resources, managing public lands, and protecting the environment while providing economic benefits for all Albertans." Having an experienced environmentalist on the board would seem appropriate, particularly one of Whittingham's calibre. The New York Times once referred to him as "one of the country’s most prominent environmentalists."

Some Albertans vigorously disagreed. The Calgary Herald referred to him as an "enemy of Alberta’s oil and gas industry" and at least one Calgary businessman labelled him an eco-terrorist. The United Conservative Party (UCP) called a press conference slamming the appointment and accusing Whittingham, falsely, of opposing pipelines. One UCP notable claimed he was unfit to be on the board because he rode a bicycle to work. The party's election platform referred to only one private citizen by name and that was Ed in a promise to fire him. When they won the election, Whittingham immediately resigned prompting a catty message from new Premier Jason Kenney who tweeted, "It was gracious of Ed Whittingham to resign a day before we could fire him. Our government will never appoint people like him who are avowed opponents of Alberta jobs." In fact, Whittingham supports the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

In any case, he also had his supporters, including in the oil industry. Michael Crothers, president of Shell Canada, said Whittingham "provided a balanced voice to help bridge the divide in the economy versus environment debate." As for the Pembina Institute, a spokesperson for Cenovus Energy said his company had "a strong and constructive relationship with the Pembina Institute." The Financial Post concurred, saying Pembina had "deep knowledge of the [energy] business based on science, and knew its way around executive offices." It added, Pembina "collaborated with industry for decades to improve environmental practices rather than demand its demise."

Whittingham has also had his detractors on the environmental side where, like Rachel Notley, he has been criticized for his proximity to industry. In his words, "The hard left never likes the fact that I proactively work with Fortune 500 companies, including those in resource extraction, on market-based solutions to environmental challenges. The hard right doesn't like the fact that I've also sued some of those very same Fortune 500 companies."

Ed Whittingham is a true moderate. He seeks the middle ground. But is the middle ground enough? Many environmentalists would say that compromising with fossil fuels today is like compromising with the Nazis in the 1930s. Chamberlain tried that and we all know how it turned out. They are probably right. But the extraordinary action they advise isn't going to happen. Forget it. Some kind of compromise is the best we are going to get. If it isn't enough, we fry. So I wish Ed and his fellow moderates all the best.

Meanwhile, in Alberta we are doubling down on oil. Under Premier Kenney, like the U.S. under Trump or Brazil under Bolsonaro, we have decided to give the world the finger.