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.