Wet’suwet’en—A Divided Nation

I have on a number of occasions sat with fingers poised over my keyboard attempting to write something about the Wet’suwet’en/pipeline issue. Too many issues keep cropping up in my mind frustrating my ability to see it all clearly. I am no doubt conflicted in part because the Wet’suwet’en are themselves conflicted. They are a divided nation.

They have two governments: one, the hereditary chiefs, almost unanimously oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline; the other, the band councils, almost unanimously support it. Families are split over the issue. Hereditary chiefs go east to thank the Mohawks for backing them with railway blockades; a Wet’suwet’en businesswoman suggests blockaders "mind their own business."

The split is understandable. Our governments have failed to bring the hereditary chiefs adequately into the decision-making even though this is the body responsible for use of Wet’suwet’en land. And the Wet’suwet’en are concerned about the environmental effects of the pipeline on their territory, quite aside from the production of ever more fossil fuels.

On the other hand, the pipeline will carry natural gas, the least offensive of the fossil fuels. A leak would do little if any damage to land and water resources. And the Wet’suwet’en would benefit greatly from the line. Apparently Coastal GasLink has been exceedingly generous in its offers of compensation. According to a leaked agreement with the Nak'azdli Whut'en, it is offering general project payments, annual legacy payments over the lifetime of the pipeline, education and training benefits, and contracting and employment opportunities. And in addition there will be benefits from the provincial government.

The project offers the Wet’suwet’en prospects of a more financially secure future for themselves, their children and their community. We must eventually stop burning fossil fuels, but they will nonetheless continue to make up a large part of our energy needs at least in the short term. Why should the Wet’suwet’en not get a piece of the remaining action?

Personally, I am strongly opposed to combusting more fossil fuels, but stopping the pipeline would cost me nothing. It would cost the Wet’suwet’en a great deal. What would it say about me to sacrifice their prosperity on the altar of my beliefs?

The Price Ain't Right

Back in August of 2018 our federal government bought us a pipeline. Not exactly a bargain, it set us back $4.5-billion. The pipeline, the Trans Mountain, carries oil from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C. The government's reason, apparently, was to reassure Albertans that it really did want to help them get more oil to market. If we owned the pipeline, we could ensure that the proposed expansion to the line would be built—at a cost of a further $7.4-billion, rather more than the previous owner's estimate of $5.4-billion. The expansion was popular at the time with 57 percent of Canadians supporting it and only 26 percent opposed.

How things change. On February 7, Trans Mountain President and CEO Ian Anderson announced that the company’s expansion project would now cost $12.6-billion. Canadians' opinions changed in a hurry. Support, which had declined only slightly now dropped below 50 percent for the first time. Opposition jumped to 45 percent. We are now close to equally divided.

British Columbians, however, are more opposed than supportive. Over 60 percent of Quebeckers and almost half of Ontarians oppose the project. Albertans, needless to say, remain overwhelmingly in support. But for most Canadians, the truth is sinking in. We just may have a white elephant on our hands.

The legal hurdles appear to have been cleared, but now we face the critical hurdle—money. Who exactly is going to lay out $12.6-billion on an investment to move more dilbit? The investment markets are in fact trending very much in the other direction. So if a buyer doesn't step up, I guess it's on us, folks.

Why Would the UN General Assembly Elect Canada to the Security Council?

Prime Minister Trudeau has been hustling around the world, attempting to round up votes for Canada when the UN General Assembly elects members of the Security Council in June. Two seats are available for the Western European and Others Group, and three countries are in the running: Norway, Ireland and Canada. We've been elected to the council six times but infamously lost our bid in 2010 to Germany and Portugal.

So will enough countries vote for us this time? I wouldn't. What exactly have we done to deserve it? Our record on the most important issue facing the international community is appalling. As I noted in a previous post, we are consistently among the top three per capita greenhouse gas emitters in the G-20 and among the three least likely to meet our targets. Our competitors' do much better, easy for Ireland because it has no oil industry but Norway has a thriving oil industry and still gets its emissions down to almost half of ours.

On foreign aid we are a slacker. The UN aid target for a developed country is a minimum of 0.70 percent of its GDP. We give a measly 0.28. Ireland does a little better at 0.36 while Norway is well over the target at 1.05, one of the world's most generous countries. We were at one time a leader in peacekeeping, a concept we practically invented, but now we seem to have largely abandoned the enterprise. In 1993 there were 3336 Canadian peacekeepers deployed on UN missions, in 2019 only 150.

After his impressive election win in 2015, Trudeau announced, "Many of you have worried that Canada has lost its compassionate and constructive voice in the world over the past 10 years. Well, I have a simple message for you: on behalf of 35 million Canadians, we’re back." Well, call me naive, but after a dreary decade on the international front with Stephen Harper, I believed him.

Yet here we are. A foreign aid budget of 0.28 percent of our GNP is not particularly compassionate and being a laggard on greenhouse gas emissions is hardly constructive. We seem to be idling along, failing our commitments to the international community, while hoping that same community will somehow recognize our inherent virtue and elevate us to the Security council, just  as we did with Harper. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

A Letter from an Albertan to His Prime Minister About the Tech Mine

Over the weekend I wrote a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau about the proposed Teck Frontier tar sands mine and cc'd appropriate parties. The letter is below. I felt it was important to let the feds know that not all Albertans are in denial about the climate crisis. I hope other like-minded Albertans will do the same. We can but try.

9 February 2020

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister:

In 2015, you indicated a desire to make Canada a climate leader. Today, we are consistently among the top three per capita greenhouse gas emitters in the developed world and among the three least likely to meet our targets. Rather than a leader we have become a laggard.

And now your government faces a decision about the Teck Frontier tar sands mine. If we are to have any chance of being considered a climate leader, we must reject the folly of adding even further to the climate crisis.

I am quite frankly embarrassed that a country as rich as ours is failing its responsibility to the international community. Indeed, as a resident of Alberta, the pollution province, the prime agent of our delinquency, I am doubly embarrassed. This would not be the case if our government would accept the gravity of the crisis and take measures to transition us from where we are (heavily dependent on fossil fuels) to where we need to be (a low carbon economy). Unfortunately it is instead doubling down on oil. It is clinging to the past.

Therefore, whether or not we are to hold our heads up on the world stage depends on your government. I urge you to make the decision in the interests of all of us and reject this project. As for we Albertans, the very best thing you can do for us is to creatively and generously assist us in the essential transition.

Sincerely
Bill Longstaff

cc. The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
    The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
    Greg McLean, MP Calgary Centre

Peter MacKay—Another Made in Alberta Climate Policy?

With Peter MacKay as front-runner in the Conservative leadership race, I dared hope that finally with a leader who wasn't from the Prairies the party might have a responsible climate policy. The early signs are mixed.

Although he has not outright abandoned Canada's Paris commitment to reduce 2005 greenhouse gas emission levels by 30 per cent by 2030, he has in recent days referred to the target as "a dream" and "aspirational." This is the target set by the Harper government and accepted by the Liberals, and which we will miss widely if we depend on our current policies. And if we keep expanding tar sands production, it will indeed become no more than a dream.

MacKay has rejected a carbon tax and seems to be leaning toward technological fixes. He supports greater use of electrical vehicles and said he was "looking at what other provinces are doing right now including carbon capture and storage (CCS), which is happening in Saskatchewan."

The latter is not necessarily a good sign. Jason Kenney and Scott Moe are big on CCS because it allows for more production of fossil fuels. It does have a contribution to make, but a small one. Saskatchewan's single CCS facility, SaskPower's $1.6-billion project at the coal-fired Boundary 3 power plant near Estevan, has chronically missed its targets, and SaskPower has now announced it will not be expanding CCS technology to two other power plants as it had earlier intended. MacKay's reference to what other provinces are doing suggests that rather than take Greta Thunberg's advice and listen to the scientists, he is listening to Kenney and Moe.

But let's give the guy a chance. He has said, "for a whole generation of Canadians, this is a primary issue. And so, we have to be able to deliver a solution." Sounds promising, but which Canadians will he pay attention to? A recent Abacus poll said 41 percent of us believe "a serious plan to combat climate change" is a "must-have" for the new Conservative leader, but only 18 percent of Conservative voters agreed. If he pays more attention to the former than the latter, as Andrew Scheer obviously didn't, he may have something to offer. We shall see.

... And Now We Indoctrinate Our Children

As if we needed yet another example of Albertans' deep denial of global warming. Education Minister Adriana LaGrange claims she is receiving reports from parents of "extremist views" being taught in the province's schools. "There was a particular document that was shown to me recently," she complained, "in terms of our children being taught that they are the final generation to deal with climate change. Climate change is real, but we do want that presented to our children in a balanced way."

If this is indeed what children are being taught, then the teachers responsible may be, if anything, optimistic. We may be the final generation to deal with climate change, at least when it comes to irreparable damage to our planet. And how do I know that? Because I follow Greta Thunberg's advice, I listen to the scientists. And the scientists tell us that if we don't halt global warming post-haste, we will face irreversible effects. Indeed we may have already reached the tipping point for events such as the death of the coral reefs or the melting of the ice caps.

As for the minister's desire for balance, that's not a matter for science class. Science is about truth, not balance. Balance is a political term. If the minister wants to introduce the industry's views, the place is social studies, the proper arena for discussing politics, economics and social effects. And the balance is straightforward. The oil industry has been very good to Albertans. It has generously provided wages, profits and taxes. But it turns out that this generous product is the major cause of the greatest threat facing humanity, the threat is upon us, and we must deal with it vigorously, and we must deal with it now.

Regardless of what the kids do in social studies, they are much more in need of environmental science, particularly climate science, the most important of our sciences at this moment in human history. To keep the scientific view of climate change from our children is wrong educationally—they deserve the best scientific information—and wrong morally—they deserve to know the danger we have put them and their children in.

The premier has promised (or threatened, as is his way) to take politics out of the school curriculum. Well here's a good start. He can put an end to hiding critical science from the kids in order to protect an industry. That isn't education, it's indoctrination.