Showing posts with label tar sands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tar sands. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Expatriotism: What I see from far.



Living outside Canada as an expat (expatriate) has taken on a new dimension with the explosion of social media and 24/7 access to the Internet; it has brought me to new levels of 'expatriotism'. Utilizing social media has become the new normal when it comes to lobbying and it has been quite effective. I want to be clear: I identify myself as a Canadian (I am also a citizen), it is the culture I grew up in and as much as I aim to shed the nationalistic trappings of citizenry and claim personal sovereignty where you grow up becomes part of who you are. I blogged on identity here . My children are Canadian (and French), Canada may well be in their future and so I feel a strong claim to want the best opportunities there for them in the country I grew up in...not the one being re-modeled by the current leadership.



I have always been a political pundit of a cafe/bar type, having lived much of my adult life 'off shore' involved with humanitarian emergencies I usually focus on international events and keep up with developments in Canada from afar and through friends. I have been drawn back to the state of affairs in Canada by the Arab Spring and emergence of engaged popular movements, and motivated to become more current since a Supreme court ruling this summer returns to those of us who have lived outside Canada more than 5 yrs the right to vote(!). Timing is right as the second term of administration the ego-centric leadership of Stephen Harper draws to a close. Harper and his ilk in Ottawa have managed through the various policies and bills passed to disenfranchise swathes of Canadians notably including veterans and indigenous peoples, perhaps even the majority, but they don't really matter to him, they aren't 'his majority', 'his' are only the 23.9% of registered voters who voted for him (40% of registered voters did not vote!). Against the 2011 Census that means 17% of all Canadians voted Harper Conservative in the last election...and thats how a becoming a majority in parliament works in Canada. Go figure.


Don't be shy to click on the highlighted links, I went to considerable lengths to source articles and found many originated from Canadian sites. Interestingly even the mainstream corporate media are in the sights of the Harper Government.


Those of us who see from far what is happening in Canada enjoy the advantage of a global perspective; living away from home we are exposed perhaps to a wider variety of points of view and can easier place developments in a the regional if not global context. For example there is little doubt that in the eyes of many Canada has slipped from being a country highly respected as a 'green country', for its fair stance on human rights issues, for its involvement in peace processes and as a bulwark against the illegal waging of war to being well. Ok, I'll say it...we have become lackeys to conservative (read Republican) USA denizens...sorry folks but that is how Canada is being viewed at least in Asia. Canada used to champion the underdog and waving the Canadian flag used to be the back-packer's symbol of neutrality, fairness and friendliness. No longer is this true...people from the USA still sew the Canadian flag on their back-packs but more because their own flag has made them into targets, beware I say, the Canadian flag is becoming much the same.

I was in Canada this summer and am aware that life is still very good there for most of my friends, manageable financially if you have good employment, with opportunities that abound for children's activities and a decent education system...if you don't mind your kids in classes of up to 30 (for which there is no sound reason). What is to complain about? From afar I see how the present government reforming Canada under the noses of good people by pushing bills through without time for adequate scrutiny, using the omnibus bill to make sweeping changes and engaging in distasteful tactics (or should that be disgraceful) as they proceed with what appears to be an increasingly corporate-oriented agenda in an essentially people-oriented milieu such as Canadians are. The pattern is being labelled 'anti-democratic' because many moves are simply against the polled population's interest or their desire. The list of omnibus bills you can find, just google 'omnibus bills passed by Harper government' and you'll see what I mean. Canadians are being hood-winked...which is a nice Canadian way of putting it mildly

Of late, making international news, Canada was pronounced dead last in the Centre for Global Development assessment of 27 developed countries on environmental protection and 55th out of 58 countries in terms of tackling fossil fuel emissions...due in part to an uptick in tar sands production in Alberta (the product of those notorious sands in the Athabasca region of northern Alberta is actually called bitumen, tar for short, it is definitely not oil until it is refined). This uptick that looks to becoming super-sized in the near future. So much for the image of Canada as a place of pristine wilderness and fresh clean waters which suggests a nation that cares for and stewards the environment....even perhaps as one that can take the moral high ground in leading the way forward on mitigating the effects of climate change by addressing the cause. 

Teasing this out a bit further to focus on why Canada is being mocked as a global pariah, the fact is that our enormous north is melting with rising global warming temperatures and this affects the entire planet. Huge amounts of ozone depleting carbon are being released from the melting northern tundra which is nothing compared to their potential. It suggests that Canada should perhaps be taking the lead in reducing, rather than the lead in increasing fossil fuel emissions. What of the future? What of the children? I am aware that coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuel energy sources, but does that excuse us from the energy intensive extraction of tar from sand? Not to mention the dangers of transporting or pipelining the crud(e) that bitumen is, and which then needs to be refined in more energy intensive processes. 

On a brighter note clean energy has apparently topped tar sands as a source of employment in Canada! What I suggest is to divest now in the oil and gas sector (quit while you are ahead) and invest in clean energy (get in early)....lets make that a viral movement and watch what happens, the only direction is up. While discussing global politics a young friend of mine said it well, 'Corporations are out, people need to see that and move on'. If we stopped subsidizing oil/gas companies , started taxing their dirty product (as opposed to clean), if we penalized them financially for their many infringements on existing environmental laws....perhaps we would have a ton of money to put into clean energy research and development creating more jobs, sustainable and clean ones! Wow, am I the only one to have thought of that? Its a mess folks, read this ...if the price of oil continues to drop and we remain on our current course... we are doomed, I kid you not.

Back on topic, in the background from far we hear of the internationally decried muzzling of the Canadian science community which takes on a nefarious odor (pardon the pun) in the context of the global environmental damage being done by fossil fuel emissions. This muting of voices that might be in opposition to government policy is frightening. Healthy democracies thrive on alternative perspectives and the freedom to express these...where has that gone in Canada. Much of the world and Canada do not realise that Harper is playing out his own religious beliefs on public policy; he is a devout member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, scares the bejesus outta me but read for yourself. Its a this topic of religion and politics is a controversial one, both are best left out of 'friendly' conversations so I leave it to them what knows to enlighten you, read this.

Evidence about government mishandling of the environment as they kow-tow to the corporate agenda is pretty well-founded, I ask you this: why else dismantle the Fisheries Act, Fresh Water Protection, the Environmental Assessment Act, now the Navigable Waters Act? This week the government announced an audit of charitable groups, absolutely NOT coincidentally those critical of the government. Seriously folks! Why? Did I read somewhere they are handing over National Parks to privateers?

In the international press the loud voices of discontent by notables like John Ralston Saul, Stephen Lewis and David Suzuki are heard loud and clear on issues mentioned above. I chose here to focus on the environment and global climate change, equally I could have selected another issue to highlight because from afar we hear also of the Harper-led assault on indigenous populations, on the excesses of government invasion of privacy, on the militarization of policing (especially in the wake of incidents in Ontario and Quebec), on the nose-thumbing at veterans, its getting to be a long list. I haven't talked about prorogation, patronage or the multiple Harper minions who have fallen foul of the justice system, neither the robocall scandal. And, oh, did I mention the Harper government supported the bombing of Gaza Bibi Netanyahu's government in its illegal occupation of Palestine,(this link is a long read but a worthy one...right to the end). The FB group Occupy Canada now has 323 reasons in their 'hashtag leavesteve2015' campaign! 

Out here in the wilderness (currently Kathmandu) myself and the several Canucks I know who inhabit this remote Himalayan valley are dismayed at what continues to be revealed by the international media about the remodeling of Canada going on under the noses of earnest hard-working Canadians. We all have a stake in the future of a place like Canada which could be a bastion of good government that puts people and the environment first, instead we are getting further and further bogged down in a paradigm of economic growth for the sake of itself which has run its course. Currently the government is securing us to the sinking ship of corporate capitalism one that has no retrievable future. If you agree with the sentiment voiced here feel free to share widely, freedom of speech persists for now in Canada and anyway, and anyway nothing posted here is not in the public record. And as a post script...don't forget to vote, its the only way the change will come.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

The Athabasca Tar Sands: a crime against future generations?


SPECIAL STUDY TOPIC 
(in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters in Transnational Organized Crime, 'Crimes of the Powerful', 
January 2011 - Daniel G. Pugh, full version available upon request)
To what extent can the growth of the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada be said to represent a crime against the future generations.
INTRODUCTION
As industry has expanded to meet the demands of the global economy so has the need for oil and gas. Issues arising from this growth include whether the excesses of exploiting natural resources today infringe on the rights of future generations as fossil fuel emissions are causing dramatic changes to life on earth and continued exploitation reduces energy futures. Rising in prominence in the oil and gas industry are the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada receiving considerable geopolitical and economic attention for their enormous potential and increasingly affordable access. It is important to understand the externalities that have brought the demand for tar sands oil onto the world stage and then to consider how the myriad consequences resulting from the oil extraction process impact the environment and livelihoods and whether these constitute a crime against future generations.
The increase in global demand for oil and gas has relevant effect on the importance of tar sands reserves. Estimates on current global dependency on oil suggest 40% for energy use and 95% for transportation (EndOilAid, 2010). The Athabasca tar sands are thought to be the largest hydrocarbon deposits and second largest recoverable oil reserves in the world after the Saudi fields with a volume potential of 175 to 200 billion barrels of oil (McCullum, 2006:10).
The viability of the Athabasca tar sands is dependent on the cost of extraction which is estimated to be US$9 -14 per barrel of WTI1 (National Energy Board, 2006: 3) versus the price of oil. During the 1990s and 2000s and even as demand grew the price of a barrel of WTI remained relatively stable hovering under US$25 per barrel (WTRG Economics, 2009) and so related to the cost of extraction it was uncompetitive to buy tar sands oil compared to extraction costs of US$1 per barrel from Saudi fields. Amidst concerns over limits to supply caused by extreme weather events and instability in oil producing nations the price of oil started to show significant increases in the mid-2000s peaking at US$132 per barrel in May, 2008 (Ibid). As a result the economics of tar sand oil extraction started looking much more attractive, the National Energy Board indicates that US$35-35 will bring a 10% rate of return to producers (National Energy Board, 2006: 5). The current cost for a barrel of Texas Crude is US$91.54 (Bloomberg, 2010).
Another dominant externality explaining the recent rise of tar sands prominence is geopolitics. The shift in US energy policy and that of China to decrease their dependency on Middle Eastern oil sources has focused interest on the Athabasca tar sands. This is a shift for the USA who many believe invaded Iraq “which arguably had more to do with securing greater control over Middle East oil deposits than fighting the war on terror”(Clarke, 2008: 9). The Bush era policy to look closer to home for oil (McCullum, 2006: 5) continues under the Obama administration; in 2009 the USA State Department approved the development of the Alberta Clipper pipeline to carry crude oil from the Athabasca fields “increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries” (U.S.Dept. of State, 2009). PetroChina is 40% underwriter of the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that will open a major tanker port at Kitimat, British Colombia bringing over 200 tankers per year through dangerous waters along a pristine wilderness coastline on a route normally plied by cruise liners. (McCullum, 2006: 15).
The tar sands became economically viable and geopolitically important when the world reached ‘peak oil’ probably the dominant externality in tar sands development.  Tony Clarke (2008) explains that, peak oil means the extraction of oil from conventional sources has peaked, from now on to meet future energy demands non-conventional means (like tar sands extraction) will increasingly need to be exploited (Clarke 2008:10). The future holds higher financial and environmental costs.

Costs and future threats can be viewed as harms, damaging the global environment, the ecology of northern Alberta and the health, livelihoods and social well being of locally-based communities as well as compromising the energy security of Canada.(Hatch, 2008),(Greenpeace Canada, 2008),(Greenpeace Canada, 2009). It seems clear with the litany of harms being meted out to the environment and local communities that we can assume Trans National Corporations involved in tar sands development are not interested in the needs of future generations. This follows the logic of Ramsay (1984) cited in Cartwright (2001) asking what could be assumed when there seems to be unfair advantage in the market place. Cartwright goes on to suggest that when this happens, further regulation is needed (2001: 5 -6) and indeed this is the case in northern Alberta.
Viewing the situation through the lens of opportunity perspective, criminality of tar sands activity is hard to ascertain when the weak regulatory regime allows for the installation and continuation of industrial processes that pollute the air and water jeopardizing the health of communities and the ecosystem ((Hatch, 2008: 19). For example the Fisheries Act and Canadian Environmental Protection Act could together prosecute companies for toxic seepage into waterways from tailing ponds. Currently the federal government leaves monitoring up to provincial regulators who in turn ‘require’ companies to self monitor seepage and pollution of waterways (Environmental Defence 2010b:10 -11),(Hatch, 2008: 22). This passing of responsibility betrays the sincerity of Canada’s policy makers and politicians who have a well-established record of close association with business for personal advancement and lobbying on behalf of corporations against the interests of the public (Stewart, 2010). The Polaris Institute provides evidence in a profile of Enbridge Inc3 that describes “widespread political lobbying and influence in Canada” and the revolving door method of recruitment from within politics and government and back to business demonstrating their modality of operations in Canada (Girard, 2010: 37 - 41).

Certainly the situation provides considerable opportunity for companies to act outside of ethical boundaries (in the absence of regulation) but it also provides for a normalization of deviance and questionable corporate practices. The idea that companies can act beyond reproach, is akin to (and likely part of) the culture of complacency that is emerging as a significant causal factor in the Deepwater Horizon incident (National Oil Spill Commission, 2011). After years of lobbying by environmental groups, the Commissioner for the Environment and Development admitted in December 2010 “there are unacceptable gaps in the federal monitoring of fresh water” (Vaughn, 2010: 2). Reacting to this report and one by the Royal Society of Canada (2010) (and possibly now worrying about future liability issues) the federal government has ordered the immediate implementation of appropriate monitoring mechanisms in Alberta (Simieritsch, 2011). 

CONCLUSION
The extent of criminality of this activity in the oil and gas industry is not perhaps the pertinent question for the present although it may be in the future. Economic interests presently drive and motivate the people involved in TNCs and government, raising ethical and moral questions about harms that show a disturbing disregard for future generations. It seems the popular way of thinking is that technology will solve everything and that our present activities will simply be managed in the future, a simplistic and naive perspective. Ironically it may be globalization that comes to the rescue. There has been much recent criticism in Canada for failing to ‘harmonize’ with other countries especially the USA where the Environmental Protection Agency is making clear moves to regulate green house gas emissions in industry (McCarthy, 2011). If the Canadian government can shift from an approach that does not account for future generations to one that does then perhaps there is hope for the future. In the Athabasca tar sands, what may be immoral today may be illegal tomorrow.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloomberg, 2010. Energy & Oil Prices: Natural Gas, Electricity and Oil - Bloomberg. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ [Accessed January 15, 2011]. 
Cartwright, p, 2001. Consumer protection and the criminal ... - Google Books, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=I-jcxhRy1ewC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=cartwright+2001+consumer+protection&ots=EvN6Ct4R7x&sig=Uv-faFhmy5-0a-tPrqTBfpRg-Gs#v=onepage&q=cartwright%202001%20consumer%20protection&f=false [Accessed January 17, 2011].
Clarke, T., 2008. Tar Sands Showdown | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Available at: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/tar-sands-showdown [Accessed January 15, 2011].
Environmental Defence, 2010. Duty Calls: Federal Responsibility in Canada’s Oil Sands | Environmental Defence, Toronto: Environmental Defence. Available at: http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/duty-calls-federal-responsibility-canada%E2%80%99s-oil-sands-0 [Accessed January 12, 2011].
Girard, R., 2010. Corporate Profile of Enbridge Inc. | Polaris Institute, Ottawa: Polaris Institute. Available at: http://polarisinstitute.org/corporate_profile_of_enbridge_inc [Accessed January 17, 2011].
Greenpeace Canada, 2009. Threats: Energy security | Greenpeace Canada. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/Threats-Energy-security/ [Accessed January 21, 2011].
Greenpeace Canada, 2008. Threats: Social costs | Greenpeace Canada. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/Threats-Social-costs/ [Accessed January 21, 2011].
Hatch, C. & Price, M., 2008. Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth | Environmental Defence, Toronto: Environmental Defence. Available at: http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/canadas-toxic-tar-sands-most-destructive-project-earth [Accessed January 20, 2011].
McCarthy, S., 2011. U.S. to impose new emission rules on power plants, refineries - The Globe and Mail. Available at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-to-impose-new-emission-rules-on-power-plants-refineries/article1855631/ [Accessed January 17, 2011].
McCullum, H., 2006. Fuelling Fortress America :: Parkland Research :: Parkland Institute, Edmonton: Parkland Institute. Available at: http://parklandinstitute.ca/research/summary/fuelling_fortress_america/ [Accessed January 12, 2011].
National Energy Board, 2006. NEB - Energy Reports - Canada's Oil Sands - Opportunities and Challenges to 2015: An Update - Questions and Answers, Calgary: National Energy Board. Available at: http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152006/qapprtntsndchllngs20152006-eng.html [Accessed January 17, 2011].
National Oil Spill Commission, 2011. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling |, Washington: National Oil Spill Commission. Available at: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/ [Accessed January 17, 2011].
Price, M., 2008. The Tar Sands Leaking Legacy, Toronto: Environmental Defence. Available at: http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/11-million-litres-day-tar-sands-leaking-legacy [Accessed December 12, 2011].
Simieritsch, T, 2011. Water monitoring 101: what to make of the 2010 flood of oil sands reports | Pembina Institute. Available at: http://www.pembina.org/blog/460 [Accessed January 17, 2011].
Stewart, K., 2010. Putting pressure on companies to clean up tar sands “simply nutty”: Canadian government official | Greenpeace Canada. Putting pressure on companies to clean up tar sands "simply nutty": Canadian government official. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/putting-pressure-on-companies-to-clean-up-tar/blog/29163 [Accessed January 20, 2011].
U.S.Dept. of State, 2009. Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued. Available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/aug/128164.htm [Accessed January 15, 2011].
Vaughn, S., 2010. 2010 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General. Available at: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201012_00_e_34423.html [Accessed January 17, 2011].
WTRG Economics, 2009. OPEC Crude Oil Production 1990 - 2009. Available at: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPOP90.gif [Accessed January 15, 2011].



[1] A common standard for a barrel of oil is a barrel of Western Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) or simply Texas crude.
[2] Personal knowledge of the learner who lived in Alberta since 1967.
[3] Enbridge is the company that will likely build the Northern Gateway pipeline and the Alberta Clipper referred to earlier.