Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Back to the dead ducks

When Premier Stelmach finally stopped drooling out comments about wind turbines and the evil Sierra Club, I thought that writing fodder on this subject had just about come to an end. However, yesterday in the letters section of the Journal I saw about a square foot of backlash towards citizens like us here at AGRDT who've been impolite enough to raise a stink over this whole issue, which kind of got the gears turning. Adding to this, today I was forwarded this piece of nonsensical sanctimonious tripe (penned by Ian Robinson for the Calgary Sun -- surprising, I know) that, as you can probably tell from the description I gave it, riled me up enough to write one more post on this issue.

There upshot of most of the letters in the Journal and Robinson's piece (if there is one; he rambles from topic to topic, the only common thread seeming to be his desire to malign "enviro-whackos") is that, in the big scheme of things, the death of 500 ducks isn't a big deal. Many more are killed by wind turbines/hunting/cats/cars/houses each year, so we should just forget about this (and, presumably, go on with strip mining the rest of the province.)

Talk about missing the point. I completely agree that the death of 500 ducks, in itself, is nothing to get too upset about. But the big issue with this incident isn't the ducks per se; it's that we ever allowed an enormous, poisonous lake that can more-or-less instantly kill an entire flock of ducks unless it's surrounded by constantly-firing noise cannons to ever exist in the first place. The unfortunate death of these ducks simply brought that to light in a very visible way. The communication I've seen that has been critical of this incident has consistently conveyed this idea, but people like Robinson seem to be more worried about painting "enviro-whackos" as a bunch of bleeding hearts who guilelessly personify all living creatures like a bunch of misguided children than actually thinking about what they're saying or writing.

Here's a few numbers to illustrate my point: in 2004 there were 622 murders in Canada. In that same year, a 160 762 Canadians died from either  circulatory diseases, cancer, or respiratory diseases. Using the logic of Robinson and his ilk, we could safely conclude that murder isn't a problem in Canada, so we should just go on our merry way without being burdened with the unseemly task of figuring out how we can improve things.

The problem with this logic, of course, is that it's really stupid -- it ignores the fact that there is some sort of underlying problem with our society that is causing the murders. Although simply not worrying about this would undoubtedly make it easier to sleep at night, it would unfortunately do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

I'll agree with Robinson and say that the death of 500 ducks in itself doesn't constitute a tragedy. What's truly tragic -- and what this incident illustrates -- is the sorrowful extent to which our governments have allowed our environmental stewardship to degrade.

Syncrude's Dead Ducks: update

Don't worry about the toxic chemical lakes that cover over 50 square km of former Boreal forest, are growing by 1 million litres a day, and that we have no idea how to get rid of, folks! Wind turbines are our real problem. At least that's what Ed Stelmach says in a piece of logic and integrity that make me think his brain and heart, like several hundred hectares of our province, are full of carcinogenic sludge. According to this story in the Globe,

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is down playing the deaths, saying that wind turbines kill 30,000 birds annually.

If anyone needed any more proof that Ed Stelmach doesn't care about the environment, this is it. Instead of confronting this issue, he flippantly quotes a meaningless and inflammatory statistic to attempt to minimize the debacle. Of course, this isn't at all surprising coming from a man who's government has chosen to spend $25 million in attempt to convince people everything's okay without actually making it okay first. In fact, I'd say it's a shining example of the supposed "integrity" that his supporters love to prattle on about.

Were it not so infuriating, it would be hilarious to watch Stelmach stumble through yet another incident with his characteristic media savvy. Prior to the above bombshell, Stelmach likened himself to David in a battle against the Goliath that is evil, all-powerful, and notoriously deep-pocketed environmental movement:

“The $25-million is small compared to the combined money of the various lobby groups,” said the premier. “In terms of David and Goliath, I've been in this position before and now I'm here, so I recognize the challenges.”

(From this story in the Globe.)

There you have it folks, your premier Ed Stelmach. When a flock of ducks dies by landing on an oil company's giant toxic slough, his default position is say it isn't a big deal, defend the oil company, and attack the environmental groups who dare use it as an example of poor environmental stewardship by self-righteously and incomprehensibly framing himself as the underdog. Like I said, I'd laugh at this were it not so completely depressing coming from the man that runs my province.

If anything, at least we can take solace in the fact that the unfortunate death of the 495 ducks was not completely in vain, as there is no question that the international news coverage of this tragic episode has more than negated any potential positive effect from the dishonest $25 million PR campaign. Quack heard around the world, indeed.

Some thoughts on hypocrisy

It's been a pretty eventful couple of weeks for people interested in Alberta environmental issues. We've seen Ed Stelmach's $25 million dollar greenwashing campaign swing into action, the cheeky interruption of Stelmach's Premier's Dinner speech by Greenpeace activists, and, most recently and visibly (notice the source I link to), the death of approximately 500 ducks that landed in one of Syncrude's several, massive, and highly toxic tailings ponds (these, I might add, being a fine example of the environmental stewardship that our government is spending vast amounts of taxpayer money to promote.*)

Because this blog doesn't often allow me the opportunity to directly berate people, I often find myself duking it out in the comments section below news stories on either the CBC News or Globe and Mail websites. In light of all of the action this week I've been especially busy, and I've noticed a common thread in the arguments posed in these forums, typically by conservative types, that makes my blood boil: the notion that people like the Greenpeace protesters, for example, are "hypocrites" because they drove to the Shaw Conference centre/were wearing shoes with rubber in them/performed their action in a room heated by natural gas/know someone that works at a gas station. The idea is that this "hypocrisy" somehow invalidates the arguments of these people because they're not "putting their money where their mouths are."

The only problem with this argument is that in western society it is impossible -- short of walking into the forest naked -- to put one's money where one's mouth is in this respect.  As an example, I type this on a computer composed largely of petroleum byproducts that's being powered by coal-generated electricity while I sit in a natural-gas-heated room, with the energy for this typing coming from food produced with fossil fuel-powered machinery. Are these oil-industry critical  words invalidated because I'm indirectly using oil to produce them?

I don't think so, because it is impossible to produce these words otherwise -- just as there was no practical way for Greenpeace interrupt the Premier's dinner or for David Suzuki (another very popular target for accusations of this sort for having the audacity to use a bus for his cross-country climate change tour) to influence public opinion without using fossil fuels in some way. Accusing environmentalists of hypocrisy is so popular amongst their opponents, I think, because the accuser knows that the only real alternative for the party that the accuser is directing his or her attacks towards is to more-or-less stop doing whatever it is that riled up the accuser so much in the first place and, as I mentioned, walk naked into the forest.

People like Suzuki or Greenpeace members are simply trying to change the society that we live in, and regardless of what they think of this society they are subject to its constraints like everyone else. Calling environmentalists hypocrites for using fossil fuels is like calling Scott Hennig a hypocrite for paying taxes, or members of the private-healthcare-advocating Fraser Institute hypocrites for going to a publicly-funded hospital if they fall ill. It's ludicrous, because in Canada, paying taxes and using public healthcare are precisely like using fossil fuels, in the sense that each is entirely unavoidable. Right now there is no fossil-fuel-free method remotely approaching practical that would allow environmental groups to spread their message to the extent necessary to influence public opinion  -- indeed, that is exactly what they're trying to change. Can you think of anything that would make Greenpeace happier than us living in a society where it wasn't necessary for them to use fossil fuels to propagate their message?

Criticize these people for being idealistic, unrealistic, or fatalistic -- whatever. But stop calling them hypocrites, or I'll aggressively browbeat you in the discussion section of a globeandmail.com story.

*I've been having a lot less of these lately, but this is one of those things that makes me shake my head, sigh, and say "Oh, Alberta." Edmontonians flew into an absolute rage when architectural entrance markers were proposed for the city, at a cost of about $1.4 million -- but they'll look the other way when the government spends $25 million on what is so blatantly propaganda.

What Capitol Hill Senators and Congresspeople woke up to yesterday morning

Read about it here and here.

Photo post: Greenpeace rains on Stelmach's parade

Read about it here and here. The best part: Stelmach was in the middle of an anti-Greenpeace speech. Even if you don't agree with non-violent direct action, you have to admit that this is a pretty impressive feat. Kudos.

Photo via Facebook

Update: In case you didn't have a $450 ticket to the show. Greenpeace has uploaded some video on Youtube for your viewing pleasure.

Suncor 1st quarter profit rises from a gazillion dollars to several gazillion dollars

Read all about it here.

Good thing we didn't implement the Oil Sands Severance Tax recommended by the Royalty Review Panel. And good thing we haven't imposed any socialist, draconian carbon-reduction regulations on them. Suncor, in this environment of spiraling costs and labour shortages, is clearly walking the razor's edge between profitability and loss.

Thank goodness we have Alberta PCs to shepherd them through this difficult time.

In the news

Lots of interesting stuff going on today. Here is a roundup of links:

Photo: Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail has a good article detailing the 'in and out' scheme the Conservative Party of Canada allegedly used during the last election to finance national campaign advertising and exceed their allowable spending under the Elections Act by over $1 million dollars (and has resulted in yesterday's RCMP and EC raid of their headquarters). According to the Ottawa Citizen, this is the first time in Canadian history that a political party headquarters has been searched by the RCMP. I always new PM Harper would be a path breaker.

UPDATE: CBC's Politics with Don Newman is reporting that the RCMP are executing a criminal search warrant, granted by a Toronto criminal court at the request of Elections Canada. In fact, the ongoing search may have nothing to do with the 'in and out' scheme investigation and this may just be an attempt on the CPC to mask the real reason the cops are there.

Alberta Health and Wellness minister, Ron Liepert, has laid out his plan for the next year. The press release is seemingly benign. Some highlights include expansion of addiction and mental health services and a renewed strategy for regional health planning by June 15th. As they say though, the devil is in the details (and also the forthcoming provincial budget). I'd expect some healthcare-related controversy when Alberta Health's 'long term sustainability' plan is released in 9 months, if not sooner. Especially given Liepert's stated support for the Manzankowski and the 2006 Health Policy Framework reports and his general lust for 1990s-style, slash and burn budget cuts.

The Edmonton Journal's Todd Babiak has changed his tune (somewhat) on Edmonton's bid for the National Portrait Gallery. His column yesterday paints quite the rosy picture of a revitalized downtown arts and culture district. I like to think his newfound optimism is the direct result of  reading this blog...

Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians warns that if Canada doesn't revist NAFTA, Canadian governments can expect litigation by foreign oil companies if ever a water shortage were to halt oil and gas production.

Health Canada looks ready to ban bisphenol A. This endocrine disruptor mimics the effect of estrogen and has been linked to breast and prostate cancer. The bad news is that bisphenol A is in many clear plastic bottles (water bottles, water cooler jugs, clear/tinted nalgene bottles) and it is also used to line tin cans. The good news is that it can be avoided somewhat. See Green Edmonton for advice on that.

Finally, this gem. Apparently Vancouver transit cops have been tasering fare-cheaters. Even the non-violent ones. SHADY.

Carbon taxes: really not a liberal idea

This post is born not necessarily out of the currency or even newsworthiness of the topic at hand, but rather because it provides a perfect opportunity to highlight just how ridiculous the rhetoric used by John Baird actually is. If you'll recall, in response to a report released in January by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (itself an advisory body to the federal government) calling for a nation-wide carbon tax, federal Environment Minister John Baird flat out rejected the report's recommendations with the statement: "a new tax sounds like a Liberal idea to me."

While John Baird isn't exactly known for his thoughtful deliberations or quiet reflection, this outright dismissal of an important policy option for mitigating climate change is pretty low. I mean at least the Liberals pretended to agree with similar reports, even if they didn't actually act on them.  I guess under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, even the environment minister isn't expected to pretend to listen to the advisers he's paying to make ecologically and financially sound decisions. Anyhow, a new report  released last week may (well, one would hope it would) give Baird pause next time he decides to knee-jerk react to the suggestion of a carbon tax with a partisan quip.

This week, prominent Canadian economist Jack Mintz  echoed the growing chorus of Canadians calling for a nation-wide carbon tax to fight climate change. In the report, Mintz surmises that the current $0.10/litre excise tax charged by the federal government on gasoline works out (in effect) to a carbon tax of about $42/tonne. The report says if this taxation scheme where applied to all carbon emitting fuels in Canada (i.e. natural gas, coal used in electricity generation), the Canadian government would be able to collect an additional $12 to $15 billion dollars a year. In addition this revenue could then be used to decrease personal and corporate income taxes, thereby making Canada's economy more competitive and Canada's worldwide environmental reputation slightly less humiliating.

The fact that Jack Mintz of all people is endorsing a nation-wide carbon tax, should demonstrate to the few people that take Baird seriously that this is so not a "Liberal idea" (I'm assuming that when Baird derisively sneers the term 'Liberal', he's referring to it in the big "L", socialist wealth transfer scheme sense of the word, rather than the small 'l' sense as taxes aren't usually associated with liberalism). For those of you not familiar with Mr. Mintz, here's a few interesting tidbits that establish his non-Liberal mettle: he sits on the board of Imperial Oil, he thinks Alberta's low taxes and privatization rates make it perfect, he has a long, illustrious publication record with the tax competitiveness section of the C.D. Howe Institute (not to mention a 7-year tenure as its president and CEO), the Alberta government hired him to do their financial planning last year, and finally pretty much every time he is asked to comment on a government's budget, he laments the insufficiency of the broad-based 'tax-relief' provided.

The fact that someone like Jack Mintz recommends the adoption of a national carbon tax demonstrates that he is a fiscal conservative who uses his head when assessing policy options; John Baird's idiotic partisan reaction demonstrates that he is not.

The biggest irony in all of this is of course, that the use of market mechanisms like carbon taxes is an inherently neo-conservative idea. Many environmentalists and progressives would much prefer to see Canada deal with climate change through regulation and forced compliance to those regulations. For them and other more traditionally social-democratic countries, regulation is the only way to ensure that pollution never enters the environment (rather than it simply costing some companies more to pollute).  The fact that many (ideologically left-leaning) environmentalists in Canada have come to largely adopt the position that a carbon tax is a necessary solution to climate change for Canada shows that they are able to consider their options, context, and restraints thoughtfully and determine the best compromise for fast action. You would think we could expect the same from our political leaders.

Monday morning reading

For a Monday morning, there's a surprising amount of interesting Alberta-related news items in today's dailies:

• The Globe and Mail has a really interesting run-down of Imperial Oil's Kearl project , the challenges it faces and the risks it poses to Alberta's environment. The latest news is, that - in light of a federal court ruling, which nulled the decision of a joint federal-Alberta government environmental review panel to approve the Kearl project earlier this month -  the federal fisheries department has also decided to revoke the project's water permit. This means that the land set aside for the project - a strip mine that would cover an area of undisturbed Boreal forest bog the size of 20 000 football fields - cannot begin to be prepped for mining.  The article provides an overview of one of the most controversial oilsands projects in recent memory, so I highly recommend reading it. UPDATE: Imperial Oil plans to appeal the government's decision to revoke their water license.
  

• The Edmonton Journal has an interesting front-page feature on the future of high-speed rail in Alberta. The article highlights potential time-frames and some obstacles to and opportunities for the rail link's construction.  One of the key barriers outlined by the article is securing the land necessary from farmers and rural landowners. As I have argued before, high speed rail provide an important opportunity for Alberta to begin to off-set our embarrassing track-record on greenhouse gas emissions. Stelmach going on the record in support of high-speed rail was one of the few things he's done that I applaud, and his ability to move this project forward could demonstrate that he's able to think beyond the immediate future, something we have yet to see.

• The Calgary Herald has a story revealing that, Stephen Harper (i.e. the man with the climate change plan that puts Alberta's to shame), has continually ignored warnings from the Canadian government's top scientists that Canada faces climate disaster if it continues on its course of blocking international progress on climate change. Sadly, this revelation is so unsurprising, I'm surprised it made the papers at all.

• Finally, this is a bit late, but better late then never. This story provides yet another reason to forget Ralph Klein was premier of this province for 14 years. (Check out his Wikipedia page if you need any others). Klein was awarded the French equivalent of the Order of Canada and these remarks are are the best he could come up with? France shares in some of the embarrassment too. I mean, seriously France, you couldn't think of anyone better to award your highest honor?

Nuclear in Alberta: Our very own monorail

According to Shawn McCarthy at the Globe and Mail, as far as nuclear power in Alberta is concerned:

1. We don't need it
2. It's cost prohibitive
3. To sell it, the Bruce Power needs to  "create a buzz" around the concept of a nuclear renaissance

I have been against nuclear energy in Alberta since Energy Alberta Corp was poking around Whitecourt and Peace River last summer. I'm even more against it now that Bruce Power (which bought out EAC) wants to build four nuclear reactors rather than two. Even if the generation of tons of toxic waste doesn't bother you, the economic arguments against  nuclear in this province (and elsewhere) should be enough to convince anyone that Alberta doesn't need nuclear energy.  I hope the provincial government will not subsidize the development of this industry and Albertans will avoid being duped into building something we don't need.

Thursday night TV

Just a reminder that the CBC's Doc Zone will be airing 'Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta' at 9:00 pm tonight. Here is a synopsis:

"Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta captures the intersecting storylines of a remarkable cast of characters eager to cash in on the oil boom in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Washington lobbyists, Newfie pipefitters, Chinese investors and Norwegian industrialists descend on tar-soaked "Fort McMoney", a modern-day Eldorado, where rents are sky rocketing and cocaine abuse is four times the provincial average. Up for grabs - a stake in a $100 billion energy bonanza and Canada's economic sovereignty."

For more details, click here. For a review of the documentary by the Globe and Mail, click here.

Bye bye, Guy!

This post is a spin off of ch's broader 'new' cabinet commentary because Guy Boutilier's exit out of cabinet is so fantastic, it deserves a post all its own.  Why was Boutilier the only MLA tossed from cabinet? Was it because his Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo riding had one of the lowest voter turnouts and as such, Stelmach thought he was expendable? I'm inclined to think it might have been something else. I think Boutilier's incompetence finally caught up with him and that's why he got the boot. Take for example:

• The time he interfered with a quasi-judicial AEUB hearing, by testifying in his capacity as MLA. Not only was this an exception to the rules, but it was completely inappropriate given that he was also Minister of Environment at the time. When asked whether Alberta Environment should set caps and target on growth and expansion, here's what he said:

A. "I'm here as the MLA today. And I'm saying to you, Mr. Chair, through the Chair as the MLA that I understand that those questions, I assume, you have asked to the actual technical people within Alberta Environment and the over thousand people that work for me within that department."
Q. When you appear here as the MLA, do you just turn off  an area of your brain where you were the Minister of Environment?
A. "Yes, I do."

• Or how about the time Alberta Environment pulled out all the stops and hosted the first (and last) Youth Environment Summit at the Delta in Kananaskis in October 2006. After a weekend long photo op, where climate change was the big pink elephant in the middle of the conference room, the minister held a Q and A session. When one delegate rose to ask Boutilier why he had chosen not to attend "Alberta Days" in Washington, DC three months earlier even though talks between the Alberta-US government on tar sands expansion were ongoing. He replied that his wife told him that they had to go on vacation or he would have to sleep on the couch, and he prefers to sleep with his wife. Realizing what he had just said, he attempted to fix it by muttering: and I support condom use! His EA ran up to the stage after that with a can of Coke and half-heartedly suggested that the Minister was suffering from low blood sugar. I know! I wouldn't believe it either, if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes! Ask anyone in that room that day, no one will forget that mishap. (I wish I could offer a transcript or recording as evidence but  Alberta Environment never did forward the tape including those comments on to members of the press...wonder why??).

Those are two of the more memorable Boutilier mishaps. Together they show that even a Harvard degree in Public Administration can't guarantee competence. Feel free to add your own Boutilierisms in comments.

For more thoughts on Alberta's new cabinet, check out our 'Official AGRDT Alberta's New Cabinet Post', and the views of some other clever Alberta bloggers over at Daveberta, Calgary Grit, Straight Outta Edmonton, and Ken Chapman.

Welcome back to the twilight zone

This has so far been a very eventful week for those interested in climate policy and Alberta politics/sabre-rattling. First, on Monday, we heard from Environment Minister John Baird that Ottawa will be putting in place new regulations that as of 2012 will require oilsands operators and coal-fired electricity generators to use new technology to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. And now today, I read a read a headline in the Journal that made me think I was in Bizarro World:  oilsands operators have announced their support for the implementation of a nation-wide carbon tax. Wow.

In a nutshell, Monday's new regulations break down as follows:

• Starting in 2012, new oilsands extraction operations will be required to install carbon capture and storage systems to capture "the bulk" of their carbon emission. "The bulk" has yet to be specifically defined.
  
• Also starting in 2012, new coal-fired electricity generation plants will be required to reduce their carbon emissions (again no solid number) through the implementation of a combination of new technologies, which I'm assuming mainly means carbon capture and storage and coal-gasification processes (i.e. the infamous and so-called "clean coal" mentioned by Klein in his last state-of-the-province-type address to Alberta)
• Existing facilities and those oilsands operations that will be coming online before 2012 will be required to "reduce emissions using cleaner fuels," according to yet to be determined rules that will be finalized at some point next year.
• The government reaffirmed it's decision to create a carbon offset/cap and trade system at some point in the future.

Some initial impressions: first of all, it's important to remember that despite all the fancy talk and government programs with "eco" prefixes, Canada still has no intention of setting a hard cap on emissions any time soon, which means absolute GHG emissions will likely continue to rise. Additionally (and ironically), the news release accompanying Monday's announcement, Government Delivers Details of Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Framework, uses language like "effectively bans" and "will effectively require" but doesn't effectively contain many firm details. Looking at some of the attached policy documents gives one the impression that there's a lot that's still TBA.

Second, although some environmentalists have raised legitimate criticisms around the 2012 start date (as by this time most planned new oilsands operations will already be online), one benefit is that it provides an early signal to oilsands and electricity generators to start getting their act together -- early plans can do a lot to minimize the economic costs of environmental actions.

Third, it seems the federal government is putting a tonne of stock into new and unproven technologies. To use an variation of an oft-repeated phrase from fellow Alberta blogger Ken Chapman, this is good politics but bad policy. Carbon capture and storage is the mother of all end-of-pipe solutions -- it does nothing to address the root of the problem, i.e. insatiable consumer demand for energy.

The only mechanism contained in the new regulations for addressing consumer demand comes in the form of a cap and trade system, which again is still without elaboration.  Cap and trade systems, however, are generally regarded by economists and climate policy experts as being less efficient than the primary alternate option: a carbon tax. For these reasons, I'm shockingly inclined to agree in principle with today's call from the oilsands companies; hence, the title of this post.

Although it appears that Alberta's status as the twilight zone has now been officially affirmed, it's important to acknowledge the obvious self-interest embedded into today's announcement. Firstly, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer's Pierre Alvarez has mused about about the need for a carbon tax in the past as an attempt to scare-monger. Moreover, while I agree that the costs of emissions reductions should indeed be shared across society, I subscribe to the "polluter pays" principle so I don't think that the proceeds from a carbon tax should be used to fund carbon capture and storage for oilsands and electricity operators. I prefer the revenue-neutral concept advocated by the BC Liberals and the Green Party: net proceeds from the tax should be used to apply an across the board corporate and/or income tax cut. If there is one things corporations (and some people) hate more than anything it's taxes, so creating a policy that would give these entities the opportunity to reduce their tax load in way that would benefit society at large just makes sense to me.

I would hope this would make sense to our Premier as well, but I'm not optimistic. Instead, I'm looking forward to more of the international oil industry taking the lead on our province's environmental file.

Guest Post: An election postmortem from an outsider's perspective, pt. 2

As promised, here is part two of JR's guest post. Yesterday, I posted part one, which describes the problem plaguing the exercise of healthy democracy in Alberta - so make sure you check it out before you read this one. Today, for your reading pleasure, we bring you a possible solution to Alberta's democratic malaise.

As I mentioned yesterday, JR is from out of province, so feel free to let him know if he's on track or totally off base in the comments.

Alberta Election Postmortem: An Outsider’s Perspective

Part Two: The Solution

There remains, however, a solution to Alberta’s democratic deficiency and a hope for progressive-minded Albertans.  As the First Law of Petropolitics dictates, the lower the price of oil the more a political culture becomes sensitive to opposition voices.  What I propose is for Alberta to implement a regulatory regime that caps oil prices and limits the amount of production in the tar sands annually. 

Though some of the more hard-headed readers of this blog may deride my prescription as an exercise of neo-Marxism I believe it would be in Alberta’s interest to regulate the price and production of oil.  Oil is not a renewable resource and thus there is a finite amount that can be produced (if you don’t believe me I suggest you check out the documentary A Crude Awakening). Such a policy will help Albertans create a more transparent political process that lets the people, rather than the oil companies and the governments that enable them, to have a stake in their own future. 

When the oil runs out, I doubt Alberta’s reputable knowledge-based economy will ensure the continued stability, viability and influence provided by an oil economy.  By controlling oil’s price and production through public-private partnerships between government and the oil sector, Alberta can ensure its continued influence in the federation and practice a responsible policy that saves its natural resources for future generations while limiting environmental damage today.

This week in environment

There are a number of stories in the Canadian news media that warrant some attention this week. Here are but a few:

1. In response to the lack of political leadership on climate change and the environment in Canada, 11 of Canada's major ENGOs have released a plan for action. The report, entitled Tomorrow, Today: How Canada Can Make a World of Difference, covers seven key areas such as energy, food and agriculture, oceans, etc. It recommends ways for the government to get the ball rolling on sustainability and conservation. This kind of cooperation between ENGOs is rare, as there is often a lot of politicking between groups. Thus, this collaborative effort is worth checking out. Maybe send John Baird a copy too.

2. The Vatican decrees: Thou Shall Not Pollute in its new list of sins in a globalized world. In addition, thou shall not widen the gap between the rich and the poor, collect excessive wealth, nor create poverty. The condemnation of these globalization sins would probably be more meaningful if birth control and drug abuse weren't also included on the list.

3. Earth Hour is Saturday March 29th 2008. It is a worldwide movement of dozens of cities that asks people and businesses to turn off their lights for one hour in an effort to inspire other to take action on climate change. It began in Sydney, Australia, on 31 March 2007, when 2.2 million people and 2100 Sydney businesses turned off their lights for one hour - Earth Hour. This massive collective effort reduced Sydney's energy consumption by 10.2% for one hour, which is the equivalent effect of taking 48,000 cars off the road for a year. So far,  Jasper and Edmonton are the only two Albertan cities to officially sign on. But dozens of non-Albertan Canadian cities have joined as well. For more information about the event and how to get your city involved, click here.

Oh, and here is a somewhat cheesy video (complete with Australian Aborigine music) to inspire you to have dinner by candlelight that night:

4. The federal government will soon require carbon capture and sequestration technologies on all new tar sands projects and all new coal-fired electricity plants. Existing operations will be held to a modest 18% intensity target.  I have a few questions. Who is going to pay for the CCS technology? I have a feeling the energy companies won't be footing the bill on their own. Although I wish the government would adhere to the polluter pays principle, I wouldn't be surprised if subsidies and or generous tax breaks were involved. How is the Alberta government going to respond? My guess is poorly.

5. The 'Wikipedia for Biodiversity' goes online. Encyclopedia of Life is a wiki-style website that aims to establish a complete record of all known species on Earth. This is an astronomical task because no one even knows how many are out there (some people guesstimate around 1.8 million though).

UPDATE: I probably should have mentioned the release of a report by NRCan last week that suggests Canada is going to hell in a handbasket. I may or may not have worked for the aforementioned agency at some point in the past, and I would say that (unfortunately for us) this modeling and the people doing it  are both credible.

Wendy Andrews is running for the wrong party

If you've traveled through the intersection of Stony Plain Road and 142 st in Edmonton, you may have noticed a billboard that looks like this:

Initially reading it, you could be confused: the leafy green background and promise of "fresh thinking" would have you thinking that the candidate was strongly focused on changing the dismal environmental record of this province --  then you'd see the PC Alberta logo, and, if you're like me, wonder if this background was a bit misleading. Given the PC's performance, I would think this billboard to be more accurate if the background image showed fumes billowing from some upgrader smokestacks, possibly behind a massive tailings pond, maybe beside a giant burning pile of the boreal forest that used to occupy the area filled by the smokestack and tailings pond.

To put this in other words, I find it curious that Andrews is running on an environmental platform (at least as portrayed by her billboard and recycled-paper brochures) as a candidate in a party that has, as a government, an environmental record that can only be described as dismal.  In just the last few weeks we've seen news of the government withholding from the public a report on climate change they commissioned Mark Jaccard to write (to be fair, this is as much of an insult to democracy as it is to the environment), industry asking government for a moratorium on the issuing of new tarsands leases, the Conservation Voters of Alberta report card that put the PC's platform in last place with a "D," and Ed Stelmach making up ludicrous job loss estimates that he says would result from any serious attempt to cap emissions, and then refusing to back these claims up. Does this qualify as "fresh thinking?"   

I'm not necessarily questioning Andrews' environmental convictions (although it does concern me that on the front page of her campaign website she trumpets an endorsement from this guy, who among other things refers to the Kyoto accord as a "socialist wealth transfer scheme"). It's likely she wants to work as an "agent for change" within the PC Party; my contention is that she should have thought this through. Does she think that the environmental goals she's made the centrepiece of her campaign would be best accomplished by her getting elected as a PC and attempting to to single-handedly and drastically shift the course of the most recalcitrant government in the country? Particularly in a province where the head of government (i.e. the premier and his inner circle) is so powerful (relative to even other Canadian governments) and steadfastly promises not to "touch the brake," the likelihood of this happening is basically nil. In fact, I would say that the tendency of several Tory partisans and the party itself to co-opt and parade around candidates like Ms. Andrews and a similar candidate in Calgary (Leah Lawrence) as evidence that they care about the environment does more harm than good to furthering environmental goals.

Looking at her record and ideas, she seems like she would be a good candidate, if she were running for a party that's record demonstrated it actually gives a rat's ass about environment. It's either naïve, disingenuous, careless, or some combination of the three for her to run on the platform she is for the party she is, and for that reason alone I would strongly question supporting her. However, I don't live in Edmonton-Riverview, so she won't have to worry about me...

Now: bring on the comments calling me a partisan Liberal for attacking someone making a challenge to Taft's seat!

Stelmach backs off on allegations of job losses, well sort of...

It seems that Ed Stelmach has finally provided CBC's Kim Trynacity with an answer to the question she posed to during last week's debate - well, sort of...

A new story ('Stelmach oftens job losses statistic in final days of campaign') from the CBC tonight, explains that in response to continued prodding from reporters about the source of his prediction that the Liberal's climate change plan would lead to 300 000 job losses in Alberta, Stelmach modified his orignal statistic to include resulting job losses across Canada. As the CBC explains,

On Tuesday in Calgary, the question arose again, and as Stelmach was formulating an answer, his communications adviser jumped in with some prodding: "Across Canada, make that clear, premier, Alberta and across Canada."

The Tory leader then said, "Yeah, these are 300,000 jobs across the country of Canada, and that's a small amount given the fact that 745,000 jobs rely on the oil and gas industry in the country of Canada."

Before Tuesday's statement, the Progressive Conservatives used the job loss statistic in a news release that attacked the Alberta Liberals' climate change plan, which promises to bring in caps on carbon emissions within five years, and Stelmach quoted the number in a heated debate with an environmentalist.

"The other plan destroys 335,000 jobs. There are 600,000 new Albertans in this province. Do you want to send them back home to other provinces, other countries?" Stelmach said on Feb. 11.

Oh, OKAY. Anyhow, from what I can tell Stelmach still was unable to provide the source for this updated statistic, even though it now seems an extremely miniscule touch more plausible. Hmm...maybe the source is in the taxpayer-funded climate change report the government is refusing to release?

That's right, the CBC has also discovered that the Alberta government has commissioned a report entitled, 'Economic Analysis of Climate Change Abatement Opportunities for Alberta' from Canada's foremost expert on climate change policies, Mark Jaccard. Opportunities, foremost expert - sounds pretty interesting, doesn't it? Well, don't get your hopes up for reading it anytime soon. Although the report was completed in 2006, and the government claims it informed their climate change "strategy," according to the Department of Energy, the report is not "ready" to be released to the public. In my translation of this statement from public-affairs-bureauese, it can only mean one of two things:

1. The Department didn't expect that anyone would be requesting this report anytime soon, and so has not bothered to complete the appropriate spinning processes on said report. Or,

2. The Department fully expected that requests for this report would be made, however has been instructed not to release the report until after the election.

Clearly option #2 is the most plausible explanation. First of all, there is a precedent for this type of behavior.  Sure enough, the department has promised that the report will eventually be released with a full technical briefing. Unfortunately, in Alberta's sad state of democratic affairs, this likely means after the election. Moreover, given Stelmach's penchant for hyperbole and scare-mongering when it comes to climate change, and knowing Jaccard's penchant for sensible yet effective policies, I would wager that if the report does get released it will be after a drawn-out FOIP process complete with heavy sensoring under the guise of 'Advice to Officals,*' or some garbage like that.

* Yes, thanks to Bill 20, anything considered by the government to be "advice to officials" does not have to be released to the public.

UPDATE: Stelmach has finally identified his source for his oft-repeated 300 000 job losses statistic: THERE IS NO SOURCE. It appears that Stelmach confused the Liberals' policy to institute a hard cap at levels determined by industry in consultation with the government by 2013 with the Kyoto accord, which calls for  (now drastic) reductions of GHG to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. I say "it appears" because Stelmach refuses to admit this is what happened,

"Just give it some thought: 600,000 new Albertans in this province of Alberta, bringing back greenhouse gases to the levels of 1990 with all of the growth we've had in every community in the province of Alberta," he told reporters in Lethbridge.

"Three hundred thousand job losses across Canada would be minimal if you look at the number of jobs in the oil and gas industry."

When a reporter suggested he was mistaken, Stelmach asked if he was defending the Liberal policy.

"They clearly said Kyoto-style caps, absolute caps, 1990... I have a very clear understanding of their policy," said Stelmach, a leader often nicknamed "Honest Ed."

Wow. He won't even admit he's wrong!! The Liberals do not say anything about Kyoto, see for yourself. This is such blatant manipulation of facts for the purpose of scarce-mongering I don't even know what to say. Politicians are prone to spin, but would Stelmach's behavior fly anywhere else? What it comes down to is  that Stelmach is using these tactics because he assumes Albertans can't and won't think for themselves and check the facts. He excepts us all to unblinkingly trust him. Albertans deserve better than this. Stelmach should come clean and apologize for willfully misleading the public.  But given that this is Alberta and we LOVE letting politicians get away with this kind of thing, I won't hold my breath.

Science: A 21st Century Menace

Last Tuesday, Rick Mercer blogged about the Harper government's distrust of science and the Canadian scientific community. These sentiments have been echoed (albeit somewhat less humorously) by a recent editorial in Nature, a highly respected science-based periodical. Specifically, since taking office the Conservative government has:

1. Told the independent, non-partisan National Science Adviser, that his services were no longer needed (and replaced his office with a committee comprising of both scientists and several senior-level bureaucrats). As such, the science advising and progess reports the government receives are expected to be 'markely less independent.'
2. Refused to meet with a group of Canadian scientists who had just won the Nobel Peace Prize, because their work was in the area of climate change (a.k.a. Kyoto socialist scheme).
3. Muzzled Environment Canada's scientists and routed all media inquires through the PMO, to ensure the agency stays 'on message.'
4. Finally, this government has continued the trend of underfunding agencies like that National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

Now before I get accused of pining for the lost days of the ivory tower, where academics (a slur to some people) were respected and revered for their infinite knowledge, allow me to lay out some practical repercussions to the Harper war on (independent) science.

First, forward-looking nations that know they cannot compete with the low wages of Asia for manufacturing jobs and are shifting to economies centred on the creation of what is essentially intellectual property. To compete in the global economy, countries increasingly require highly skilled and educated people to innovate and create exportable knowledge and technologies. Support for Canada's scientific community vital if we are to have young Canadians take on these important roles and the continue the development of technologies, commercially applicable and otherwise.

Second, the global imperative of climate change (and probably also the looming fear of peak oil) is creating a burgeoning sustainable energy industry. Scientists and engineers in countries all over the globe (especially those which import oil and gas) are working towards developing cleaner sources of energy and the means to ween ourselves off carbon intensive fuel sources. Relative to most other countries Canada is well positioned to become a leader in the production of exportable clean energy technologies, but at this early stage would be aided greatly by strong leadership from the federal government. Instead, as the Nature article points out, Stephen Harper's government seems content to commit our nation to a fossil-fuel economy (centered on the tar sands). This may create wealth in the short term, but if the Canadian government doesn't encourage the development of other technologies it is all too likely that Canada will be left behind in the transition to the post-carbon economy.

Suncor, Shell, Petro-Canada, Husky and Imperial Oil are officially more environmentally trustworthy than the Alberta Government

You know it's got to be bad when even the OIL COMPANIES are asking for a temporary moratorium on expansion of the oilsands, in order to allow for the creation of conservation areas. What kind of twilight zone must we live in if business is lobbying the government to preserve more land for conservation? This story was originally reported in the Globe and Mail with more detail, but for your convenience I have posted the CBC's summary of the story below:

Companies call for oilsands development freeze: report
Last Updated: Monday, February 25, 2008 | 10:33 AM MT
CBC News

For the first time, major oil producers are calling on the Alberta government to introduce a partial moratorium on oilsands development in the province's north, according to a newspaper report.

Companies including Petro-Canada, Suncor and Shell Canada signed a private letter last month asking the province to freeze land lease licences until 2011 in three areas around Fort McMurray that have not yet been developed, the Globe and Mail said Monday.

The provincial government sells the licences to allow companies to find and produce crude.

"Further granting of new surface and sub-surface rights would continue to reduce the available options for the establishment of new conservation areas that would serve to accomplish a balanced suite of regional outcomes," reads the letter obtained by the newspaper.

The missive is also signed by Environment Canada and environmental group Pembina Institute.

The Globe reported that a majority of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, a group of 46 industry, government and aboriginal members working in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, support the letter.

But at least four major companies that are a part of CEMA, such as Encana and Canadian Natural, rejected the call for a partial moratorium, with Syncrude abstaining from taking a position.

A spokesman from Alberta's Energy Department told the newspaper the government is working on a response, which will likely come after the March 3 provincial election.

UPDATE: Alberta's aboriginal chiefs have also come out in support of a moratorium. Also of note in the story is the Liberal's response  to the initial Globe story. I have yet to see anything from the Tories or the NDs, but will be sure to do so if and when they respond.

UPDATE #2: NEP Alert! Oh no, I spoke too soon. An updated version of the CBC article has Stelmach's response and surprise, surprise he has envoked his memory of the NEP and Trudeau for the third time THIS election.

At a campaign stop in Calgary on Monday, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said he's not surprised by the recommendation but pointed out that support for it is not unanimous.

"Governments do not control the economy," he said. "The last time the economy was controlled by a government was back in the '80s, and it was the federal Trudeau Liberals that I ended up paying 22 per cent interest rates … We're not going back to those dark days."

In the past, Stelmach has said the government shouldn't "touch the brake" of the provincial economy.

He also said the government will not respond until CEMA finalizes its recommendations which are due in June.

Stelmach may be correct to say that governments do not control the economy, but they do control the conditions in which it operates. They set tax rates, allocate public lands for sales and sell mineral leases. They have complete control over these rates and can use them to stimulate or slow under or over performing economies - every jurisdiction in the world does this.

Also, this is pretty hypocritical, given that Stelmach himself revoked OSUM sub-surface lease under Marie Lake last year, explaining that all of Alberta isn't for sale. Hmm... looks like everything is back on the (free) market after all.

Update #3: A longer piece from the Edmonton Journal describing Stelmach's reaction in greater depth, and an updated article from the Herald touching on the NDP's position.

Quick Hit: Rick Mercer on Carbon Capture and Big Oil

This week's series of Rick Mercer Report clips up on CBC have two particularly insightful (not to mention funny) segments worth checking out. First, Rick's Rant has a good point about the state of Canadian and American democracy (in particular, his comments regarding youth). Second, in Stelmach's No Show he calls out Alberta for its willingness to pay Oil Companies $500 million in taxpayer dollars to develop carbon capture and sequestration technology, rather than imposing a carbon tax (which would subscribe to a 'polluter pays' principle).