Sorry, folks, but if you care about the environment – the
planet for that matter – your strategy to stop oil pipelines is futile if its
only focus is oil spills on land and sea. You may stop one or two poorly
conceived projects, but you won’t stop industry expansion. There is too much
money to be made in a world that allows carbon pollution to remain largely
unpriced and unconstrained.
Difficult as it is to get the attention of enough people to
influence our political process into acting on climate, there is unfortunately
no other way to win this long-term battle than to focus on the fact that carbon
pollution changes the climate – for the worse – and so we must stop the
expanding extraction of fossil fuels from the earth’s crust. No expansion of oil
sands. No new coal mines. No new delivery infrastructure like pipelines and
coal ports. No aiding and abetting of the carbon pollution that will wreak havoc on the environment everywhere – not just the
environment in the path of pipelines, tankers and trains.
Curiously, one environmental activist sort-of acknowledged
this when she said to me, “We have to focus on local environmental impacts from
oil spills because that’s all the public is interested in. But, yes, I don’t
think we have slowed down fossil fuel expansion – if anything it is
accelerating.” My response? “How can you expect enough people to talk about
climate if even you aren’t talking about it?”
(Note that I keep saying “enough people.” We don’t need 50%
of the population demanding action. If 10% really care and get vocal, then
politicians, ever in pursuit of the swing-voter, have to pay attention – their
survival instincts kick-in.)
While I have been saying this for a long time, the urgency
of the message got stronger this past week with the launch of National Energy
Board hearings into Enbridge’s proposed reversal of an oil pipeline (Line 9) to
move more oil from Alberta’s oil sands east through Ontario and Quebec – again
to aid and abet oil sands expansion. The NEB – and the government, and the oil
industry – only wants to hear evidence and testimony about local impacts. They
don’t want anyone mentioning the fact that the impacts of climate change are
local – everywhere!
Forest Ethics and Donna Sinclair are challenging in court
the rules that the NEB has for allowing evidence and testimony and asked me to
provide an affidavit on the direct causal relationship between oil sands,
pipelines, climate change and environmental impacts everywhere, which obviously
includes people living near the pipeline – and far from the pipeline. In it I
explain how all of the world’s leading, independent energy-economy modeling
institutes show that the promise of Stephen Harper and other global leaders to
not allow temperature increases greater than 2 C is completely inconsistent
with expansion of oil sands, coal mines and other fossil fuel projects that
lead to carbon pollution. Take a look and if you like it, please pass on to
others.
This is spot on. This is an argument that I find most environmentalists are afraid to make for fear of being tuned out. Yes, they may be, but unless we start normalizing the climate ethics discussion, we will not gain ground.
ReplyDeleteExcellent article! For many people pipelines have been the foray into the energy debate but increasingly I am seeing the move to a conversation about climate. We will get there. Thanks for reminding us!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely Mark, but as an intervenor in the recently completed Enbridge hearings, I quickly noticed that the only way to keep speaking was to "colour within the lines" and make no mention of the source, i.e. the oil sands and climate change- otherwise the panel would cut you off. So it has turned into a game of Whack-a Mole, in which any interested party is forced to battle each hare-brained pipeline proposal as it 'pops up' its ugly head.
ReplyDeleteSo the hunt is on for a systematically applied method of;
ReplyDelete- reducing fuel consumption say by 25% or more [keeping us within conventional oil production sources = no oil sands oil needed = no pipelines needed]
- furthermore if this system would sequester the water soluble GHG's [along with the 1:1 of produced water vapor from combustion of a gallon of fuel] from the engines exhaust after being so equipped from conversion onward and,
- the essentials of the design needs to be grounded in simple applied scientific principles which most anyone can understand and believe.
Would you this has already been designed? With fundamental R&D also started.
Ready for the final drive to completion.
Re; http://wecando101.tripod.com/
Greetings I am so grateful I found your website, I really found you by accident, while I was
ReplyDeletelooking on Aol for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just like to say many thanks for a
incredible post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design),
I don’t have time to browse it all at the moment but I have book-marked it and also added
your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be
back to read much more, Please do keep up the superb jo.
My site: what is wilderness survival