No Oil on These Troubled Waters

This "discussion" about oil pipelines, oil prices and Alberta's place in Confederation is really shifting into high gear.  

The issue, as everyone in Canada surely knows, is that Alberta hasn't been able to get its oil to markets, at least to "other" markets, specifically to places other than to the USA, and, as a consequence, there is a backlog of oil that can't get shipped and there is a price discount because there is an oil glut and the matter of the difficulty of refining the tarry stuff that the tar (aka: oil) sands produces.....  It's a significant issue in Alberta and lots is being said about it.  So.

First, let's take a quick look at some assertions about how important Alberta oil is to the Canadian economy.

I've been told, by a few people who should know, and by some politicians who ought to know, that the energy sector is 20% of Canada's GDP.  

All I could find was this:  The total value of the energy sector is 10% of Canada's GDP.   That includes everything - gas stations, electricity, oil and gas, everything related to energy.  Oil and gas contribute about 4% of Canada's GDP and the oil sands is a mere 2% of GDP.

So my question is why do some people seemingly overstate the value of the oil sands sector, in particular, to the Canadian economy?  It's important to Alberta and Saskatchewan, absolutely, and it does contribute to Canada's overall economy, but it's a long ways from being the only game in town.  And as for jobs, the energy sector as a whole generates 2.6% of direct employment to the Canadian economy.

If you want to see how this compares with the auto industry, you can get some information here.

According to the Parkland Institute, the Big Five in the Oil Sands (eg: Suncor, Cenovus, CNRL) had net profit rates above 13.5% in 2017 (Cenovus was closer to 19%).  Which raises the question: Why do taxpayers subsidize the oil and gas industry to the tune of billions each year?  

Canada contributes about $3.3B to the oil and gas sector in various types of subsidies each year.  The article also considers what other uses such money could be put to.  World-wide, subsidies amounted to about $375B in 2015.  On December 17th, 2018, the Federal Government announced another $1.6B in aid (subsidies) to the oil sector.  One would hope this won't be just more money poured into a black hole as was done with the auto sector back in 2008.

So why, given their obvious profitability and the subsidies courtesy the Canadian taxpayer, why are we still paying any attention to cries for help in propping up these businesses?

And given the urgency of dealing with climate change, why are energy companies allowed to expand oil sands production?  The Parkland Institute's article considers that matter as well.

Jim Crow by the Back Door

The New Jim Crow - Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

by Michelle Alexander

Many statistics would seem to bear out the author's contention that the War on Drugs (itself, a failed policy) has served to "keep blacks in their place", essentially in the same way that slavery, and later, the Jim Crow laws, served to do.

As the NAACP's website shows:

• Between 1980 and 2015, the number of people incarcerated in America increased from roughly 500,000 to over 2.2 million.
• Today, the United States makes up about 5% of the world’s population and has 21% of the world’s prisoners.
• 1 in every 37 adults in the United States, or 2.7% of the adult population, is under some form of correctional supervision.
• In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population.
• African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites.

As the author points out, a very large proportion of those people in prison ended up there as a result of a conviction for minor drug offenses - possession of marijuana, for example.  And most of them caught up in this have been blacks, despite the fact that drug use is at least as prevalent among white people.  The way the War on Drugs has been enforced has disproportionately targeted blacks, especially young, black, males.

This has had a major impact on black communities across America.  Reduced access to education, housing, jobs and even the right to vote. 

The New York Times posted this review....

As they say: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Who You Gonna Believe?

When it comes to most matters, especially anything to do with science, it would appear that there's at least one person you can't rely on:



Keep in mind, this report was issued by the American government's own people.

Some have expressed this lack of confidence more directly, as reported in this article from the Huffington Post.  This fake Time cover does seem to go well with the article, though.

Unquestioning supporters are unmoved, apparently.  As the sign in the picture puts it: "Make the Earth Flat Again".  Good luck with that.

Mass Shooting in _______, USA, Kills _____.

In recognition of the regular occurrence of such events south of the 49th, The Beaverton has made available a fillable form, as a public service ....

Mass Shooting in USA Kills....

The Three Stooges Meet Dumb & Dumber

In a recent edition, Maclean's paraded what it chose to call "The Resistance" on its front cover.  Very quickly, some wag changed the image to something else.

Personally, I like a different version that appeared shortly after.  Let's call spades, spades, after all.  

This is the bunch, at least here in Canada, that is spearheading the fight against dealing with climate change.  Taking the Federal Government to court to challenge the imposed carbon tax.  Let's face it.  These boys aren't "The Resistance", they're The Obstructionists.

There are so many reports coming out, so much research that's been done over the past couple of decades, it's just astonishing that anyone, especially anyone who aspires to political leadership, could take such positions in this day and age.

What we've been learning recently is that forecasts about the future effects of climate change have been, if anything, far too conservative, if I can use that word.  

Of course, the cynics/realists among us will know that these boys aren't taking their positions because of any great principles, but rather because they believe they can profit from political opportunism.  It's all about gaining power.

Face it, boys.  That's not leadership.

Better Late Than Never

I should have made this decision months ago.  Perhaps years ago.  I can only attribute my inaction to my Irish heritage which stereotypically enjoys a good argument.

What I refer to is the endless arguments with people on social media (anti-social, more like it) about a range of topics, but principally climate change.

Some call these people "climate change skeptics". I wouldn't be that kind.  Being skeptical is useful.  All good people of science are skeptical, accepting the conclusions of others only after examining the evidence, perhaps after trying to replicate experiments themselves.

My choice of term would be "climate change denier".  These people are in complete denial about almost everything that's happening in the environment, specifically as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Their arguments cover the gamut, from "it isn't happening", to "humans aren't causing it", to "the climate is always changing, this is nothing new", to "volcanoes give off more gases than humans do", to "Canada is carbon neutral"....but you get the idea, and I'm sure you've heard all of them, many times.

If you want to look at a more complete list of all the excuses climate change deniers make as they pretend nothing is happening, you can look here:  Most Used Climate Myths

Consequently, this is where we are now, decades after the problem was first observed and the first warning signs were apparent to those who were looking:

One point that's been made quite often recently is that it is nearly impossible to change people's point of view, especially when the new information challenges their world view.

So, as I alluded to earlier, I've made a decision.  I'm not going to bother engaging with such people.  People who haven't bothered to even become acquainted with the available information.  After all, it's not like convincing these people will actually change anything, right?  Efforts would be better expended lobbying politicians and businesses to make the changes that are necessary to our survival.

As for social media discussions, my tactic will be to simply block such people.  It's a waste of time arguing with them, they are impervious to facts and information, so I can't see the point in engaging with them and giving them the platform to repeat the same nonsense.  It's the 21st Century, after all. 

Should have done it months ago.

Why Scheer Should Never Be Prime Minister

This article lays it out pretty clearly.

Scheer’s promise to ‘stand up’ to media an absurd fundraising ploy

Recognizing the costs of Climate Change

It's something that quite a few businesses have been coming to grips with for some years now - the costs of Climate Change.

We hear constantly that either climate change is a hoax or that it's been changing for centuries and this is no different, or that doing anything about climate change will be too expensive or will cost jobs, and so on.

The reality is that many businesses have been dealing with the costs of climate change and know that it's only going to get worse.

This recent story lays out the issue - "Destructive weather prompting corporate rethink on ignoring costs of climate change"

If you read some of the comments, you will see that there is a lot of wishful thinking and a lack of understanding about economics and physics.  Not much new in those.

A New Way of Displaying Hot

In the quest to find better ways to display climate data, a researcher in the UK has come up with "bar code charts".

The complete article can be found here.

The bar code charts look like this:

Each bar represents the average temperature for one year.  

Of interest are bar code graphs for more northern locations.  Average temperatures in those locations have been increasing more rapidly than further south.

A Bit About Trade

Most of the developed world seems to be at each other's metaphorical throats over trade.  Who has the surplus, who might be "taking advantage" of whom....

One respected business publication, Bloomberg, writes about "The $1.4 Trillion "Surplus" That Trump Isn't Talking About".  In a nutshell, the article argues that the USA does not have an overall deficit in trade with China, for example.

  "U.S. companies have sold more to the rest of the world than other countries have sold to the U.S. in the past ten years," writes chief China economist Zhang Zhiwei in the report.

Other economists argue that Trump is factually incorrect in his Twitter trade tirades, in this case against Canada.  

Derek Holt, vice-president of Scotiabank Economics, said the "thought processes" at the core of the U.S. administration are not grounded in "reason, diplomacy or facts."

Milk seems to be a particularly touchy point for Trump, even though Canada's supply management system is one that many American dairy farmers which they had.

The Guardian ran an article about the milk issue recently: Why Canadian Milk Infuriates Donald Trump. 

Trump’s latest trade war target is Canada’s protected dairy industry. But Canadians have no intention of abandoning it – because it works

Occasionally there are those who try to use humour (or humor, in this case) to describe the currrent situation.  The Washington Post recently published an opinion piece titled: "Finally, A president with the guts to stand up to Canada" 

O Canada: You had it coming, eh.
They inflicted Nickelback on us. We did nothing.
They sent us Justin Bieber. We turned the other cheek.
They were responsible for one abomination after the other: Poutine. Diphthong vowels. Hawaiian pizza. Instant mashed potatoes. Ted Cruz.
Still, we did not retaliate — until now.

How Capitalism Works - one more view

Appearing in The Guardian recently, this review of yet another book on Capitalism, which the authors refer to as a ruinous economic system that benefits a minority class.

A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things, by Patel & Moore

Patel and Moore’s essential argument is that the history of capitalism, and therefore of our current mess, can be usefully viewed through the lens of cheapness. (An earlier, more knottily theoretical work of eco-Marxism by Moore, Capitalism in the Web of Life, argues that “cheap nature” is as central an imperative of capitalism as cheap labour.) The seven “things” of their misleadingly clickbaity title are not objects or consumer products, so much as conceptual categories: nature, money, work, care, food, energy and lives. 

More grist for the mill. 

Orwellian Logic - Alive and Well in Canada

Although there are a large number of tired old arguments that are trotted out denying human-caused climate change and insisting that there's nothing we can do about it, empirical evidence clearly shows otherwise.

For more information about such denial claims, there is this: Denial Claims.

With the silliness between Alberta and BC over the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, the issue of climate change mostly remains in the background.  Terms like "national interest" and "jobs" dominate the headlines, but the impacts of more tar sands expansion on our changing climate are avoided.  

In fact, the current Liberal Government's decision to give the Kinder Morgan project the green light is in direct opposition to what we need to be doing to deal with Climate Change.

One author who has been involved in this issue for many years has called this Orwellian Logic.

Trudeau's Orwellian Logic: We Reduce Emissions by Increasing Them

There are very few economic arguments that make such an expansion a good idea.  This article examines the main arguments.

In another article that appeared in The Tyee recently: Only Fantasies, Desperation and Wishful Thinking Keep Pipeline Plans Alive.

Just as one example of what often happens when the oil industry is finished with their pillage is described in this story.  You'd think Alberta would want to clean up its own mess before passing the potential of even more on to other provinces.

Here in BC, we don't want another pipeline and more tanker traffic.  It's not needed, it's not in the national interest and only makes our current problems worse.

A New Direction for Power Companies?

An interesting article that discusses a new direction for power companies.

Power Companies Have Resisted Climate Policy.  Now it Might be Their Only Hope.

Just one more change that's coming.

Monastery Fire in Lhasa

In the fall of 2016, Joel and I spent a week in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, on our way to Nepal.

One of the numerous sites we visited was the Jokhang Monastery, located in the center of the city and one of the most sacred  sites for Tibetan Buddhism.  These three pictures were taken on our visit to the Monastery and we walked around the area several times while we were in Lhasa.

On Saturday evening, February 17th, 2018, a fire caused some damage to the Monastery.  This story was posted on BBC News.

Just another blow to the cultural identity of the beleaguered Tibetans in that country.

Deranged Spat Between Alberta and BC

Yes.  Deranged is possibly the best way to describe this schoolyard spat.

The new pipeline was approved awhile back, subject to 157 conditions.  I don't know what the 157 conditions are, but the Government certainly spent some time acting as a cheerleader for the project.

The pipeline is expected to triple the amount of bitumen arriving on the Lower Mainland and there is approval to increase the number of tankers from about 5 to 34 per month.

BC's NDP Government took a slightly different view, stating that bitumen shipments through BC would be limited until further study clarified whether the stuff could be cleaned up when there is a spill.  As a resident of BC, I don't see this as excessively unreasonable.

Alberta's Premier decided that going ballistic was the best reaction.

B.C.’s move was met with condemnation by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, who has long championed the pipeline to get Alberta crude to new markets.  “Having run out of tools in the toolbox, the government of B.C. is now grasping at straws,” said Notley, calling the proposal rash, illegal and unconstitutional.

She followed that up by putting off talks on the purchase of electricity from BC and ordering Alberta's liquor commission to stop importing BC wine.

Opinion and reaction has been, predictably, mixed, depending on the commentator's place of residence.  A U of A scientist, however, took this view.

The Prime Minister was jeered at a Nanaimo town hall meeting by people opposed to the pipeline.

Some BC reaction has been more polite, but still resolutely opposed to the project.  It views this proposed project as a desperate attempt to fix decades of resource management in Alberta.  The project, of course, places nearly all of the risk on BC.

And, as the article points out, we're not even getting much as a nation for going the pipeline route.

If we are selling out core Canadian values like aspiring to be a global leader on climate policy, let’s at least negotiate a decent price. But as usual Canada seems to get very little for exploitation by others of our vast resource endowment.

There are many good reasons to oppose this project: more development of fossil fuel projects is incompatible with what's needed to tackle climate change; low global oil prices have impacted Alberta, certainly, but adding more oil to the global supply will not help that situation; reduced demand is coming but a pipeline almost guarantees another 30 years of business as usual and could very well give us an enormous white elephant in the bargain as demand declines.

It is beyond ironic to recall the time when Trudeau Sr brought in the National Energy Program "in the National interest", a program that was hated in Alberta.  The National Interest is now being used by oil industry supporters to promote this pipeline project.  Really?  really?

Perhaps it's time to draw a line in the sand.

[Postscript] - Since the real issue here is climate change and the expanded use of fossil fuels, this article in the National Observer was appropriate and worth reading.