Reboot Alberta

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Mythosphere and Stelmach's Washington Speech on Oil Sands

I read Premier’s Stelmach’s speech to the Energy Forum in Washington yesterday. I see some of the media framing a specific issue from the speech and amplifying it for effect. I am not complaining because the MSM has often been able to decide what the “news” is and what isn’t. They used to get to decide that for the rest of us before Blogs came along.

The story line this time is that there is an alleged “myth” that “…oil sands production comes at too high an environmental cost.” According to Premier Stelmach the myth is gaining traction and he notes that some quarters in the US are trying to slow down or even stop oil sands development…and the Premier said he sees that as unrealistic.

The truth is that while we have a start and maybe our hearts are in the right place, we are not doing enough to mitigate or avoid environmental degradation in our energy industry. Government has bee too cosy with the industry and not doing it job. It is not just about jobs, as important as they are. It is not just about creating those jobs, as important as they are. It is about responsible and sustainable development that enhances the environment while we create wealth. Either or is old school and not enough any more.

I don’t see any Alberta politician of any party, including the Greens, articulating this reality with authenticity and authority that presents an informed and genuine concern.

Stelmach touched on some key points in the rest of the Washington speech. He said we have the only significantly large and proven reserves where there is substantial and growing supply development in a country with a stable government and proximity to the US market. If the Americans don’t want the oil then the Asians will. These are facts and market realities - not threats.

There were much more interesting and balanced aspects to the speech than these obvious facts that Alberta is the key to secure, reliable and economical continental energy supply.

On the environmental side, Stelmach suggested the pending California Low Carbon Fuel Standard must be designed to facilitate environmentally friendly investment at the point of production. That is a positive suggestion of using technology and innovation as a way to adapt the industry and the market to reach the desired carbon targets.

Stelmach then states the key policy position that has been overlooked when the MSM take of the story was decided. He said “The bottom line is: in Alberta, we do not proceed with development at the expense of the environment.” That policy statement is not as supported by the facts as it ought to be. It is currently under dispute with the recently launched Federal Court Appeal of the Imperial Oil Kearl oil sands project approval by the EUB.
There was commentary about government and industry working together to ensure quality standards for land, air and water. There is a long way to go to getting this policy and regulation right and we are far form doing the job needed on water use, land reclamation and air quality. But Alberta is actively engaged and not an eco-rogue state. The question is, are we engaged and focused and forceful enough on the bigger ecological demands or doing just enough to save face but not the planet?

The oil sands are about to become a geopolitical football at so many levels. It is going to take a strong focused and determined political leader to ensure we take and keep a long view of responsible and sustainable development of this resource. The goal is not to get rich at any cost. The goal has to be to exploit this resource opportunity in ways that serves the societal needs of the province and the energy needs of the continent. Albertan’s development of their oil sands has to go way beyond those goals and ultimately serve the higher integrated ecological imperatives of the planet.

Nothing less is acceptable.

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:52 am

    You make a good point in dismissing the oilsands myth. Unfortunetly, Mr. Stelmach is so inept that he could screw up the defence of the oilpatch. It is too bad that we have such an inarticulate boob as premier.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:00 am

    Do you support a carbon tax?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:36 am

    "I am not complaining because the MSM has often been able to decide what the “news” is and what isn’t. They used to get to decide that for the rest of us before Blogs came along."

    Well, I am still complaining. The problem at hand is MSM is more of a "push" information source, while blogs are still a "pull" source. Whether or not you subscribe to the paper, you will see headlines as you stand by the bus-stop, or catch a soundbite carefully crafted by a TV producer as you flip channels and catch the news.

    With respect to blogs, you must actively seek out the information there, and therein lies the continued advantage of the MSM. There is a reason that CanWest Global, NewsCorp, and Bell - to name only a few - try to consolidate the various mainstream sources of news in a particular market.

    Blogs will help to shake off the shackles imposed by the MSM, but only when people realize there is an alternate source. I think this is changing for the better, but like a lot of things, change comes slowly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:55 pm

    Ken,

    Not to be overly dramatic but there are a number of things that need comment here:

    1. Remember Love Canal and Bopal? Those were 'environmental' wake up calls to the Chemical industry. They were astute enough to understand that their ability to remain in business (successfully) was threatened and AS AN INDUSTRY they were the first to establish Cradle to Grave environmental responsibility... it was an amazing, radical and effective move at a time when EVERYONE in government was stuck in an old environmental way of thinking.... THE OIL SANDS are in a similar situation.....

    2.The USA is looking for a way to lock Canada out on many fronts... listen to the campagne rethoric.... why not dirty oil? They are agressively pursuing alternate energy strategies... California is the least of it.

    3. CHINA and INDIA are saying that the WEST needs to pony up on environmental responsibility that could mean a)pay for better standards and technology OR b)it could mean "you guys suffer the pollution of producing energy and raw materials while we get ourselves caught up.." Frankly, the ENERGY INDUSTRY is happy to continue a part of their efforts as business as usual where they are able.... Full disclosure here, yes I own energy stocks!
    Future economic prosperity lines in innovation on the themes of our strength... not protection of slow incremental changes to our current approaches...

    4. Alberta is smug and complacent on the energy front... civil servants that should know better have been heard to say that "WE are set for economic prosperity for the next 300 years, as long as nothing gets in our way" (what environmental mal-contents?) Almost every other continent is moving further and faster on the energy technology front... while OUR people are thinking about supporting conventional oil and gas, oilsands,fisson and fusion,(full stop) sigh... it may come to nuclear for some base load for Ft.Mac industries.... but at least be scientificially sound,and locally in touch about it!!!

    5. The 2 main topics at DAVOS world economic forum this January are: energy and sustainability... this is not the first time environment and various aspects of its relationship to world economies has come up at DAVOS.

    6. Alberta Gov't has worked hard with reduced resources to "protect the environment" using market mechanisms....YET THE RESULTS ARE NOT GOOD...
    I have yet to meet more than a half a dozen people employed, in any area, by the Government that have any real idea about how a business market works in reality....a few more have passing knowledge of economics... Even fewer have an overall grasp of the environment... while these good people have a much better grasp of details about various aspects of each of these things... what is lacking is integrative thinkers that can frame policy responses that are sensitive to goegraphy, local social issues, business practices and scale...

    5. HUGE AMOUNTS of time an money are spent in Alberta (by the private sector to do and by gov't to review) doing EIA, site assessments, phase 1 + phase 2 environmental reviews, etc.... way less $$$ are spent seeing that there is follow up or that the conditions and things at risk are addressed in the landscape....
    ....If what we are doing is not getting good results, why continue to do the same thing... fiddling and fussing to refine the process.... RETHINK the situation.

    6. Stelmach needs to take a more solid stand with the future thinkers to show his authentic committment to environmental concerns.... and I believe he has authentic commitment to some env. concerns... people just need to see what he is protecting and what he is giving up for economic security... we are pretty much all pragmatic are we not?
    No one in their right mind that has visited the oilsands could believe that this government is "protecting" anything in that area except the business interests.... So in order for us to see the very good environmental work that HAS been done in the Ft. Mac area, yes a lot has been done, ED needs to come clean with what we are doing and what we are NOT doing and going to do.... eg 'we are writing off these X acres in this area for Y years for economic prosperity... under conditions that: Z reclaimation is done by the companies involved;that XX number of species indigenous to the area will be protected and enhanced in these corridors and blocks of land; that YY amounts and qualities of the surface water will not be compromised; that ground water resources will not drop below ZZ levels or become further contaminated.... well you get my general idea....ANYTHING ELSE will seem disingenuous...
    then let industry and the public figure out how together... we all will know what needs to be achieved and where the limits are ... the $$$ can role into the economy and the oil can role out... up until those limits are tested...then the gov't env. cops are required...

    THE PLANET NEEDS CLEARBSIGNALS SO THAT it is seen to be in businesses best interest to find ways to make living systems function better... not JUST a cop dedicated to serving and protecting carbon reduction gods.... carbon is the environmental bully on the block... there is way more to human survival on this planet...


    OK so I have run into a hot button and blown off steam!!! fondly, I thank you for the opening.

    greengirl

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are