True to form, Stephen Harper is busily soundproofing our democracy.
The quieter it is, the better he likes it.
The government of Canada (excuse me, the Harper government), is now trying to impose closure on the environmental movement.
No one should be surprised. Why would the Conservatives treat people who are against the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline any differently than they treat opposition MPs, independent public watchdogs, public servants, courageous scientists, labour unions, pro-wheat board farmers or pesky journalists?
In Stephen Harper’s attack-ad universe, it is perverse to oppose the Great Navigator’s plans. All government ministers know what is expected of them in such circumstances. In Jason Kenney versus Chiquita Inc., for example, the minister said he had eaten his last banana because the company announced it wanted to try and avoid our sludgy treasure in business operations. Now that the world’s greatest newspaper has editorialized against the Keystone XL Pipeline and praised President Obama for backing away from it, I guess Kenney has read his last New York Times – assuming he ever read his first.
To be sure, there are different views on the pipeline. But this week’s outburst by the prime minister established a new low in the government’s blitzkrieg against dissent. He has already done with our foreign policy, now it’s the turn of domestic energy policy. The prime minister painted environmentalists as radicals funded by nefarious foreign organizations. Out-of-country money supporting the pipeline appears to be fine. That’s not just about holding a different view. It is about undermining political debate in Canada.
Here is the government’s position endorsed, applauded and advanced by stooges in Con Media Inc., believers in the coming Ice Age, and Michele Bachmann. Stung by the American postponement of Keystone, Stephen Harper is now determined to get tar sands oil to market through Canada. The end user is China, a country whose human rights record raises an interesting question. Is oil still ethical when it is being sold to a country that murdered 45 million of its own people in a four-year period, crushed the Tibetans, massacred its protesting students and sustains the latest incarnation of Dear Leader in North Korea?
The absurdity of the ethical oil argument, advanced by amiable cranks and industry toadies, is past rational comment. It is just another sordid attempt to make the elephant in the room disappear by creating a diversion. That said, it is true that the government’s endorsement of the project carries some big, immediate benefits. There is no doubt that jobs will be created, an argument that is already resonating in work-hungry British Columbia. The companies with big investments in the tar sands will also reap billions of dollars in profits. As for governments who spend our money faster than they take it from us, there is a particularly attractive incentive to remain fossil heads – $485 billion in expected royalties and taxes from development of the tar sands. This is the economy-is-king argument.
It has its merits, but it is not the only argument – and that of course is the point. The tar sands produce the dirtiest oil on the planet – measurably dirtier than traditional oil sources. That’s why the European Commission assigned tar sands oil such a poor ranking on their fuel standards scale. It is 19.5 grams per megajoule dirtier with respect to CO2 emissions than traditional oil. Yet Ottawa says anyone who acts on this information is “discriminating” against Alberta oil. See why we’re still selling asbestos?
The tar sands goes through fresh water like there’s no tomorrow – and there may not be one for the Athabaska River. In just one year, the tar sands used 48.7 billion gallons of fresh water to tease oil from solid bitumen, more than the water consumption of the entire U.S. oil industry, which uses water to cool refineries. Ninety percent of tar sands water never goes back into the river, but ends up in toxic lakes that dot the northern Alberta countryside. That countryside may be devoid of boreal caribou in 40 years if an Alberta government report has it right about the effect on wildlife of tearing up two tons of soil to produce one barrel of oil over and over again. This is the what-the-hell-are-we-doing-to-the-planet argument.
The economy-is-king argument draws strength from its core premise that economic development trumps everything else. It dismisses rather than persuades it critics. The what-the-hell-are-we-doing-to-the-planet argument assesses the economic benefits against the cost of the tar sands. It attempts to win over the uncommitted by a public discussion on the impacts of development, both short and long term. It is a case of retail versus hobnail politics.
And that is why this is a no-win situation for the federal government. The government can’t afford to talk to people who don’t support it; it can only incite people who already believe what it believes.
Everyone knows that this prime minister hasn’t the slightest interest in learning anything from the third party, “independent” hearings into Northern Gateway. That is why his government is already complaining that our environmental assessment process is broken before a single intervenor was heard. More information can only challenge the government’s largely ideological case that Gateway is a good idea. The extent to which the Harper government has already abandoned the environment is clear – ending Kyoto, CO2 emissions up 7 percent in Canada since the Tories came to power, the use of public money to launder the tar sands image, and a resoundingly Luddite response to alternative energy.
As the regulatory process which began yesterday in British Columbia proceeds, the Harper government will run squarely into what the PM calls radicals, environmentalists and foreign plots out to “highjack” a Canadian project. Other people may see it as a battle for the soul of British Columbia. Ottawa doesn’t want to talk about the ferry that sank in the waters that tar sands tankers will be navigating if the project proceeds. It doesn’t want to talk about what would happen to the one thousand pristine streams and rivers the pipeline will cross and what will happen to any of them if there’s a major spill. It refuses to debate the effect of the pipeline on the lives of First Nations People who would rather have salmon in their rivers than oil.
And that leaves the prime minister with the same thing to talk about as he always has whenever anyone disagrees with the world according to Steve – the treachery of his adversaries in raising their voices in dissent. A few weeks back it was the European Commission, then it was Chiquita Banana, now it’s environmentalists and interfering foreigners, after the budget it could be aggrieved public servants. There is always someone to cut out from the rest of the herd, to scapegoat, and vilify in the hope that other Canadians will turn against them without hearing what they have to say.
The Harper bottom line: Robert Redford is the main problem with the Northern Gateway Pipeline. No, really.
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
The quieter it is, the better he likes it.
The government of Canada (excuse me, the Harper government), is now trying to impose closure on the environmental movement.
No one should be surprised. Why would the Conservatives treat people who are against the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline any differently than they treat opposition MPs, independent public watchdogs, public servants, courageous scientists, labour unions, pro-wheat board farmers or pesky journalists?
In Stephen Harper’s attack-ad universe, it is perverse to oppose the Great Navigator’s plans. All government ministers know what is expected of them in such circumstances. In Jason Kenney versus Chiquita Inc., for example, the minister said he had eaten his last banana because the company announced it wanted to try and avoid our sludgy treasure in business operations. Now that the world’s greatest newspaper has editorialized against the Keystone XL Pipeline and praised President Obama for backing away from it, I guess Kenney has read his last New York Times – assuming he ever read his first.
To be sure, there are different views on the pipeline. But this week’s outburst by the prime minister established a new low in the government’s blitzkrieg against dissent. He has already done with our foreign policy, now it’s the turn of domestic energy policy. The prime minister painted environmentalists as radicals funded by nefarious foreign organizations. Out-of-country money supporting the pipeline appears to be fine. That’s not just about holding a different view. It is about undermining political debate in Canada.
Here is the government’s position endorsed, applauded and advanced by stooges in Con Media Inc., believers in the coming Ice Age, and Michele Bachmann. Stung by the American postponement of Keystone, Stephen Harper is now determined to get tar sands oil to market through Canada. The end user is China, a country whose human rights record raises an interesting question. Is oil still ethical when it is being sold to a country that murdered 45 million of its own people in a four-year period, crushed the Tibetans, massacred its protesting students and sustains the latest incarnation of Dear Leader in North Korea?
The absurdity of the ethical oil argument, advanced by amiable cranks and industry toadies, is past rational comment. It is just another sordid attempt to make the elephant in the room disappear by creating a diversion. That said, it is true that the government’s endorsement of the project carries some big, immediate benefits. There is no doubt that jobs will be created, an argument that is already resonating in work-hungry British Columbia. The companies with big investments in the tar sands will also reap billions of dollars in profits. As for governments who spend our money faster than they take it from us, there is a particularly attractive incentive to remain fossil heads – $485 billion in expected royalties and taxes from development of the tar sands. This is the economy-is-king argument.
It has its merits, but it is not the only argument – and that of course is the point. The tar sands produce the dirtiest oil on the planet – measurably dirtier than traditional oil sources. That’s why the European Commission assigned tar sands oil such a poor ranking on their fuel standards scale. It is 19.5 grams per megajoule dirtier with respect to CO2 emissions than traditional oil. Yet Ottawa says anyone who acts on this information is “discriminating” against Alberta oil. See why we’re still selling asbestos?
The tar sands goes through fresh water like there’s no tomorrow – and there may not be one for the Athabaska River. In just one year, the tar sands used 48.7 billion gallons of fresh water to tease oil from solid bitumen, more than the water consumption of the entire U.S. oil industry, which uses water to cool refineries. Ninety percent of tar sands water never goes back into the river, but ends up in toxic lakes that dot the northern Alberta countryside. That countryside may be devoid of boreal caribou in 40 years if an Alberta government report has it right about the effect on wildlife of tearing up two tons of soil to produce one barrel of oil over and over again. This is the what-the-hell-are-we-doing-to-the-planet argument.
The economy-is-king argument draws strength from its core premise that economic development trumps everything else. It dismisses rather than persuades it critics. The what-the-hell-are-we-doing-to-the-planet argument assesses the economic benefits against the cost of the tar sands. It attempts to win over the uncommitted by a public discussion on the impacts of development, both short and long term. It is a case of retail versus hobnail politics.
And that is why this is a no-win situation for the federal government. The government can’t afford to talk to people who don’t support it; it can only incite people who already believe what it believes.
Everyone knows that this prime minister hasn’t the slightest interest in learning anything from the third party, “independent” hearings into Northern Gateway. That is why his government is already complaining that our environmental assessment process is broken before a single intervenor was heard. More information can only challenge the government’s largely ideological case that Gateway is a good idea. The extent to which the Harper government has already abandoned the environment is clear – ending Kyoto, CO2 emissions up 7 percent in Canada since the Tories came to power, the use of public money to launder the tar sands image, and a resoundingly Luddite response to alternative energy.
As the regulatory process which began yesterday in British Columbia proceeds, the Harper government will run squarely into what the PM calls radicals, environmentalists and foreign plots out to “highjack” a Canadian project. Other people may see it as a battle for the soul of British Columbia. Ottawa doesn’t want to talk about the ferry that sank in the waters that tar sands tankers will be navigating if the project proceeds. It doesn’t want to talk about what would happen to the one thousand pristine streams and rivers the pipeline will cross and what will happen to any of them if there’s a major spill. It refuses to debate the effect of the pipeline on the lives of First Nations People who would rather have salmon in their rivers than oil.
And that leaves the prime minister with the same thing to talk about as he always has whenever anyone disagrees with the world according to Steve – the treachery of his adversaries in raising their voices in dissent. A few weeks back it was the European Commission, then it was Chiquita Banana, now it’s environmentalists and interfering foreigners, after the budget it could be aggrieved public servants. There is always someone to cut out from the rest of the herd, to scapegoat, and vilify in the hope that other Canadians will turn against them without hearing what they have to say.
The Harper bottom line: Robert Redford is the main problem with the Northern Gateway Pipeline. No, really.
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
No comments:
Post a Comment