Show Me the Money

After reading about the tar sands for some time, I think I’ve cut down the clutter to the mainstream argument for their existence. It sounds nice so everyone’s saying it, from the Alberta PR department to the doe-eyed CAPP billboard men to every politician worth his salt. Here it is:
 

1. We need to take a balanced approach to tar sands extraction.
2. We do that by navigating between two extremes.
3. Extreme 1: An industry tempted to profit by cutting corners.
4. Extreme 2: Environmentalists who are rightly offended at the negative impacts of tar sands, but who offer impractical solutions.
5. Solution: “Green” the tar sands. Everyone wins! 

Not surprisingly, I think the argument is weak. For starters, researchers have pointed out that “greening” the tar sands is mostly an exercise in science fiction, wishful thinking or both. But that’s not the real problem here. The real problem is the implicit claim that environmentalists are the equal and opposite counterpoint to the oil industry. Once we accept that, it’s only a matter of time before us famously level-headed Canadians opt for the middle path and buy some BP stock.

So I say, Show me the money. A quick glance at the balance sheets of the parties involved shows that they’re worlds apart on two key levels: structure and motive.

Structurally, you’re comparing the Rebel Alliance to the Empire.

On the environmental side, you have a smattering of often ad hoc groups dependent on foundations and individual donors for support. When they get government funds, they’re for safe things like recycling programs. I work for no money at all, and there’s not much of a pension plan waiting around the corner.

On the industry side, you have a heavily-subsidized product, a slush fund for crap like climate skepticism, well-paid lobbyists, the momentum of the status quo, and co-opted governments that try to buy credibility.  As I write this the Alberta government is preparing to launch a $268,000 ad campaign saying it’s managing the tar sands with prudence and foresight. A few weeks ago the same government bought a Washington Post ad for $56,000 after its op-ed was rejected by the paper.

But the laughable claims of a “well-funded” environmental movement persist. Here’s a basic question: what’s the profit motive for keeping things safe and clean? Sadly, the GDP doesn’t yet factor in rare cancers and dying ecosystems when it tells us it has grown. Thus my crappy paycheque. As for those Sierra Club stocks, they aren’t performing as well as I had hoped…

Next, think of motive.

Sierra Club Canada is fighting for a moratorium on tar sands expansion. What do we have to gain?

As an organization, maybe a little more clout. We could go to our members and demonstrate that we have been successful in one of our longer and harder fought campaigns. As humans, a safer planet. As Canadians, a state not tied to an industry that eats up our land, air, water and international credibility. Financially, nothing at all.  

And what does the oil industry have to gain by expanding as quickly as possible? In the long term, the current rates of water and energy consumption spell self-destruction. But along the way the industry is sure to collect a fair chunk of change – something in the order of billions or trillions of dollars. Even more if it can convince the Alberta government to lower its already-minimal royalty standards.

I guess it’s time for a new mainstream argument. Maybe it should run like this:
 

1. We need to take a balanced approach to tar sands extraction.
2. We do that by navigating between two extremes.
3. Extreme 1: Long-term environmental and economic collapse if we proceed with the status quo.
4. Extreme 2: Economic collapse if we quit our oil addiction cold turkey.  
5. Solution: Manage existing resources to wean off oil dependence with a view to long term environmental and economic stability. Impose a moratorium on tar sands development and start investing in alternatives.

This time, everyone wins for real.