In order for BC residents to get some bucks back in their pockets, they need an oil spill.
If you think about it, logically, there would be several benefits for residents in the case of an oil spill. Think about all the homeless and jobless people that could be given work and taught better values through being hired to clean up the spilled oil. Think about all the publicity the BC coast would get, which would attract tourists in the long term. Or, even better, think about the out-of-work fishermen who could assist in the cleanup of the oil slicks formed across the ocean’s surface.
Of course, that’s not what business interests are promoting, but our ignorance would certainly be their bliss.
Opponents of the Northern Gateway Pipeline project are debating about economic benefit versus economic detriment. But are monetary probabilities really the most important concerns? These money issues are just a distraction.
Enbridge and the government have done a great job of taking the public’s eyes away from what really matters and, in effect, robbed it of its power. We could argue about money all day and never come to any shared conclusion. More important moral and ethical concerns in building a 1,100-kilometre pipeline across some of the world’s most sensitive ecological landscapes have been brushed under the rug.
Figures have come out regarding losses and gains in the case of an oil spill. UBC Fisheries crunched Enbridge’s numbers and claim if there is no oil spill the project will produce a net economic gain of $628 million, if there is a minor oil spill it will produce $439 million, and even in the case of a major spill it would still produce $320 million in economic gains. This does not include clean-up costs, which are estimated at anywhere between $2.4 billion and $9.6 billion and would wipe out any potential gains.
(The UBC study was partly paid for by a group opposing the pipeline, although UBC says the group had no input in the study; Enbridge has taken issue with the study, saying it compares economic benefits that are likely to occur against oil spills that aren’t as likely to occur.)
Obviously, the point being emphasized by Enbridge is that even if a horrific oil spill occurs, there’s no need to worry: there will still be economic gains, and all will be okay.
Early in the debate the negative impact an oil spill would have on the west coast environment and people’s lifestyles gave the people the power to truly stamp this project into the ground. Over the course of the project’s development these issues have been overlooked as too impossible to find a solution to, and money was ushered to the front stage as the glitzy star.
Don’t be tricked into believing the hype around economic gains and losses. There are more important concerns to think about than just economic ones. It’s evident that Enbridge only thinks about money. Let’s not be duped today, and save ourselves from being duped tomorrow.
Apart from a vague reference to, “More important moral and ethical concerns…”, Ryan Brezzi’s recent Open Space article did little to enlighten me on the “true detriment” of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.
The thrust of the article seems to be that the proponents have skewed the argument towards only economic considerations, while downplaying the environmental and social risks.
The reality is that any company’s main function is to create value for shareholders, so naturally this is their focus. There are few, if any, useful metrics to capture environmental and social values, despite attempts at recognizing a “triple bottom line”.
“It’s evident that Enbridge only thinks about the money.” This is a revelation to no one, and feeds into the unfortunate standard modus operandi of many environmental groups – cry wolf, demonize project proponents, and stifle debate by clinging to absolute positions, supported by tenuous “facts”.
To be fair, governments and industry often employ similar tactics, so any debate that survives becomes simplified and polarized and devolves down to whether a project is “good or bad”. Polarized positions, on both sides, do little to engender meaningful debate.
The real task of environmentalists should be to come out of the trenches, and really start to move the language of debate beyond a simplistic consideration of projects in isolation from the social, environmental and economics complexity of the real world. It wouldn’t hurt if industry and governments could do the same.
Tony Dorling
Instructional Assistant Environmental Tech. Program
Thanks for your comment Tony it’s much appreciated. I agree the article could have been written better; there is always space for improvement.
I think what I would have liked to communicate more clearly is the government’s increasingly blurry role in the entire project. Yes, of course Enbridge is invested in economic gains, they are a private business. More important though is the Harper government’s support of this project despite losses to the people living in the pipelie areas that can occur. The government and Enbridge are pushing pipe dreams of economic wealth onto the public together, and eschewing social issues, environmental issues and economic issues which can arise in the case of an oil spill under the carpet. Not mention even if there is no oil spill, this is not an answer to issues like poverty, homelessness, growing health concerns for Canadians and wages that don’t allow a person to subsist. It is both Enbridge and the government, not one or the other. Enbridge wants money, yes – but our federal government has lost sight of its role of maintaining the happiness of the public, and has replaced it with one of a privatized business.
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, although I’m still a little perplexed. It seems you are saying that the Harper government should be taking a more neutral stance on the proposed pipeline. Is this correct?
I disagree that the government’s role is “increasingly blurry”. I think the Harper government has been clear that the pipeline should go ahead, and this is in-line with their right-wing politics, their power base in Alberta, and their absolute faith in free-trade.
You refer to the, “losses to the people living in the pipeline areas that can occur.” but fail to provide any examples.
Not to be too pedantic, but “eschewing” (to shun) and “under the carpet” do not fit together to make a meaningful metaphor.
You assert, “this is not an answer to issues” but again fail to back your assertion with any argument or interpretation.
Finally, I am not sure what the last sentence means. I’m assuming that you are making the case for more centrist government policies.
Your passion for this issue comes through in your writing, but you could sharpen the focus by avoiding generalities and providing some concrete reasoning to support your views.
I think that environmental groups are often side-tracked by a narrow focus on whether a project is “good or bad”, and lose sight of the bigger issues at play. Although stopping the Enbridge pipeline might seem like a win, the alternative is likely to be shipping by rail. This is much more costly, much more environmentally risky and will confer less social and economic benefit to Canada. Shipping crude by rail, (this is already happening) would not require any environmental review under present legislation.
The energy marketplace is rapidly changing with the rise of natural gas production, increasing oil production in the United States and the Middle East, and technological advances that are leading to increased possibilities for economic exploitation of unconventional sources.
These changing market conditions are pointing to a limited role for Canada’s oil sands in the future, and may make pipeline discussion moot.
Hi Tony,
When I said ‘role’ I didn’t mean the conservative government’s role in the pipeline project, I meant its role as a government which is supposed to provide a high quality of life and welfare for its people. I feel the conservative government’s efficacy in governance is brought into question with this project, not its position on the project. In what ways is the conservative government improving Canada through this project? Would you say it is fulfilling what a government should do? I think you confused the meaning of ‘role’ with ‘position on’. I completely agree that the Harper government is pushing this pipeline through, and that is what I see as representative of a fundamental problem in our nation’s governance. In my opinion federal governance should maintain income security for its citizens through more social spending than private sector investment to improve Canadians quality of living.
Conservatives would argue that the pipeline will increase Canadians wealth and therefore their quality of life by providing much needed income security through economic growth. Sure this is true if one still believes in a trickle-down effect; but it is known that the strength of unequal distribution and redistribution far outweigh any potential benefits to Canadians that can be drawn from economic growth through any trickle-down effect. In the OECD’s 2011 report Canada placed 23rd out of 29 countries in measures of equal redistribution through taxes and transfers. Also, the Gini index has shown that market income inequality in Canada has risen in the 2000s. This shows that stimulating the market is not enough when equal income distribution and redistribution is low and continuing to drop like it has since the 1980s. Money earned through private business does not go back to Canadians in the way Enbridge and the federal government are promoting. The OECD 2011 report shows that the top 10 percentile group’s wealth has increased compared to the bottom 10 percentile from 1 to 8 in 1990, to 1 to 10 in 2008 due to unequal labour earnings and redistribution.
Adopting a social democratic form of governance would provide welfare to the public that would ensure income security and social services that are universally accessible to Canadians. Neil Brooks and Thaddeus Hwong in their report for the CCPA titled “The Social Benefits and Economic Costs of Taxation” showed very clearly by comparing low-tax countries like the U.S. and Canada, with high-tax countries like Sweden and Finland that investment in the public sector increases people’s quality of living. What I want to communicate is that corporate structure needs to be questioned instead of accepted as the only means to build an economy.
Employing a triple bottom line policy is not a solution, it is compensation. Employing a triple bottom line policy accepts that private business is the only way to secure a successful economy and that the public sector is a money guzzler. Why not invest in the public sector more instead of making repeated cutbacks? Why not invest in human capital?
Adopting a triple bottom line policy accepts private business as the only entity with staying power in the economy and would still force government to look to reduce taxes so that business can boom. Enbridge and the Harper government are not even honouring human rights let alone any corporate social responsibility at worst. It was clear in how the public hearings were not public that Enbridge and the conservative government didn’t want to consider the public’s concerns and potential environmental ramifications and wanted to push the pipeline through. Concern about this moral and ethical breach should be a greater concern than looking to false promises of economic prosperity as a salvation.
Projects like the Enbridge pipeline need to be challenged because they represent the proliferation of the current conservative, monetarist, liberal Anglo-Saxon welfare state form of governance – something much more complex than just another economic project. Full endorsement of private business carries with it an erosion of the welfare state and therefore the social, psychological, physical, environmental and economic health of Canadian citizens. If this trend continues income security will continue to be cutback and the health of Canadians along with it. Government needs to be more involved in regulation of private business to secure equality for the public. With a triple bottom line policy the corporate sector still governs. Corporate business does not need to be accepted as the main driver of our economy.