The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, with a route from Alberta across B.C. and the hackles it’s raising in some quarters, is a good example of an ancient debate writ large for the 21st century.
That tussle, between Plato and Aristotle, was about a vision of a perfectible world (Plato) in contrast with the empiricist (Aristotle). The latter asked: what is the reality on the ground?
One can dream of a better world, environmentally as in every other way. That’s not the problem. An architect begins with her imagination as she designs plans for a structure; however, she must also must vet her thoughts through reality – in this example, the force of gravity on the proposed building.
But whenever the subject of oil comes up, too many think reality can be dispensed with and then the moralizing begins.
Also, the flight from reality that accompanies anti-oil moralizing is not helpful on a practical matter: it is prosperous countries governed by the rule of law (and the two are connected) that take better care of the environment, be it their regulations on oil rigs or anything that else that could damage the Earth.
If you doubt that, take a trip to Russia where environmental safeguards can be bribed away or Nigeria where they are simply ignored.
For those who romanticize poor countries and the environment – and who only leave less of a “footprint” precisely because of massive poverty – consider Haiti. There, understandably, poverty makes environmental degradation a non-issue: they simply can’t afford to do much on that score.
So on moralizing and oil, here is reality check No. 1: the only person who can legitimately get moralistic against the black stuff is the following: someone who doesn’t fly, doesn’t drive, doesn’t heat their home, doesn’t hop aboard a BC Ferries ship to cross the Georgia Strait, grows all their own food (and thus never buys anything in a grocery store that arrives via a gas-powered truck), never takes a vacation and certainly doesn’t have a second home.
After all, to do any of that and then lecture about environmental responsibility or the evils of oil production (and pipelines) has a certain Marie Antoinette let-them-eat-cake tackiness to it: scold the average person about his/her energy habits while the affluent can buy a Prius and carbon credits but never seriously change their lifestyle.
For the record, I walk to work, prefer small cars, don’t think bigger is better or that consumption for its own sake is a useful end goal of human existence. I also hike in the mountains, appreciate all of nature and thus have great sympathy for and support conservationist efforts.
But that noted, here’s a second reality check: energy demand around the world, including for oil, is headed up. Like it or not, nothing is yet capable of replacing that product and the benefits its widespread use brought to human beings over the last century. That includes fruit and vegetables shipped from southern climates in winter. It includes the benefit of countries that exchange ideas, people and understanding and thus (hopefully) lessen the chance for hostilities. Much of that could not happen without oil to fuel international commerce and travel.
It would be nice one day if all energy could be renewable. But at present, most people must use oil or natural gas to heat their homes in minus-30 (where I live in Calgary as in many northern regions) or even at plus-5 or 10 (Vancouver). So my wish – which is Platonic – cannot be translated into reality at present, not enough to completely replace oil. So we must stick with Aristotle and his empiricism: what is the reality on the ground?
An answer comes from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which forecasts that global demand for oil will rise to 99 million barrels per day in 2035 from 89.2 million barrels now. The IEA, which wants governments to spend (literally) trillions of dollars on alternative energy, also predicts that unconventional oil – such as Canada’s oilsands – will play “an increasingly important role in world oil supply through to 2035, regardless of what governments do to curb demand.”
That is the Aristotelian reality that confronts those who wish to deal with actual available choices not engage in Plato-like wish-fulfilment.
And that means choices must be made. Positions and advocacy about the Northern Gateway pipeline should be made with such facts in mind. •
