Dear Editor:
There has been a barrage of commentary these past months that sings the praises of the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipeline proposals, both of which rely on tankers to ship heavy crude to China and refineries elsewhere in the world.
While many have wisely declined to follow the lead of the federal Conservative government in demonizing pipeline opponents, their tone nevertheless carries a strong implication, and sometimes an outright assertion, that those who challenge the building of pipelines are either anti-progressive, knee-jerk, misinformed or ill-informed.
This is often accomplished by asserting one or more supposedly self-evident truths about the oil industry and then aggressively asserting that those who suggest otherwise think illogically.
In their view, if you don't want to sell and ship oil to China, you're subverting international trade.
Or you're turning your back on a lucrative source of funding for social services.
Or you're ignoring a 60-year old safety record of pipeline/oil tankers. Or you're a hypocrite if you drive a car.
Or you're not taking into account advances in oil spill clean-up technology. Or you're unaware that selling tar sands oil to China is good for the economy.
It's a very simple tactic, and its effectiveness as a debate deterrent should not be underestimated. Nobody likes to be painted as unthinking or uninformed, much less a mindless hypocrite.
For that reason alone, the above depictions need to be challenged.
International trade isn't the issue. The environment is an issue. The rights of First Nations is an issue.
If the oil was traded for something, then that might be an issue.
But let's be honest. The imperative is not trade but, rather, to sell crude oil at the highest price possible.
The USA won't pay the higher price, but China will.
No one in government has ever said the federal royalties and taxes generated by oil sales would go towards supporting social services.
In point of fact, the Harper government continues to download the cost of services (for example, health and education) to the provinces. Tar sands oil will help pay for my old-age pension? I don't think so.
The safety record of piping oil to and shipping it out of the Burnaby terminal is referred to but never statistically stated.
Kinder Morgan itself uses the less definitive term "first-class" safety record.
But we all know there have been pipeline ruptures or storage tank leaks and, therefore, we can reasonably conclude there are environmental risks associated with pipelines.
What about tanker traffic safety? Does one tanker a month over 50 years constitute a safety record?
Maybe. But, quite frankly, that's scary. Odds are we're long overdue for an accident.
Many of us drive a car. Do we really have a choice? Rural families don't. Many families live in the suburbs because they can't afford a home closer to a job in town.
In fact, they may have two cars because both parents have to work to make ends meet, and somebody has to drive the kids to school and after-school activities.
Opposition to a pipeline while owning a car doesn't mean you're a hypocrite.
For most, it means we're still waiting for a choice between a fossil fuel burner and a reasonably priced electric car that meets the needs of the modern family.
Oil spill clean-up technology is learned from oil spills. The technology hasn't yet cleaned up the Gulf. It hasn't yet cleaned up the Kalamazoo River.
It hasn't brought back the Prince William Sound herring that was wiped out by the Exxon Valdez disaster almost 25 years ago.
Oil clean-up technology cannot return things to what they were before.
No one has yet shown conclusively that selling tar sands oil to China is good for the Canadian economy.
In fact, the published opinions of two reputable economists argue that selling heavy crude to China will actually increase the cost of living for Canadians.
Most certainly, the profitability of tar sands oil extraction depends on a high price for its refined byproducts, like gasoline. And guess who pays that?
Secure in the knowledge that they enjoy the support of a heavy-handed federal government, the recently launched advertising campaign by Enbridge will undoubtedly produce more commentary from its boosters.
And a Kinder Morgan application filed with the National Energy Board will likely yield even more.
Whether or not the tone will be more respectful in the characterization of those who question either proposal remains to be seen.
Bill Brassington, Burnaby
