This is also how I feel about Energy East and similar pipeline projects. In the national discussion about our energy and transportation network future, if you don’t put chemistry before a constructed economy, the economy will fail.
For ages now Canadians have been conditioned to accept that we “need” more pipelines to move more oil. Otherwise we’ll continue to exhaust train crews and have bombtrains in every town.
Now it slips out that the plan is for oil to grow even though we need to #LeaveItInTheGround to have a chance at not exceeding our atmosphere’s “carbon budget” which determines if climate change causes mass flooding and extinctions. This will happen during our lifetimes, if we don’t build the alternative transportation systems now.
You can either lose your mind and your perspective:
It’s not your imagination — gasoline prices in Canada should be a lot lower than they are right now.
That’s according to Benjamin Reitzes, an economist at Bank of Montreal, who said the price Canadians pay at the pump should be a lot lower than it currently is based on the plunging price of a barrel of crude.
Or you can cool your jets and the overheating planet.
The latest round of interest in prices at the pump originated with some analysis yesterday from Bank of Montreal senior economist Benjamin Reitzes. While standing by the gas pumps this past weekend, Reitzes got to thinking. And so he ran the numbers and produced an eloquent graph.
“Simply,” concludes Reitzes, “consumers don’t appear to be reaping the full benefit of lower oil prices.”
Cue outrage in the comments section. Though, amusingly, some turned on the whistleblower, asking why the report didn’t do a similar job on bank fees.
“Certainly I, too, am unreasonably enticed by low pump prices.”
So, why do people who know better have brains that work this way?
“For the several minutes that I stand at the pump, all I do is stare at the growing total on the meter — there is nothing else to do,” wrote Ariely in Psychology Today in 2008. Watching the tank fill was an up-close-and-personal experience. It was repeated daily or weekly. It gave him a false sense of its importance to his life.
I hope we see meaningful changes in our economy, in time. There’s not a great understanding in our society that the economy is a system of resource distribution. We’ve enshrined it, even creating a phony holiday today when our retail gods go into the black.
It’s not that Canadian oil patches use slavery (don’t seem to, and they pay workers well), but an economy shouldn’t thrive on creation of injustice. An economy is supposed to create the conditions for prolonged success of people participating in it. When it’s found to be causing harm, it must change to adapt, or the harm grows and creates threats to societal success.
Yet Suzuki did offend people.
“People caught … working for the fossil-fuel industry will have to make a transition, they are not the target of my ire,” he reportedly said.
“But who would say today that the economy should’ve come before slavery?” Suzuki said.”
He could have said the same about child labour, or the factory disaster in Bhopal, India that killed tens of thousands of people. It was 50 years ago that #Nader held an industry to account for a product that was unsafe when used. Today, it’s fossil fuels.
“People dare to say it’s more important to make money?!” – Suzuki
Yes, people dare say it, just as they did when justifying child labour too.
Is seeking an analogy with which to compare an industry presently essential to our economy, yet undeniably harming our atmosphere, destined to cause offense? There are fainting couches ready all over the Saskatchewan Legislature, lest someone mention a reduction in fossil fuel output in the presence of Brad Wall. Some of those couches are staffed by the media with great big feather fans at the ready while asking if people want to “nuance” their message opposing a growing fossil industry. Does that mean we should never bring up the subject about how he’s going to meet the increase in renewable energy by 2030, if he doesn’t reduce fossil fuel dependency?
Suzuki also understands the urgent importance in reducing pollution.
About having Suzuki on his show, “Because I’m a shit disturber” – Suzuki
“The twerp in me loves it!” – Solomon
Five years ago, I attended a “stakeholder” meeting at a hotel, hosted by the Provincial Government. They were touting their newish 2020 “plan” to reduce climate change.
There was consensus among participants that in order to achieve the provincial target of 20% reduction over 2006 emissions by 2020, additional measures should be taken to achieve emission reductions in a larger portion of the oil and gas sector.
9 (1) The Climate Change Advisory Council is established.
(2) The council consists of the minister and not more than 11 other members
appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
In the last couple years, reference to the 20% below 2006 by 2020 target has disappeared.
As Brad Wall goes to Paris to represent Saskatchewan at the COP 21 climate conference, here’s how his government handles critical climate targets:
If you can’t hit a target, remove the target and bury it until forgotten.
2 years ago I saved the text of a Sask Gov’t website, predicting it would soon be altered. It was.
“Saskatchewan has established a provincial target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020.”
CBC thought it’s still the goal. There’s no mention of it on Government webpages that I can find now.
“Saskatchewan’s Climate Change Plan is designed to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions by setting annual reduction targets for industry and encouraging investment in low-carbon technologies.”