On reading the column by Philip Dearden in the May 23 Citizen, I was surprised to learn that the oil industry of Alberta is so powerful a player on the world stage, surprised because it clearly isn't. He suggested that the people of B.C., all other provinces, regions and the entire country and the world are being held hostage to the oil barons of Alberta.
It's true that Alberta does produce a lot of oil, but what would happen to world oil consumption if it were shut down completely? Nothing, the world is awash in oil.
If they can't get it from Alberta, they'll get it elsewhere and the amount of oil being burned will remain the same.
While the developed, successful capitalist countries of the world are told that they must transition out of a fossil fuel economy, the rest of the world is ramping up fossil fuel use. World oil production continues to rise. Hundreds of coal plants are being built throughout the world, especially in developing countries.
More and more automobiles are appearing on their roads, including an additional 300 cars per day on the streets of Beijing, according to a report a couple years ago. And while B.C. can't seem to get its act together enough to export LNG, Australia and the U.S. are flooding that market. At the same time, Japan and China have successfully managed to extract methane hydrate (a frozen mixture of water and concentrated natural gas) from the sea floor. Estimates of worldwide reserves of this fuel range up to 2,800 trillion cubic metres and it will be extracted and burned.
While the world signs agreements to cut emissions, only the developed nations are required to do so. All UN climate treaties, including Paris, are based on the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) which states:
"Economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country parties."
This stipulation does not apply to developed nations. Actions to significantly reduce CO2 emissions would obviously interfere with development priorities, so developing countries won't do it, citing the FCCC as their excuse. The world is not getting off fossils any time soon and ending Alberta oil exports would only transfer the wealth to other jurisdictions.
Mr. Deardon expressed concern that around the world, climate records are being broken and we are paying the costs of climate change, and that this especially impacts the poorest peoples.
If he is really concerned about the plight of the poor, he should be advocating for such things as the end of the growing of biofuel crops for car owners in wealthy countries, which does nothing to lower emissions but has doubled the price of basic foods for the poorest of the poor.
Mr. Dearden says (I paraphrase) that there are more important things than money, which is only ever said by people who have more than enough money themselves and are not in any danger of losing any.
Other values such as love, harmony, beauty, empathy, compassion, life and freedom are wonderful indeed, but when you're suffering for lack of money, they take second place.
Food, shelter, clothing, education, hospitals and highways all cost money, as Premier Notley is realizing as she comes face to face with economic reality. Canada's oil industry is a major cornerstone of its economy, and without it, millions of Canadians would soon hold an entirely different view on the importance of money.
Mr. Dearden, if you really want to cut emissions, you need to go after the consumers worldwide, not the producers. It's the law of supply and demand. As long as the demand is growing (and it is) and the supply is plentiful, emissions will continue to rise.
Preventing Alberta oil from reaching overseas markets will not change that and will only hurt Canadians.
Art Betke
Prince George
