Mae DesTroismaisons
Nature and Culture
April 17, 2014
Professor Walter Kuentzel
Throughout the United States, protestors are picketing to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline, a proposed 1,179-mile crude oil pipeline that would extend from Alberta, Canada all the way to Nebraska, and would carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day to refineries in the Midwest. Supporters of the pipeline claim it will be the safest operation of its kind in North America and will create jobs, boost the economy, and prove “long-term energy independence” (“About The Project”, 2014). They also argue that the Canadian oil sands project is “ethical oil,” which minimizes environmental impact and will potentially reduce the Unites States’ reliance on foreign oil (Levant, 2010). Opposers of oil sands development disagree, arguing that any type of fossil fuel is only a short-term energy solution that is not environmentally friendly and that ignores the rights of the indigenous population, namely the First Nations people living in Fort Chipewyan. The debate among pro-pipeliners and anti-oil sands activists is heated, and compromises will not be easy to arrive at, but are possible.
Anti-Oil Sands Arguments
The majority of protesters against Alberta’s oils sands development are against it for environmental reasons. Fossil fuels are pollutive, and sands oil is no exception. They are quick to point out the hypocrisy of the Canadian government: how can a country that has taken a stand against climate change support a process that produces greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide? Additionally, they are concerned about the effects of oil sands surface mining on water sources, particularly the Athabasca River. Not only is the oil sands operation allowed to divert water from the river to use for oil extraction, which could lead to habitat loss for fish and waterfowl, but also toxic matter leaks into the river from tailings ponds, which hold the toxic sludge produced at the plant. Additionally, clearing of Canada’s boreal forest for road construction, mining pits, and tailing ponds for oil sands development fragments the forest, causing habitat loss for many species, including threatened ones like caribou. Air pollution is another worry, as oil sands operations emit Criteria Air Contaminants including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which also contribute to acid rain (Woynillowicz, Baker, Raynolds, 2005; p. 25-51).
Less common, but quite powerful, is the argument against oil sands that relies on native land rights. Clayton Thomas-Muller, in a guest lecture at the University of Vermont, described the indigenous resistance to Alberta’s oil sands development. He focused primarily on the work of Idle No More, a grassroots organization that protects the land and water that the First Nations people living in Fort Chipewyan have utilized for hunting and fishing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. According to Thomas-Muller, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a former employee of Imperial Oil, is ignoring treaty rights included in Canada’s Constitution, and if First Nations win their case against the government, some 17,000 leases on their land will become illegal. He insists that although the environmental movement against the oil sands is helpful and important, native rights issues are what pose the real risk to oil sands development.
Pro-Oil Sands Arguments
Supporters of Alberta’s oil sands development argue that although fossil fuels are indeed pollutive, operations in Canada are much better regulated than in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, where the United States currently buys its oil (Levant, 2010; p. 23). They point out that people are not going to stop consuming oil overnight, and so it is better to import it from Canada then from overseas. It takes far less fossil fuel to transport the oil, not to mention we are not in political conflict with Canada.
Clayton Thomas-Muller makes some valid points regarding the Canadian government’s disregard of his people’s rights. The indigenous resistance to oil sands development in Canada is by no means unfounded, but it cannot be compared to the human rights atrocities committed by governments in the Middle East, according to Ezra Levant, where millions of laborers are brutally abused, homosexuals are beheaded for simply being gay, and women can be whipped or stoned for wearing pants. Additionally, by buying oil from Nigeria, the United States is funding genocide in Darfur. We buy the oil, they buy the guns (Levant, 2010; p. 17-25). Labor unions are taken for granted in the U.S. and Canada, but organizing a union is a crime in Iran (Levant, 2010; p. 18). Pro-pipeliners ask: Isn’t it better to create jobs on our own continent?
Seeking Compromise
Just because Canadian oil sands are more ethical than foreign oil doesn’t make them truly ethical. There are still problems with oil sands development that must be paid attention to. The ecological threat is real, as are the native land rights issues. If the Alberta oil sands are here to stay, it is imperative that both sides of the debate work toward finding ways to alleviate the controversy.
The extractive process involved in oil sands development is damaging to the environment. Perhaps if more taxes were put upon Big Oil, a larger portion of that money could be used to ensure that habitat protection is taking place in the areas surrounding the operation. Additionally, some of the tax money could be used to educate the public about the importance of conserving finite natural resources like oil. Finally, a portion could be used to research energy alternatives like solar and wind power, so that we will be prepared when we finally do run out of oil, or simply meet the pollution threshold.
As far as the native land rights issues go, at his lecture, I asked Clayton Thomas-Muller if he thought a compromise could be reached, assuming Big Oil is here to stay. He responded, “There is no compromise, scientifically or morally.” However, perhaps if stricter environmental regulations were introduced, it could be ensured that the hunting and fishing grounds of the First Nations people will remain intact.
Concluding Thoughts
I think that the aforementioned strategies for easing the oil sands controversy are possible, but will take time to be achieved. Both sides of the debate will have to make sacrifices, but neither seems willing to budge yet. It is unlikely that higher taxes will be put upon oil sands development in Alberta while Stephen Harper is in power, but that could change in 2015 if a new prime minister is elected. As public awareness about environmental ethics spreads, it is likely that more and more grassroots organizations will crop up, demanding better regulation. Eventually, we will either run out of oil or reach the pollution threshold, but perhaps making use of Alberta’s oil sands can buy us a bit more time to develop the alternative energy sources that we will eventually become dependent upon.
Works Cited
“About The Project.” Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada, 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.<http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/>.
Levant, Ezra. Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oil Sands. Toronto, Ont.: McClelland & Stewart, 2010. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <https://bb.uvm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1305466-dt-content-rid-4808258_1/courses/201401-10475/Levant%20Ethical%20Oil%281%29.pdf>
Thomas-Muller, Clayton. “Native Rights and the Struggle Against the Tar Sands .” Native Rights and the Struggle Against the Tar Sands . UVM’s ALANA program, English Department, Environmental Program, Student Climate Culture, and the International Socialist Organization; Global Justice Ecology Project and the Will Miller Green Mountain Veterans for Peace Chapter; St. Michael’s College Environmental Studies Program and Political Science Department. UVM Davis Center Silver Maple Ballroom, Burlington. 10 Apr. 2014. Speech.
Woynillowicz, Dan, Chris Baker, and Marlo Raynolds. Oil Sands Fever: The Environmental Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Rush. Drayton Valley, Alta.: Pembina Institute, 2005. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <https://bb.uvm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1305466-dt-content-rid-4808259_1/courses/20140110475/Oil%20Sands%20Fever%20The%20Environmental %20Implications%20of%20Canadas%20Oil%20Sands%20Rush%281%29.pdf>
Nature and Culture
April 17, 2014
Professor Walter Kuentzel
Throughout the United States, protestors are picketing to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline, a proposed 1,179-mile crude oil pipeline that would extend from Alberta, Canada all the way to Nebraska, and would carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day to refineries in the Midwest. Supporters of the pipeline claim it will be the safest operation of its kind in North America and will create jobs, boost the economy, and prove “long-term energy independence” (“About The Project”, 2014). They also argue that the Canadian oil sands project is “ethical oil,” which minimizes environmental impact and will potentially reduce the Unites States’ reliance on foreign oil (Levant, 2010). Opposers of oil sands development disagree, arguing that any type of fossil fuel is only a short-term energy solution that is not environmentally friendly and that ignores the rights of the indigenous population, namely the First Nations people living in Fort Chipewyan. The debate among pro-pipeliners and anti-oil sands activists is heated, and compromises will not be easy to arrive at, but are possible.
Anti-Oil Sands Arguments
The majority of protesters against Alberta’s oils sands development are against it for environmental reasons. Fossil fuels are pollutive, and sands oil is no exception. They are quick to point out the hypocrisy of the Canadian government: how can a country that has taken a stand against climate change support a process that produces greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide? Additionally, they are concerned about the effects of oil sands surface mining on water sources, particularly the Athabasca River. Not only is the oil sands operation allowed to divert water from the river to use for oil extraction, which could lead to habitat loss for fish and waterfowl, but also toxic matter leaks into the river from tailings ponds, which hold the toxic sludge produced at the plant. Additionally, clearing of Canada’s boreal forest for road construction, mining pits, and tailing ponds for oil sands development fragments the forest, causing habitat loss for many species, including threatened ones like caribou. Air pollution is another worry, as oil sands operations emit Criteria Air Contaminants including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which also contribute to acid rain (Woynillowicz, Baker, Raynolds, 2005; p. 25-51).
Less common, but quite powerful, is the argument against oil sands that relies on native land rights. Clayton Thomas-Muller, in a guest lecture at the University of Vermont, described the indigenous resistance to Alberta’s oil sands development. He focused primarily on the work of Idle No More, a grassroots organization that protects the land and water that the First Nations people living in Fort Chipewyan have utilized for hunting and fishing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. According to Thomas-Muller, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a former employee of Imperial Oil, is ignoring treaty rights included in Canada’s Constitution, and if First Nations win their case against the government, some 17,000 leases on their land will become illegal. He insists that although the environmental movement against the oil sands is helpful and important, native rights issues are what pose the real risk to oil sands development.
Pro-Oil Sands Arguments
Supporters of Alberta’s oil sands development argue that although fossil fuels are indeed pollutive, operations in Canada are much better regulated than in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, where the United States currently buys its oil (Levant, 2010; p. 23). They point out that people are not going to stop consuming oil overnight, and so it is better to import it from Canada then from overseas. It takes far less fossil fuel to transport the oil, not to mention we are not in political conflict with Canada.
Clayton Thomas-Muller makes some valid points regarding the Canadian government’s disregard of his people’s rights. The indigenous resistance to oil sands development in Canada is by no means unfounded, but it cannot be compared to the human rights atrocities committed by governments in the Middle East, according to Ezra Levant, where millions of laborers are brutally abused, homosexuals are beheaded for simply being gay, and women can be whipped or stoned for wearing pants. Additionally, by buying oil from Nigeria, the United States is funding genocide in Darfur. We buy the oil, they buy the guns (Levant, 2010; p. 17-25). Labor unions are taken for granted in the U.S. and Canada, but organizing a union is a crime in Iran (Levant, 2010; p. 18). Pro-pipeliners ask: Isn’t it better to create jobs on our own continent?
Seeking Compromise
Just because Canadian oil sands are more ethical than foreign oil doesn’t make them truly ethical. There are still problems with oil sands development that must be paid attention to. The ecological threat is real, as are the native land rights issues. If the Alberta oil sands are here to stay, it is imperative that both sides of the debate work toward finding ways to alleviate the controversy.
The extractive process involved in oil sands development is damaging to the environment. Perhaps if more taxes were put upon Big Oil, a larger portion of that money could be used to ensure that habitat protection is taking place in the areas surrounding the operation. Additionally, some of the tax money could be used to educate the public about the importance of conserving finite natural resources like oil. Finally, a portion could be used to research energy alternatives like solar and wind power, so that we will be prepared when we finally do run out of oil, or simply meet the pollution threshold.
As far as the native land rights issues go, at his lecture, I asked Clayton Thomas-Muller if he thought a compromise could be reached, assuming Big Oil is here to stay. He responded, “There is no compromise, scientifically or morally.” However, perhaps if stricter environmental regulations were introduced, it could be ensured that the hunting and fishing grounds of the First Nations people will remain intact.
Concluding Thoughts
I think that the aforementioned strategies for easing the oil sands controversy are possible, but will take time to be achieved. Both sides of the debate will have to make sacrifices, but neither seems willing to budge yet. It is unlikely that higher taxes will be put upon oil sands development in Alberta while Stephen Harper is in power, but that could change in 2015 if a new prime minister is elected. As public awareness about environmental ethics spreads, it is likely that more and more grassroots organizations will crop up, demanding better regulation. Eventually, we will either run out of oil or reach the pollution threshold, but perhaps making use of Alberta’s oil sands can buy us a bit more time to develop the alternative energy sources that we will eventually become dependent upon.
Works Cited
“About The Project.” Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada, 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.<http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/>.
Levant, Ezra. Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oil Sands. Toronto, Ont.: McClelland & Stewart, 2010. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <https://bb.uvm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1305466-dt-content-rid-4808258_1/courses/201401-10475/Levant%20Ethical%20Oil%281%29.pdf>
Thomas-Muller, Clayton. “Native Rights and the Struggle Against the Tar Sands .” Native Rights and the Struggle Against the Tar Sands . UVM’s ALANA program, English Department, Environmental Program, Student Climate Culture, and the International Socialist Organization; Global Justice Ecology Project and the Will Miller Green Mountain Veterans for Peace Chapter; St. Michael’s College Environmental Studies Program and Political Science Department. UVM Davis Center Silver Maple Ballroom, Burlington. 10 Apr. 2014. Speech.
Woynillowicz, Dan, Chris Baker, and Marlo Raynolds. Oil Sands Fever: The Environmental Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Rush. Drayton Valley, Alta.: Pembina Institute, 2005. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <https://bb.uvm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1305466-dt-content-rid-4808259_1/courses/20140110475/Oil%20Sands%20Fever%20The%20Environmental %20Implications%20of%20Canadas%20Oil%20Sands%20Rush%281%29.pdf>