As someone who is knowledgeable about the problems caused by air pollution, I find myself grimacing at the all-too-frequent ravings of those who are poorly informed on the topic of climate change. One of my least favourite ravings to encounter is also the most common; that people have to give up making profit from oil, by scaling back the tar sands production in Alberta [and Saskatchewan]. Whether we like it or not, our profits in the oil fields of western Canada come with a cost, payable in the present and future with our health or even our climate.
So the gap between the rich and poor is growing in Canada. I am not surprised and I think its likely to grow larger if Harper wins the next election. Tax cuts don’t provide parents with child care, or help students attend university. They don’t provide home care services for the elderly and they certainly don’t provide Canadians with better health care.
We have leaders who aren’t asking the big question about our economy - where’s the fire? What’s the rush? Why is there a big hurry to get as much oil out of the ground now, as we possibly can, at the expense of the workers who don’t even have enough places to live. What’s that going to accomplish besides making oil owners very rich, very quickly?
I think we should be planning our economic growth and curbing an unplanned boom that will result in a bust later. It’s not like the price of oil is going to go down by much, if ever. Even oil companies and oil lobby groups know that our supply will hit a peak in as little as 25 years which is sure to spike the price WAY UP. If you knew your resource was definitely going to get more valuable within your lifetime, wouldn’t you hang onto it for longer, instead of selling it cheaper now?
Our experts are telling us that we’re doing damage to not only the not-so-certain-future, but to ourselves right now as we work.
Oilsands-area hamlet supports whistleblower MD
Physician raised concerns about high cancer rates downstream from oil projects
Experts are being told to shut up and enjoy the oil boom. We aren’t supposed to think about what eventually happens to boom towns, and prepare to prevent that eventual bust?
The problem with our hurried economy isn’t isolated to the oil fields development. It’s in every city where parents complain they don’t have enough time to earn a living wage and look after their children with any time to spare. If the majority of the population isn’t starving, and we’re not fighting a war where we’re throwing all the resources we can muster at it, what in the blazes are we doing working so much that we can’t even raise the next generation as well as we were raised? I think it comes from poor leadership in almost every level of government, and no one is putting their foot down and saying we’ve had enough 40 hour work weeks.
–
The Next Agenda has more.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
philanthropist | 29-Mar-07 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
The Soviets had their ‘Five Year Plans’ - didn’t work out too well environmentally or economically. Canada’s standard of living is already far below what it could be, we don’t need big government to lower it even more thanks.
Kate | 29-Mar-07 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
I was just reading an interesting blog entry on work … from a guy in France. http://mandarinelechat.free.fr/weblog/
He’s asking many of the same questions that you are … fueling the capitalist economy seems to be the order of the day. Make more money, have less time for your family, spend more money hiring people to look after your family … it doesn’t make much sense.
L. really does own that poodle, doesn’t he?
Sean | 29-Mar-07 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
“As a person aware of problems air pollution cause, I have to grimace at the frequent ravings of less aware people on the topic of climate change.”
This works better: “As someone who is knowledgeable about the problems caused by air pollution, I find myself grimacing at the all-too-frequent ravings of those who are poorly informed on the topic of climate change.”
As for myself, I can’t stand bad writing and lousy grammar.
civil truth | 29-Mar-07 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
I’m glad to see that you’re looking wider than just global warming and remembering that there are land and water costs involved with extractive industries (such as oil).
Regarding CO2, I don’t think it’s accurate to categorize it as “air pollution” at least as I understand the term. Effluents like SO2 or nitrous oxides or particulates are pollutants; when they are added to the air, they cause harm.
CO2 is more like oxygen; it is a normal and vital component of life processes, but like oxygen, it causes harm when it’s present in excess concentration. The other aspect is that its ubiquity in ecological and terrestial systems and feedback loops makes it far more difficult to model than, say SO2 or nitrous oxides.
So where does this leave me on global warming. Well it’s clear that the accelerating addition of CO2 in modern times is a new input into the environment that is historically unprecedented, and it would seem scientifically perilous to dismiss it out of hand. To that extent, it seems that skeptics do have a burden of proof regarding their alternative mechanisms such as cosmic rays on the basis of Occam’s razor.
On the other hand, the global warming camp has been overselling their case in terms of the dangers we face and not always upfront about releasing raw data and modeling information. For one, it seems clear that CO2 is not 100% responsible either. It’s not enough to say we need to do something; policy is always about assessing relative danger and relative reward and relative costs, because resources spent on a 40-50 year away problem are not available for closer problems such as other pollutions (land, water), population growth, loss of farmland - food shortages, economic inequities, etc. It’s simply not responsible or adequate to say spend money, legislate, etc. without an assessment as to some kind of optimal level. Plus, we need a way to assess what the result of our interventions will be to know if it’s performing as expected.
Also, the analogy to tobacco is somewhat faulty; the energy companies are diversified and really don’t have nearly as strong of an interest in trying to disprove GW because they can always pass price increases off to consumers, and they will have 3rd world markets for the foreseeable future. Plus they have their fingers in a lot of alternative energy projects, so they stand to do well regardless. Tobacco is not mutable.
Actually, the industries with more interests in disproving GW are heavy users such as utilities that cannot easily shift their usage patterns and have less ability to shift costs.
In brief, I think tunnel vision on GW, which is what a hysteria would do, will be harmful by creating unsound remedies that will have unintended consequences that would be predictable if someone took the time to think it out) and that will likely lead to scams and rigging of the system that will rip off taxpayers and end users (think Enron to the fourth power). A more deliberate response will allow for more reasonabe and more thoughtful intervention along with measurement techniques that will allow for modifications. And past history shows that there is a blowback when hype gets exposed (think Alar and apples) and the reaction often throws out the baby with the bath water.
Saskboy | 29-Mar-07 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
Philanthropist, we don’t need bigger government to accomplish the kind of economy I’m talking about.
==
Kate, “fueling the capitalist economy seems to be the order of the day. Make more money, have less time for your family, spend more money hiring people to look after your family … it doesn’t make much sense.”
Which is why I think state run daycare is a mistake. We’d be better off finding a way for parents to stay at home, even if they are single parents.
“L. really does own that poodle, doesn’t he?”
Imagine if politicians take to peeing on their bitches in the House? Pardon the crude MacKay pun.
==
Sean, I was too lazy to rewrite it, but since you did, I took it. I hope that’s better now.
Saskboy | 29-Mar-07 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
Sorry CT, but you’re contradicting yourself here:
“I don’t think it’s accurate to categorize it as “air pollution” at least as I understand the term. Effluents like SO2 or nitrous oxides or particulates are pollutants; when they are added to the air, they cause harm.
CO2 is more like oxygen; it is a normal and vital component of life processes, but like oxygen, it causes harm when it’s present in excess concentration.”
CO2 pollution is CO2 that is added to the environment in unwanted places, in excess of what is normal. It happens to come along with other unwanted pollutants of air, soil, and water, so if we reduce CO2 pollution we’re going to probably end up reducing those other effluents you’re talking about.
“Also, the analogy to tobacco is somewhat faulty;”
CBC has linked the same type of Denial Machine that’s responsible for the wave of protest against reducing carbon emissions, to the Machine responsible for creating doubt over the dangers of tobacco. And as for future markets, there are customers in Asia [and the 3rd world] that will be there long after North America kicks smoking as mainstream, sadly.
“It’s simply not responsible or adequate to say spend money, legislate, etc. without an assessment as to some kind of optimal level. Plus, we need a way to assess what the result of our interventions will be to know if it’s performing as expected.”
Ideally we’d have those things, and I think to some extent we do. An optimal level of pollution is 0, yet that isn’t attainable with current technology. How about we assess things year to year as, “If New York and Mumbai aren’t flooded, then reductions are probably helping.” It’s not the kind of thing were we can assess a failure, and wait for governments to deal with that failure at the ’speed of government’. The optimal target level [although arbitrary] was set in Kyoto. Clearly we could assess based on that target, and it is obviously more costly to deal with the expected changes to our climate, than to prevent them. If we aren’t going about preventing them the right way, then some of our effort can go to preparing to move people away from the water.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/28/tech-flood.html
“And past history shows that there is a blowback when hype gets exposed (think Alar and apples) and the reaction often throws out the baby with the bath water.”
There was blowback over smoking, and then second hand smoke, and CFCs, [and now CO2]. Yet all of those historic air pollutants have been reduced, and we’re measurably better off for it. I agree that governments need to consider consequences, but they’ve been allowing industry to take advantage of our air, water, and earth resources without considering consequences too. Let’s find the balance, without letting the pendulum swing to the other side as you fear, but let’s not hold it onto the wrong side we’re sitting on now.
Sean | 29-Mar-07 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
“Sean, I was too lazy to rewrite it, but since you did, I took it. I hope that’s better now.”
What you’re talking about is important, so take the time to say it right by using proper English. Anything less detracts from your credibility. For all your slagging of SDA, Kate writes circles around you. That’s one of the reasons I go there every day — I enjoy good writing.
The biggest problem with oil companies, IMO, is that too many of them are publicly traded. That means they are legally bound to consider only the return for their shareholders (fines from the EUB for contaminating land run a distant second), and that’s why you see such psychopathic behavior from these companies. They’re all about “improving shareholder value NOW” and damn the consequences.
And there are consequences to what they’re doing.
Saskboy | 29-Mar-07 at 11:10 pm | Permalink
Sean, if I dealt with looking at Kate’s well written comments every day, I’d probably go “monkeypoop” (which I believe is the polite word for apeshit). I can only absorb so much “alternate perception” before I get angry and/or frustrated with the world. I don’t want to go all “Canadian Cynic” on her points of view all of the time, so I limit my exposure.
You’re right about profit of the stock market being a significant factor in how messed up our economy is. The stock market may be a wonderful thing, but it’s also a pit that drags us down into a giant gaping void of work for the sake of only money instead of survival/enjoyment.
Sean | 30-Mar-07 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
I’m not really sure I see anything wonderful about the stock market anymore, to be honest with you. I’d rather give my money to smaller, privately owned companies that rely on quality, service, and innovation to make money rather than corporate titans who need leveraged buyouts to make the balance sheets look good.
Not that this always works for me, but I do try.
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 8:32 pm | Permalink
I think the stock market is completely unrealistic. It’s forcing companies who just can’t grow at the pace the market demands of them, to do really stupid things with their business. Making money isn’t good enough, they have to make MORE money than the more money they made last cycle or they are failures.