A Meek Defence of the Canadian Oil Sands (CR2)

I have tried to approach this response as critically as possible, which isn’t to say that I’ve been overly critical, but that I have instead attempted to offer the most pertinent criticisms I can muster to the works in question using a relevant and tangible example where possible. Through this critical response I aim to lay out a meek defence of the Canadian oil sands in the context of two Matthew Huber articles. As such my main argument is as follows: It is possible that you are being too hard on the oil sands (and capitalism in general).

I could try to impress you with information that organizations like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) put out in handy pocket-sized mini-books, but somehow I’m not convinced that you will be impressed that oil sands development is expected to contribute around $1.7 trillion to the Canadian economy over the next 25 years, or that in that time it will directly affect around 590 000 jobs (CAPP, 2010). Somehow it rings false if I try to tout the value to Canadian businesses and even specifically Canadian aboriginal businesses (which made $810 million in 2009 from oil sands companies) to support the industry against an attack on capitalism itself. I will therefore place my focus on both the beginning and end of our course with Matthew Huber’s “Energizing historical materialism: Fossil fuels, space and the capitalist mode of production” and “The use of gasoline: Value, oil and the American way of life” respectively. In doing so, I hope to frame the issues talked about by Huber in a modern Canadian context and also provide counter arguments to some of the more controversial points raised he raises.

In the first piece, Huber claims that “capitalist social life is profoundly dependent on the abundant provision of fossil fuel energy” (page 105) which for the purpose of this critique can be understood to refer in part to oil extracted from Canada’s bituminous sands, as these provide over one million barrels of oil per day to the United States (CAPP 2010). Throughout his piece, Huber establishes an intrinsic link between capitalism and the availability of affordable fossil fuels. One important claim is that “[u]nder capitalism the process of production creates spatial conditions of circulation that become part and parcel of the process of becoming a commodity” (emphasis his, page 111) and that these spatial conditions of circulation are largely a result of the availability of fossil fuels. To take Huber’s work at face value is not necessarily to criticize capitalism inherently. No system is perfect, and to judge capitalism based solely on its affiliation with current polluting technology is unfair, especially if you neglect to consider the many technological advances that capitalism has provided that improve our modern quality of life (among them modern medicine, soap and safe drinking water); which are also equally dependent on the same affordable fossil fuels.

What I consider to be the strongest argument in the first Huber piece to directly associate a harm with capitalist behaviour comes in the conclusion when the author portrays the “social and ecological contradictions of fossil fuel energy (e.g. war, violence, local socioecological degradation, global climate change, and suburban sprawl)[…] as part and parcel of the internal contradictions of capitalism”. How does this argument apply to the Canadian oil sands? First, there are no reliable reports of war or violence in northern Alberta (that can be specifically blamed on oil sands development) so we can ignore these contradictions. Second, I disagree with Huber’s assertion that suburban sprawl can be equated with war and violence as a harm of capitalism. Although fossil fuel energy has allowed for the continued suburbanization of modern cities and is therefore a necessary part of (largely North American) capitalism, I am wary of people who treat suburbanization so dismissively as to equate it with war and violence in terms of harms. The choice to live in a suburb is a free choice made by rational actors which is facilitated, not coerced, by the availability of cheap oil.

Finally, I will address what I feel are the most pressing and contextually relevant harms associated with fossil fuel based capitalism as presented by Huber; socioecological degradation and global climate change. In “The use of gasoline: Value, oil and the American way of life” Huber mentions in his conclusion that capitalism is “historically open to contestation and change” (page 481). Although in this context he is writing about the possibility of exploring the use-value of gasoline in a capitalist framework, I think this assessment of capitalism fits the argument I want to make quite nicely and so I will use it. Throughout the piece, Huber argues that the American perception of gasoline has been skewed by political motives so that it is viewed as part of the “American way of life”. However in his conclusion he claims that the defining characteristics of capitalism may be negotiable, with which I agree and would add that it is for this reason that we cannot assert that all future capitalism must be as detrimental to the local and global environment as past forms have been. To discount possible technological advancements by asserting that capitalism necessitates fossil fuels is to minimize the possibility for innovation that distinguishes capitalism from other economic systems.

While I agree with Huber that fossil fuels are intrinsically linked to capitalism, I would not contend that this link is inextricable. As capitalism is able to adjust to market needs and government regulation, so may it move beyond the above mentioned “social and ecological contradictions of fossil fuel energy”. To put this back in the context of the Canadian oil sands I would put forward two main arguments. First, a significant amount of meaningful investment into renewable energy sources is coming from companies that work in the Canadian oil sands; whether this investment is used as a marketing tool (green washing) or as a legitimate financial endeavour, it still occurs in the capitalist framework. Second, new developments in the Canadian oil sands are focusing on decreasing their environmental impact both on a local socioecological scale and in terms of carbon intensity to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. While this may not mitigate all the negative effects Huber alludes to it does serve to minimize their impact.

To conclude, I have laid out a brief refutation to some of the criticisms that Huber offers in the pieces mentioned. For the sake of relevance to our class discussions and my own interest I have centred some of the discussion on issues in the Canadian oil sands. I would not apply all of the defences I have laid out for the Canadian oil sands equally to all oil sands producers, but I do think it is important that discussion remain two sided when considering important issues central to the Canadian economy and ecology.

Works Cited

“Upstream Dialogue, The Facts on Oil Sands 2010”, CAPP, September 2010

Matthew T. Huber, “Enerhttps://blogs.ubc.ca/landscapesofenergy/wp-admin/post-new.phpgizing historical materialism: Fossil fuels, space and the capitalist mode of production” in Geoforum 40 (2008) 105-115

Matthew T. Huber, “ The use of gasoline: Value, oil and the American way of life” in Antipode Vol. 41 No. 3 (2009) 465-486