Lay Off the Oil Sands! CR3

I have two main problems with many of the criticisms levelled against the Canadian oil sands. Through this critical response I will lay out these criticisms as faithfully to their authors as I can and I will then express my counter points. I do not intend this piece to necessarily support the rampant pace of development that is present in the Canadian oil sands. I feel that it is important to point out that while I am an environmentalist, I cannot align myself with many of the individuals that are allegedly also voicing my concerns.

The first argument I would like to address has been present in many of the readings we have been assigned through the course. As we read in the two Huber articles, capitalism (and especially North American capitalism) is dependent on an abundant source of fossil fuels (Huber 2008), so dependent in fact that many Americans consider gasoline to be essential to the American way of life (Huber 2009). Many North Americans may not think about this every day, but the support of capitalism which they demonstrate through their daily activities is reliant on continual supplies of affordable energy. Critics of the oil sands will use this dependance to demonstrate problems that oil sands development is representative of. In the preamble to Tar Sands (Nikiforuk, 2008), author and renowned oil sands critic Andrew Nikiforuk writes a “declaration of a political emergency” (page 1) in which he outlines what he perceives to be the most pressing concerns of oil sands development, criticisms of capitalism’s reliance on cheap energy there included.

Many of these criticisms are extremely important. Nikiforuk’s condemnation of the lax regulatory atmosphere in Alberta and Canada is both accurate and troubling, and his use of industry facts (archaic as some may be, as is addressed later in this piece) does effectively force the reader to understand the dangers of oil sands development. As a supporter of capitalism, however, I find many of his points to be contrary to the very nature of how Canadians have come run their economy (speficially points II, III, V, VI, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII). I would contend that many of his arguments would be better placed in a criticism of Canadian liberal democracy where they would have to stand on their own against other economic ideologies, as opposed to in a critique of a unique industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians and will generate trillions of dollars for the Canadian economy (CAPP 2010).

I fear that Mr. Nikiforuk may be using the easily manipulated and highly industrialized image of the oil sands to promote political means that most Canadians may not be comfortable with. If you were to apply similar criticisms to the ones laid out by Mr. Nikiforuk to other industries in Canada, such as manufacturing or agriculture, which emit 15% and 10% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions respectively compared to the oil sands 5% (CAPP 2010), you would doubtless receive much less social recognition for your work, and furthermore less money for your book. I do not intend for this point to support development in the oil sands, but I do think that Mr. Nikiforuk’s arguments against capitalist development would be better served by not relying on images of tailings ponds and upgraders that most Canadians are entirely unfamiliar with.

Furthermore, this anti-capitalist line of argumentation leaves little room for innovation described by supporters of capitalist approaches to decreasing carbon emissions. As we read about in “Accumulation by Decarbonization and the Governance of Carbon Offsets” (Bumpus, Liverman 2008) there are many different methods through which a capitalist economy can seek to decrease its carbon footprint. I contend that there is a smorgasbord of options (carbon tax, different cap and trade systems, command and control) available to capitalism to deal with carbon emissions in a variety of ways. Therefore to discount capitalism and capitalist values as an inherent part of a “political emergency”, as Nikiforuk does, is to ignore the most likely candidates for rectifying the current crisis of global warming. We simply have to ask ourselves what we see as the most likely course of the Canadian government in order to be accountable to their citizens when it comes to issues dealing with the oil sands. Would it be politically possible for the Harper government to put the brakes on oil sands development altogether? Or is it more likely that in the face of growing public concern about local and global ecological issues that the Canadian parliament will pass rational environmental policies prioritizing decarbonization and respect for local ecologies?

My second concern with criticisms of the oil sands is also present in Nikiforuk’s declaration. T here is a tendency for critics of the oil sands to use the worst examples of environmental stewardship in their discussions of technical issues. They are tarring all oil sands extraction with the same brush. This is where some might accuse me of splitting hairs, but I do believe that there is an important distinction present between different extraction methods and different corporations in the Canadian oil sands.

When Nikiforuk wrote “each barrel requires the consumption of three barrels of fresh water from the Athabasca river” (Nikiforuk 2008) this was true of bitumen produced by open pit mining methods in 2007. No one can argue that this is a figure exemplary of an industry that cares for the environment. However, if you contrast this figure with the 80% of oil sands development that must be performed in situ and draws literally no water from the Athabasca river and furthermore achieves recycle rates in excess of 80% for the two barrels of water that are used to produce one barrel of higher quality crude, the difference is staggering. Is it really fair that engineers and scientists at both facilities receive the same reputation and criticism? I contend that to ignore important innovations in the Canadian oil sands does not give sufficient credit to those individuals who are trying to earn a living by decreasing the environmental impact of oil sands operations in a legitimate Canadian capitalist society.

Furthermore, ignoring important technical advancements by certain operations removes external pressures off of those operations which may have decreased efficiency and also limits stimulus for further innovation. It is important that Canadians understand the diversity of the operations occurring in the oil sands so that they can form opinions based on accurate facts and not the pessimistic or overly optimistic views presented by critics or supporters, respectively.

In conclusion, I have outlined what I perceive to be the two most pressing issues with criticisms of the oil sands. I have purposely addressed the work of Mr. Nikiforuk specifically so that I can evaluate some of his rhetoric directly and have left out specific details on extraction methods for the sake of brevity. I feel it is important to reiterate that I am an environmentalist and I do agree with many of the criticisms that Mr. Nikiforuk laid out in the excerpt that we were assigned. The criticism I have expressed of his work is not inherently in support of oil sands development, it is explained so that my disagreement with his values can be better understood.

Works Cited

Matthew T. Huber, “Energizing 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

Andrew Nikiforuk, Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent (Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2008); 1-5, 11-16

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

Bumpus, Adam., Liverman, Diana. 2008. Accumulation by Decarbonisation and the Governance of Carbon Offsets. Economic Geography. Volume 84, Issue 2, pages 127-155