Check out this link to see the photo essay on my trip to the Athabasca oil sands located in Northeastern Alberta:

To see the full photo essay including the extensive captions visit either:

Your Inexpensive Alternative

or

Landscapes of Energy Link

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

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

This summer the company I was working for released their first corporate responsibility report (they are a new company that has only existed since December of last year). Being a responsible citizen, I paid close attention to the content of this report and the information they released surrounding it. Overall I was not very impressed with the detail of the report, though that should be excused since like I said the company is very new, but what I did find interesting was what they chose to report on considering the timing of the release of the report itself — just following the first wave of Corporate Ethics International‘s 2010 summer campaign regarding the state of Alberta’s environment. The outline of what they chose to report is available here and I wanted to share this link because I feel like it is relevant to our discussion today regarding corporate social responsibility.

I know I came off more than a little neoliberal today in my support for private enterprise (I was even afraid of some of the things I was saying) but I did feel that certain organizations were getting a bum rep. When it comes down to it, most Canadian energy companies operate through a social contract that they are acutely aware of. There are many worthwhile ventures that have taken place in small towns across Western Canada that have shaped the landscapes of those areas, and given important opportunities to people who otherwise may not have had them.

I would argue that it is close minded and dismissive to assert that an energy company should not be given credit for its community investment simply by the virtue of its incorporation. These organizations establish specific guidelines to assure that the large amount of money they invest in the community is spent intelligently in their operating areas. At the end of the day, these contributions make a lasting positive effect on the landscapes in question.

Will