The Keystone XL Pipeline is Rejected: So?

So President Obama has rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. I think the President must feel good since he has finally lived up to the spirit of his election promises, environmentalists in the US are celebrating a victory, the Republicans seem to think they have an issue to take to the fall election, and Canadians, by and large, don’t know what to think.

The stance of our present Conservative government in this respect is puzzling. Apparently it is acceptable to this government (as it has been to previous liberal governments) to treat our oil sands as a renewable resource that will go on yielding oil forever. For a government to take this stance is not new – it seems to have been the government stance of choice all over the world again and again and again. However, such a stance can hardly be considered a conservative approach to resource management.

One hardly needs data to support an argument that all non-renewable resources will diminish and become harder to get if such a resource is consumed in large quantities. Nevertheless, here is some data. The oil Alberta was pumping in the 1930s required the input of one unit of energy to get 100 units of energy [for the powering of cars and the heating of homes]. The oil was close to the surface; easy to get at. Conventional oil in 1970 yielded about 30 units of energy for every unit of energy expended. The oil sands today deliver only five units of energy for every energy unit expended.

Clearly we are witnessing the depletion of a non-renewable resource. Why would a rational, conservative government try to sell this resource as rapidly as possible? It makes no sense to me.

What we are hearing from those touting the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as the Northern Gateway pipeline is that the sale of oil derived from the oil sands will bring jobs to Canadians. That seems likely. However, a pertinent question is whether jobs in the oil patch are indeed the kind of jobs we want if quality of life is our goal.  Furthermore, there are other ways of generating jobs. The easiest way of creating jobs is to move away from a cheap energy policy, to a policy that would reward those with the creativity to find ways of living with less energy. A fee and dividend energy policy would transfer wealth from those intent on consuming energy to those committed to conserving energy, and would put money into the hands of Canada’s true innovators.

Without a strong and deliberate policy to reduce Canada’s dependency on fossil energy and the income derived from energy sales, we will be no better off when the oil deposited in the Athabascan sand is gone. We see feeble attempts with mandates for light bulbs and policies to encourage biofuels, but that is greenwash. As long as the government avoids full cost accounting, and promotes oil sales without considering the cost of those sales to future generations and the environment, Canadians, sadly, will not make a serious move towards renewable energy.

Eric Rempel