Pipeline question isn’t easy yes/no
A
few weeks ago, I was asked whether I was in favour or opposed to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. My answer was yes – which, of course, really isn’t an answer.
But we tend to frame nuanced debates as dichotomies. Either your with us or against. It’s a yes-or-no issue. You are in favour or opposed. The question of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion is not really something which should be framed as a “yes-or-no” question.
In the case of the oil pipelines, there are many reasons for both building a pipeline and stopping the project.
Pipelines are efficient methods of moving a large volume in a relatively safe fashion. Pipelines often leak leading to environmental damage as the crude material seeps into surroundings.
Pipelines allow for raw materials to reach markets efficiently. An oil pipeline is moving a material which, when consumed, will further enhance climate change and environmental degradation.
It would seem the discussion about building an oil pipeline through B.C. is pitting the economy against the environment. Period. Unfortunately, such false dichotomies will always leave one side of the question feeling they have lost and the other feeling they have won.
If the issue was actually put to a referendum, the pollsters tell us the vote would split 55 per cent in favour of construction and 45 per cent opposed, of those who have an opinion. The numbers vary depending upon what part of the province you examine. The Peace River region, for example, is much more in favour. Vancouver and the Lower Mainland are more evenly split. But it would be a close vote and would likely leave those opposed feeling they should have won. The battle would likely continue and result in civil disobedience. If there was an overwhelming majority on either side of the question, maybe the minority would acquiesce.
The political consequence of such a divided public perception is Premier John Horgan having to walk a fine line on the issue.
During the election campaign, stopping the pipeline expansion was a key environmental plank in the NDP platform as it was for the Green Party. Between the two parties, they pulled in almost 60 per cent of the vote. The premier is using this number as a basis for arguing he has provincial support for his position. Further, he has been warned by Andrew Weaver that the continuing support of the Green Party in the legislature will depend on how he handles the pipeline issue.
Of course, he can’t actually stop the pipeline outright. Our complicated provincial-federal division of power and our constitution make such a move untenable. But he can put up roadblocks to try and slow the process to the point where Kinder Morgan would consider “walking away.” At that point, the lawsuits would likely ensue and end up costing B.C. taxpayers a lot of money. That, however, is not a reason to go forward with the project.
From a federal and Albertan perspective, the pipeline is in the national interest and is critical infrastructure to ensure a nonrenewable limited commodity gets to markets where we receive maximum returns. Alberta has very restricted access to non-North American markets. Indeed, the energy clause in NAFTA pretty much ties the province’s hands. It essentially says the United States gets a guaranteed amount of oil from Canada and gets to decide the price for each barrel. (If for no other reason than vacating this clause, I would actually argue NAFTA should go!)
The final twist in the present saga is the threat by Kinder Morgan to pull out of the deal if it is blocked any further. A corporation has to decide at what point it is throwing good money after bad. It would appear they are willing to play a game of brinksmanship over the issue. Given the complexity of the issues, it is hard to imagine anyone simply being able to answer yes or no. So many questions and contingencies will need to be explored. For example, would having absolute assurances about marine safety response really change the minds of those worried about increased tanker traffic through Vancouver?
Would state of the art monitoring equipment on the full length of the pipeline ensuring any leaks would be dealt with quickly and effectively change people’s minds?
Would committing to hiring B.C. citizens to work on building the pipeline help persuade people to be in favour of the project?
And will turning off the taps and driving up gas prices result in more people wanting to stick it to Alberta and simply say no?
Where people stand on the issue and the outcome of the complicated dance of the two premiers and the prime minister will have lasting impacts on B.C.’s, Alberta’s, and Canada’s economy.
In the end, the pipeline will be built.
The real question is what will be the political cost?