Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Hot on the Blog
Raffi Cavoukian
Andreas Souvaliotis

GET UPDATES FROM Andreas Souvaliotis
 

Post-Durban: Time to Pull Our Heads Out of the Oil Sands

Posted: 12/09/11 09:13 AM ET

I am a capitalist. I enjoy creating wealth and I thrive in an environment that supports the creation of wealth. But a critical part of capitalism is managing wealth and making sure we're creating real, sustainable, long-term value.

I love the fact that our country is enjoying one of the most remarkable wealth spikes in its short history. The national trickle-down economic effect from the billions of dollars we're pumping out of Alberta's oil sands every month has truly transformed the face of Canada. We're richer, bolder, more confident and more optimistic as a nation. But are we any better (or at least as good as we used to be) at managing, re-investing and planning for the future? Might we have become complacent and so enamoured with our recent windfall that we're forgetting to focus on how to sustain all this wealth in the future?

Here is my worry: No matter what happens in Durban this week or at future climate summits, the world order has shifted irreversibly. Climate change and our collective responses to it are already having a pronounced effect on everyone's bottom line - - from insurers to energy producers, car manufacturers, consumers, and of course, governments. Global treaties like Kyoto are a tiny part of a much larger puzzle, so even if Kyoto fails, even if national governments never come together in a new global treaty, our world will continue to change rapidly as seven billion of us around the planet become increasingly anxious about lightening our collective footprint. Global change on a mass scale is already happening and thankfully, for the sake of our species, it's unstoppable. So how will all that change affect the sources of our national wealth right here in Canada? What will happen to us when the world needs (or wants) less of our stuff? Do we even have a 10 or 30 or 50-year economic plan? And -- even more urgently -- are we at least taking the right steps to stretch the shelf life and the brand strength of our current source of wealth?

The world doesn't want us to stop pumping oil out of the oil sands anytime soon (only a tiny, albeit very loud, minority of unrealistic hard-core environmentalists might be advocating for such radical measures). Quite the opposite, in fact -- the world's nations right now need us to continue producing the stuff so we can feed everyone's thirst for energy. But the vast majority of nations also want us to start playing nicer, to start acknowledging the changed reality, to start supporting their citizens' ambitions for a cleaner, more responsible future - -and we're not doing any of that. We seem to have developed a myopic attitude and an aversion to even acknowledging that change is coming, perhaps out of an irrational fear that any sort of acknowledgment might render our dirty resources worthless. I'll say it again -- nobody seriously wants us to turn off the oil taps today. They just want us to join the vast coalition of the caring and the responsible, instead of poking them all in the eye.

Let's stop sticking our heads in the sand. The climate crisis is changing the rules of the game forever and we need to start planning for our economic future. Our national oil bonanza isn't really a bubble, because it can last long enough for us to harness and re-invest the spoils in all sorts of new things. But that's up to us. If we don't at least show some good old-fashioned Canadian leadership and if we don't figure out how to appease our multiplying critics, our great oil rush of the 21st century could in fact turn into a short-lived economic bubble.

It's time for us to think and behave and plan like real, responsible capitalists.

 
I am a capitalist. I enjoy creating wealth and I thrive in an environment that supports the creation of wealth. But a critical part of capitalism is managing wealth and making sure we're creating re...
I am a capitalist. I enjoy creating wealth and I thrive in an environment that supports the creation of wealth. But a critical part of capitalism is managing wealth and making sure we're creating re...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:40 PM on 12/09/2011
Star Wars era is looking more plausible than I could ever imagine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
King Stevie Harper
05:58 PM on 12/09/2011
Could but for some reason that I do not understand they are never considered.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
11:02 AM on 12/10/2011
You can't make a weapon out of the byproducts, that is why uranium was chosen as the fuel.
01:32 PM on 12/10/2011
Yes I agree with you about the nuclear weapns from uranium but you would think that Canada, Germany, Japan would go with a safer product if they are not interested in nuclear weapons. germany is now going to get rid of all their nuclear power plants?
11:34 AM on 12/09/2011
The problem I have with the tar sands is that corporations and governments want to keep expanding it without any limits. If we truly had a plan, if we were serious about climate change, then we would not be talking about pipelines to huge energy markets and we would not be approving massive $9B expansions. Im not enjoying this period in Canadian history at all. All i see is a tiny minority of people making unheard of profits while the income gap continues to grow faster than almost any other developed nation. The tar sands have not had much trickle down at all - unless you are talking about pollution.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
07:39 PM on 12/09/2011
No trickle down?
How man billions are sent to the rest of Canada from the oil sands?

Hint, it's a very large number.
01:30 PM on 12/10/2011
So why is income inequality growing faster in canada than in most other developed nations?

Hint: those billions are benefiting very few people.
09:53 AM on 12/09/2011
Until someone invents a suitable replacement for the massive diesel engines of ships, or a solar powered jet big enough to haul air freight, there will always be massive demand for oil. As for domestic transit - hybrids can extend oil life (as can diesel cars) - but both still require oil based fuels. Full on electrics aren't viable (due to the restrictions caused by the need for their batteries and their poor power densities and long recharge times), and their much worse for the environment manufacturing process (the reason China has a monopoly on rare earth elements is not so much because they have a monopoly on the stuff in the ground, but rather because excavation of the stuff causes massive toxicity and environmental damage).

If nations of the world really want to solve the carbon problem - and do so in a way that doesn't consign the developing world to permanent poverty - then a major part of the solution must be N2N (Natural gas to Nuclear). Natural gas burning releases half as much carbon as oil, and a quarter as much as coal. It also lacks many of the particulates and other pollutants (such as mercury) that coal has. That gives a stopgap to develop a nuclear industry that has fantastic energy and power densities with zero emissions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:55 PM on 12/09/2011
Don't go talking sense around here bub, they don't like that.
04:40 PM on 12/09/2011
Many valid points. We have the technology to limit emissions. I don't think we can be trusted with nuclear though, too big a long term mess when things go wrong and we don't have the maturity to put safety before the cash grab. Disregard Stan, he's just waiting for you to declare yourself part of the far right so he has a new pair of shoes to lick.
08:16 AM on 12/10/2011
The thing is nuclear doens't have as much of a "long term mess" as the public are led to believe. Every nation but the US reprocesses their spent fuel for re-use, which dramatically reduces waste. Furthermore, the waste products themselves aren't incredibly dangerous as long as they're put in proper storage. It's how a country the size of France can manage about 80% of their power generation on the back of nuclear - if waste came in huge quantities and was impossible to dispose of, they couldn't manage it.

Instead of seeing waste as a boogeyman, see it as an opportunity to extend the lifespan of the fuel used significantly.
09:48 AM on 12/09/2011
You think the guy living in a Mud Hut in Rwanda (one of the 7 Billion) with no windows is thinking of lowering his footprint?? No, he is wishing he didn't have to send his wife on a 4 hour walk to get water. He is thinking maybe if he had electricity, he could buy his kids a battery powered RC car. As stated, people the world over crave an improvement in their lot so they can live better, eat more, be less sick. I find the article a little unbalanced. The world wants what we have, Check, The world needs what we have, Check.
Appease the multiplying critics? Hmmn.

I agree that we should manage things carefully, as OIl wealth has ruined many societies who are unable to feed themselves or produce anything else. It is also very corrupting. Really, only the Norwegians have shown how they can make the most of oil wealth.
04:49 PM on 12/09/2011
The guy in the mud hut may not care but his cousin in town is working on the issue. Look at the work being done in India among other places to make the lowly cooking fire use less fuel in a cleaner, safer and more efficient way. I think concern is evident in that effort by the fact that the developers don't appear to be interested in the cash income of what they do but in making a difference in other peoples lives. Cash for the most part seems to come into play when they sell at a reasonable price the physical product of their open source intellectual property.