Dear Ms. Krause -
Your recent contribution to the Financial
Post ("Canadian pipelines targeted by US funds" - June 26 2012) has
pushed us past the tipping point, and we are now fed up enough to take the time
to state the obvious regarding your over-interpretation of the tax data you
have compiled.
You have diligently pursued the flow of environmental
funding in Canada, and seem to have found irregularities in how some environmental
groups in Canada handle their finances. Although we have seen no evidence of 'moneylaundering' (as bizarrely implied by the Harper Government) or other
wrong-doing, such irregularities should rightly be investigated. Everyone
should play by the rules. However, in your recent article, as in many
that have preceded it, you continue to assert that the goal of US funding to
Pacific Canadian conservationists is to landlock Alberta's bitumen for the
benefit of the US, at the expense of the Canadian economy.
Really? But Ms.
Krause, you do not have data on motives - you have tax data. And while such
data may tell us how money flows, they do not tell us why it flows. Your conclusions
about motive are therefore mere speculation, and continuing to assert that the
primary objective of conservationists is to cripple Canada's economy for the
benefit of the US thus borders on conspiracy-theory, particularly since you blithely
dismiss the stated objectives of concerned Canadians and their funders. By
engaging in such speculation, you insult all Canadians concerned about the
consequences of oil spills and the contribution of Alberta's energy industry to
climate change, painting them as dupes of nefarious US economic interests.
Ms. Krause, are you and your enablers truly
so ideologically isolated you cannot believe Canadians are actually concerned
about risks to the natural environment and the services it provides? Many
Canadians believe that the risks from pipelines, particularly in remote,
pristine areas, are just too high. Unsurprisingly, many also believe the
independent economic analyses of Robyn
Allan and Robin
Gregory, both of which suggest either minimal economic gains or even
economic losses to Canada from unfettered bitumen development, more than they
do the simplistic analyses and inflated claims of large oil companies focused on
their own bottom line.
Why do environmental groups target the diluted
bitumen ('dilbit')
pipelines out of Northern Alberta? Perhaps because they present tremendous
risks to marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems. Or because the
pipelines are adamantly opposed by the vast majority of First Nations, for whom
a contaminated environment would be so devastating, that no amount of money
could compensate for the loss. Or because fully developing Alberta's bitumen reserves
will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to a level that will put human
civilization at risk (by adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than has
already been added by fossil fuels in the last 150 years (James
Hansen, NASA). Or maybe because future generations deserve more than an environment
degraded for short-term profit by foreign-owned, multi-national corporations,
which is a plausible outcome given the relevant data (i.e., not just tax data).
Everyone understands that restricting
pipelines and slowing the pace of development in Northern Alberta will have
economic consequences. However, this is more complicated than the oil- and growth-obsessed
would have us believe. Slowing development may actually be economically
beneficial for Canada, as indicated in Allan's economic assessment.
Furthermore, many Canadians continue to hold values beyond economic ones, values
which may trump any potential economic consequences. They are willing to pay
more for products, including gasoline and plastics, to ensure social and ecological
values are preserved. Does this make them 'radicals'
determined to block trade and undermine Canada's economy?
Concerned Canadians are opposing tarsands
and pipeline development as a means of protecting invaluable natural resources
from degradation. And while this may incur some short-term economic
consequences, assuming all consequences will be losses and imputing that such
losses are what pipeline opponents seek (rather than side-effects of conservation
and risk avoidance) is simplistic and distasteful. It assumes - without evidence
- the worst possible motivation when a plausible positive motivation is in
plain view. The truth is that many accept economic consequences as necessary in
the pursuit of the true end objectives of sustainability, ecological integrity,
and a healthy environment for future generations. We therefore respectfully ask that you stop over-reaching your data, and desist from intentionally or otherwise confusing the means and end objectives of those opposed to the expansion of Alberta's
bitumen reserves.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Gregr and Kai M.A. Chan
EJG is PhD Candidate working with KMAC,
Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) at the Institute for
Resources, Environment and Sustainability, UBC, in Vancouver British Columbia.
Contact: ejgregr@gmail.com; twitter: @EcoRational