To the Editor:
Even though the world stopped warming 17 years ago, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has been finding himself in increasingly hot water of late. Besides having to absorb continual attacks from opposition MPs and climate campaigners, something anyone who leads his portfolio undoubtedly accepts as part of their job description, this week he was also condemned by both Canada's and America's best known climate scientists.
First it was former NASA scientist James Hansen, one of the godfathers of the climate movement, who objected to Oliver labeling his assertions as "exaggerated rhetoric" and "nonsense". In a CBC radio interview, Hansen proclaimed Oliver's Conservatives as a "Neanderthal government on this issue" and "in the hip pocket of the fossil fuel industry."
Then it was Green Party of British Columbia Deputy Leader and University of Victoria climate modeler Andrew Weaver who Global News reported as accusing Oliver of "cherry-picking the data to support an argument".
But Oliver was right, at least insofar as Hansen's and Weaver's claims are concerned. It is nonsense to assert, as Hansen did in his New York Times commentary last year, that "If Canada proceeds [with oil sands development], it's game over for the climate." It doesn't matter what you believe about the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) on climate. Oliver correctly explained that the oil sands produce only about 1/1,000th of the world's CO2 emissions and so the project couldn't possibly have the impact Hansen fears.
Oliver also correctly cited Weaver when he asserted that the modeler forecast that burning 100 per cent of known oil sands "proven reserves" would result in a trivial temperature change - 0.03 degrees Celsius. The fact that Weaver does not like the way his calculations are being used does not change the fact that he made them.
But Oliver's statements are not nearly enough to defuse opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline or the oil sands. After all, opponents to the projects are focused on the belief that increasing CO2 emissions from the oil sands, something that is bound to occur as more pipelines are built, is moving us closer to climate Armageddon.
Climate campaigners say that it is illogical for the government to lobby on behalf of the oil sands, one of the most CO2-intensive energy sources on the planet, while also lecturing us about the importance of reducing those same emissions. It is analogous to a doctor telling a patient they need to lose weight while also encouraging them to eat more fattening foods.
Global warming alarmists are right on this point of logic even though they are wrong about climate science. If humanity's emissions were causing dangerous global warming, then we should set an example by trying to cut back, not grow, projects that emit large volumes of CO2, as the oil sands clearly do.
Using their current approach, the Government has ceded the moral high ground to pipeline and oil sands opponents. While the Conservatives come across as practical due to their focus on energy security, jobs and wealth creation, they also appear immoral to the many people who still believe that CO2-induced climate change is the most serious threat to our future.
In contrast, climate activist pipeline opponents, while often seen as impractical by those who understand our energy needs, appear highly moral to many in the public and the press.
This is a serious problem for pipeline boosters since the authorities who must approve Keystone XL - U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry - are apparently more concerned about environmental morality than by practicalities of economics and energy security. This was shown in their Earth Day statements in which both focused mostly on climate change, not reducing air, land and water pollution. Obama's on-going drive to destroy coal - America's cheapest and most abundant energy source - due to its hypothesized climate impact also makes his priorities clear.
So Oliver and other oil sands proponents must help the public understand that the fundamental premise of the global warming movement is unjustified. The science is too immature to know the future of climate and climate control will remain science fiction for the foreseeable future. Canceling valuable projects to try to "stop climate change" is therefore irresponsible.
The Canadian government is currently trying to eat their cake and have it too by boosting two hopelessly incompatible policies at the same time - reducing CO2 emissions to supposedly stop climate change and promoting oil sands expansion. Since the oil sands have immense value to Canada and the world and the climate scare is based on a faulty interpretation of the science, it is clear which policy must be sacrificed.
Tom Harris, Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
