In short, the argument seems to be that if British Columbians do not get a piece of this economic action by increasing our involvement in providing increasing levels of fossil fuels to the world, then someone else in the world will.
I would like to draw an uncomfortable analogy. Accepting the notion for a moment that the human race is addicted to energy based on fossil fuels, it strikes me that the above argument is not unlike some who might similarly argue -- in the face of apparently unlimited demand -- that:
Of course, forgotten in this simplistic argument is all the other attendant consequences. I hasten to add that I realize my analogy is comparing a legal to an illegal substance, but most agree that both products are surrounded by all kinds of uncontrolled, negative consequences."If I don't sell crack cocaine (substitute any other addictive substance you might prefer), someone else will. So I might as well have a piece of the action".
My hesitancy in accepting the above argument is not about suggesting cutting off or reducing current flows of hydrocarbon products.
We should not forget, particularly with these "non-traditional" hydrocarbon transfers, that what is being proposed is not simply about sustaining usage at current levels, but about massive expansion of extraction, transport and ultimate use. I believe that I and others who are concerned about wider negative consequences are really trying to draw attention to the proposed hyperbolic expansion.
For example, it sounds almost benign that Kinder-Morgan is planning to 'twin' its current pipeline. Unfortunately, based on recent reports, the new 'twin' of the proposed expansion will increase the current 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels today. Some twin.
No comments:
Post a Comment