The Edmonton Journal editorial today reflects the values of Albertans around the importance of reclamation around oil sands. We know that the type of reclamation, habitat protection and ecological monitoring are the top three values that Albertans believe need to drive and guide decisions on oil sands development. The same issues arise in the entire energy sector in Alberta...not just the oil sands.
It is a serious concern and we need to be sure we get it right...starting now - not way into the future when it is someone else's "problem." This is just another issue that current Albertans have to insist government and industry take a long term look. We should not pass on a burden of reclamation to future generations because we refused failed or neglected to meet our duty to mitigate the environmental and habitat damage we must do as part of oil sands development.
Ecological monitoring is being done but the quality is in question and the focus is not understood or trusted. This is a major concern of Albertans. Industry must address this for its social license to operate and political parties and leadership candidates who want to form governments must attend to this concern if they want the trust and consent of citizens to govern in the next election. Integrity is the issue. Not just what politicians or political parties say - but can you trust them to deliver.
We can do conservation offsets to mitigate the energy sector's footprint and fragmentation of the Boreal forest too. This concept is part of the new land stewardship legislation that needs to be retained...but the offsets need to be large enough to actually enhance the prospects of at risk species like grizzly and caribou.
It is all part of a move where Albertans are revisiting values that say we need to harmonize with nature - not just try and engineer our way out of nature.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Don't Let EU Define Our Oil Sands Emissions Policy
Dr Andrew Leach has an interesting vision around oil sand greenhouse gas emissions policy in an op-ed today. Dr. Leach is an Energy, Environment and Resource Economist at the U of A and a fellow blogger.
I will be on a panel with Mike Hudema of Greenpeace and Rich Hyndman of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to respond to Dr. Leach's lecture entitled "How Our Approach to GHG Policy Could Kill the Oil Sands." It is at 6:30 reception and presentation from 7-9 pm March 3 at ETLC Solarium, 2nd floor on the U of A campus.
We at Cambridge Strategies Inc. have recently done some values-based research with the Oil Sands Research and Information Network on what values Albertans what to see guide and drive the development of their oil sands. This research found that 89% of Albertans believed that the oil sands are key to the future prosperity of Alberta. The overarching question for Albertans is not should we develop the oil sands but how should we develop this enormous resource.
Like Dr. Leach I see some of key issues that can't be allowed to compete against each other but must be integrated as as co-creative opportunities around GHG emissions and the development of the oil sands. Co-creative oil sands development opportunities must craft and integrate diverse opportunities for increased prosperity that enhance and harmonize with environmental obligations.
The corporate social license to operate in oil sands development must be part of a cultural shift around oil sands development. That shift must stretch beyond merely qualifying for a social license to operate. We need developers and operators to aspire to be worthy of public acknowledgement as a preferred steward of this vital and publicly owned natural resource.
GHG emissions are the #1 oil sands development value concern for 21.2% of Albertans. It is #4 for all Albertans in a random sample. It is behind concerns over reclamation, habitat protection and ecological monitoring. Water usage concerns are #5 in priority but these values all inter-relate to one another and have to be dealt with as a whole to make a real difference.
There are major political factors at play around GHG. Dr. Leach points to some like the international perceptions of oil sands, the European Union specifically. He also deals with the carbon pricing challenge, and points out that Alberta's "way out of this mess is through carbon pricing." I totally agree but the political ideology/mythology in the right wings that dominate the Alberta political power structure see carbon pricing as a job killing tax and therefore it is "politically"off the table. Ironically Alberta already has a modest carbon "tax" based on large emitters only. It is a penalty approach akin to an "abuser fee" and is so low that it does not really encourage behaviourial changes in industry.
There is another below the radar political reality around CO2 emissions and oil sands development. Our research shows that 57% of Albertans believe that there is some capture of oil sands related CO2 emissions. The truth is virtually none of oil sands produced CO2 is currently captured. While oil sands CO2 emissions are only about 15% of Alberta's total CO2 emissions they get almost all of the media attention, here and abroad.
The facts, while interesting, often have precious little to do with perceptions and in politics perceptions are reality. If Albertans come to realize that the truth of oil sands CO2 capture is vastly different from their perceptions and their expectations there is a potential for serious political consequence. Will Albertans feel betrayed, mislead or worse yet, lied to, once they realize this discrepancy between facts and perceptions? Will the $2billion fund dedicated to carbon capture from other non-oil sands emissions be enough to mitigate what some have referred to as the oil sands CO2 betrayal factor?
There is a tense relationship that is not getting any easier between the citizens of Alberta as owners of the oil sands, the industry who are tenants and the government who are the property managers of this vital resource. Leadership is lacking in all spheres. The acrimonious debates between environmentalists, industry and government produces a great deal of heat. I am not so sure they add much light on the issues so citizens can have a meaningful understanding of what needs to be done, what is being done and is it enough to get it right.
I applaud the University of Alberta students from the Energy Club, the Commerce and Energy and Environment Group from the School of Energy and Environment are sponsoring this series of dialogues of Oil Sands Visionaries. So Albertans, as owners of the oil sands, come out tomorrow night and get some information and insight about how your oil sands can be developed in ways that align with your values.
Hope to see you tomorrow night.
I will be on a panel with Mike Hudema of Greenpeace and Rich Hyndman of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to respond to Dr. Leach's lecture entitled "How Our Approach to GHG Policy Could Kill the Oil Sands." It is at 6:30 reception and presentation from 7-9 pm March 3 at ETLC Solarium, 2nd floor on the U of A campus.
We at Cambridge Strategies Inc. have recently done some values-based research with the Oil Sands Research and Information Network on what values Albertans what to see guide and drive the development of their oil sands. This research found that 89% of Albertans believed that the oil sands are key to the future prosperity of Alberta. The overarching question for Albertans is not should we develop the oil sands but how should we develop this enormous resource.
Like Dr. Leach I see some of key issues that can't be allowed to compete against each other but must be integrated as as co-creative opportunities around GHG emissions and the development of the oil sands. Co-creative oil sands development opportunities must craft and integrate diverse opportunities for increased prosperity that enhance and harmonize with environmental obligations.
The corporate social license to operate in oil sands development must be part of a cultural shift around oil sands development. That shift must stretch beyond merely qualifying for a social license to operate. We need developers and operators to aspire to be worthy of public acknowledgement as a preferred steward of this vital and publicly owned natural resource.
GHG emissions are the #1 oil sands development value concern for 21.2% of Albertans. It is #4 for all Albertans in a random sample. It is behind concerns over reclamation, habitat protection and ecological monitoring. Water usage concerns are #5 in priority but these values all inter-relate to one another and have to be dealt with as a whole to make a real difference.
There are major political factors at play around GHG. Dr. Leach points to some like the international perceptions of oil sands, the European Union specifically. He also deals with the carbon pricing challenge, and points out that Alberta's "way out of this mess is through carbon pricing." I totally agree but the political ideology/mythology in the right wings that dominate the Alberta political power structure see carbon pricing as a job killing tax and therefore it is "politically"off the table. Ironically Alberta already has a modest carbon "tax" based on large emitters only. It is a penalty approach akin to an "abuser fee" and is so low that it does not really encourage behaviourial changes in industry.
There is another below the radar political reality around CO2 emissions and oil sands development. Our research shows that 57% of Albertans believe that there is some capture of oil sands related CO2 emissions. The truth is virtually none of oil sands produced CO2 is currently captured. While oil sands CO2 emissions are only about 15% of Alberta's total CO2 emissions they get almost all of the media attention, here and abroad.
The facts, while interesting, often have precious little to do with perceptions and in politics perceptions are reality. If Albertans come to realize that the truth of oil sands CO2 capture is vastly different from their perceptions and their expectations there is a potential for serious political consequence. Will Albertans feel betrayed, mislead or worse yet, lied to, once they realize this discrepancy between facts and perceptions? Will the $2billion fund dedicated to carbon capture from other non-oil sands emissions be enough to mitigate what some have referred to as the oil sands CO2 betrayal factor?
There is a tense relationship that is not getting any easier between the citizens of Alberta as owners of the oil sands, the industry who are tenants and the government who are the property managers of this vital resource. Leadership is lacking in all spheres. The acrimonious debates between environmentalists, industry and government produces a great deal of heat. I am not so sure they add much light on the issues so citizens can have a meaningful understanding of what needs to be done, what is being done and is it enough to get it right.
I applaud the University of Alberta students from the Energy Club, the Commerce and Energy and Environment Group from the School of Energy and Environment are sponsoring this series of dialogues of Oil Sands Visionaries. So Albertans, as owners of the oil sands, come out tomorrow night and get some information and insight about how your oil sands can be developed in ways that align with your values.
Hope to see you tomorrow night.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Making Sense of the Alberta Budget
David Berry writes another perspective in the National Post about the underlying philosophy of the fiscal management of Alberta and the recent budget and the issues of our royalty rates in the energy sector.
It makes me wonder if we have a more serious revenue problem in that we are not paying our way for the actual costs of necessary public services. We are using one-time non-renewable resource revenues for current public service operations. The Alberta Advantage idea of having the lowest taxes is part of the cultural DNA of this place. However how much lower do our taxes have to be from those of our competitors? That is the unasked question. The recent Budget showed that Alberta tax revenue spread is $11B less than the next lowest province. Do we need to be $11B lower to be competitive?
By not paying our way on a current basis we end up using capital funds from non-renewable resource revenues to pay for current expenses. This is not right. Albertans are proud people who believe everyone should pay their own way but we don't translate that value into paying the cost of necessary public services from taxes and user fees. We use capital funds from non-renewable resources instead. Isn't this approach just taking away from future generations? What is the legacy we intend to leave them as a result?
There needs to be a clearing of the air on the capital side of the recent budget too. The Sustainability Fund is being misrepresented in the political commentary around the Budget as a "rainy-day" or a "savings" fund. It is neither - and never was. It was the prudent taking of resource based surpluses and banking them for future investment in infrastructure. They are earmarked funds to be used for meeting the necessary infrastructure demands like schools and hospitals. The Stability Fund enabled capital projects to be paid for in total, without borrowing, and at a time after the boom so we could get better prices, not compete with the private sector and generate jobs to lessen the blow of the recession. It is a win-win-win deal.
It is not creating a fiscal deficit. It is fixing an infrastructure deficit. That infrastructure deficit was created by the policy of neglect in the Klein era when there was not enough maintenance of our schools and other public facilities. Debt and deficit reduction got carried away and was done way too rapidly. It left problems of facility neglect and deferral of other facilities we needed like schools and hospitals to respond to the rapid population growth in Alberta from people moving here in the last boom.
We bragged that we paid off the debt in about 7 years, and I believe it was done even faster than that. Debt and deficit reduction was designed as a 25 year prudent program by the then Finance Minister, Jim Dinning. We can't just blame the Klein government for this infrastructure deficit and late response to growth pressures. We Albertans encouraged our politicians to pursue the hyper-rapid debt pay down. We also ignored the more prudent longer range planning that was in place to smooth out the boom and bust cycles and lessen the fiscal excesses that hurt us in both parts of the boom and bust cycles.
So don't be fooled by talk of the deficit being created in this last budget - from any of the current political parties, including the PCs strangely enough. Why have they used deficit language to describe the conversion of the Stability Fund from cash to physical capital? The Stability Fund is being used precisely for the purposes intended and at a "bust" time when we can get better value for the taxpayer's money.
Lets also look at the Alberta Advantage of low taxes and see if we have gone too far in tax reductions. We are at the point current Albertans are not paying our way. We are misappropriating non-renewable resource money from future generations to be spent on us now. We were motivated in 1993 election to to pay down the debt and deficit in large part because we felt we could not leave that burden to our children. I wonder if we appreciate that we are spending their natural resource birthright now because we are failing, refusing or neglecting to pay our own way today.
That is just one of the adult conversations that has to be held amongst Albertans going into the next election. I wonder if Albertans in 2011 will feel the same way we did in 1993 about our duty and obligation to future generations...or is our sense of entitlement so strong that we just don't care about the legacy we are leaving our children, socially, environmentally or economically.
It makes me wonder if we have a more serious revenue problem in that we are not paying our way for the actual costs of necessary public services. We are using one-time non-renewable resource revenues for current public service operations. The Alberta Advantage idea of having the lowest taxes is part of the cultural DNA of this place. However how much lower do our taxes have to be from those of our competitors? That is the unasked question. The recent Budget showed that Alberta tax revenue spread is $11B less than the next lowest province. Do we need to be $11B lower to be competitive?
By not paying our way on a current basis we end up using capital funds from non-renewable resource revenues to pay for current expenses. This is not right. Albertans are proud people who believe everyone should pay their own way but we don't translate that value into paying the cost of necessary public services from taxes and user fees. We use capital funds from non-renewable resources instead. Isn't this approach just taking away from future generations? What is the legacy we intend to leave them as a result?
There needs to be a clearing of the air on the capital side of the recent budget too. The Sustainability Fund is being misrepresented in the political commentary around the Budget as a "rainy-day" or a "savings" fund. It is neither - and never was. It was the prudent taking of resource based surpluses and banking them for future investment in infrastructure. They are earmarked funds to be used for meeting the necessary infrastructure demands like schools and hospitals. The Stability Fund enabled capital projects to be paid for in total, without borrowing, and at a time after the boom so we could get better prices, not compete with the private sector and generate jobs to lessen the blow of the recession. It is a win-win-win deal.
It is not creating a fiscal deficit. It is fixing an infrastructure deficit. That infrastructure deficit was created by the policy of neglect in the Klein era when there was not enough maintenance of our schools and other public facilities. Debt and deficit reduction got carried away and was done way too rapidly. It left problems of facility neglect and deferral of other facilities we needed like schools and hospitals to respond to the rapid population growth in Alberta from people moving here in the last boom.
We bragged that we paid off the debt in about 7 years, and I believe it was done even faster than that. Debt and deficit reduction was designed as a 25 year prudent program by the then Finance Minister, Jim Dinning. We can't just blame the Klein government for this infrastructure deficit and late response to growth pressures. We Albertans encouraged our politicians to pursue the hyper-rapid debt pay down. We also ignored the more prudent longer range planning that was in place to smooth out the boom and bust cycles and lessen the fiscal excesses that hurt us in both parts of the boom and bust cycles.
So don't be fooled by talk of the deficit being created in this last budget - from any of the current political parties, including the PCs strangely enough. Why have they used deficit language to describe the conversion of the Stability Fund from cash to physical capital? The Stability Fund is being used precisely for the purposes intended and at a "bust" time when we can get better value for the taxpayer's money.
Lets also look at the Alberta Advantage of low taxes and see if we have gone too far in tax reductions. We are at the point current Albertans are not paying our way. We are misappropriating non-renewable resource money from future generations to be spent on us now. We were motivated in 1993 election to to pay down the debt and deficit in large part because we felt we could not leave that burden to our children. I wonder if we appreciate that we are spending their natural resource birthright now because we are failing, refusing or neglecting to pay our own way today.
That is just one of the adult conversations that has to be held amongst Albertans going into the next election. I wonder if Albertans in 2011 will feel the same way we did in 1993 about our duty and obligation to future generations...or is our sense of entitlement so strong that we just don't care about the legacy we are leaving our children, socially, environmentally or economically.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Some Priority Concerns Raise Questions in the Alberta Budget
I think the Alberta Budget announced this week - Premier Stelmach's last, has a lot going for it. There is some stuff that is not great but it is by and large a progressive prudent budget. It is delivered in the classic political technique of setting up trial balloons of pending harsh expectations, then delivering something less brutal seems like a reprieve. So the kudos are not always the result of any pure objective analysis. Perceptions, values and mindsets of citizens are always a big part of the art of budgeting.
The Wildrose Alliance will say we have a spending problem and dire consequences will befall us is just wrong on the facts and misleading in the analysis. More on that in subsequent posts I expects. Bottom line is there is not deficit in this budget. We earmarked cash in the Stability Fund to pay for much needed infrastructure to responds to years of neglect and to catch up to the population growth we ignored in the Klein days. Using that designated cash on hand to build schools and hospitals and roads is not creating a deficit.
What I really want to do is direct your attention to an excellent editorial in the Edmonton Journal of Saturday Feb 26. The title captures the mood of the piece "Budget Rich in Troubling Questions." I think there are some unsettling questions Albertans need to ask themselves about if we are paying our way for the necessary public services we demand from government. We also have to revisit the "huge handouts ...to oil and gas companies...in the drilling stimulus program."
Read this editorial carefully and consider if these policies make sense to you on incentives and royalty breaks. Do we really need them or should Albertans start acting like the owners of our resources and have a more mutually beneficial business-like and not serf-like relation with those we license to develop our resources.
The Wildrose Alliance will say we have a spending problem and dire consequences will befall us is just wrong on the facts and misleading in the analysis. More on that in subsequent posts I expects. Bottom line is there is not deficit in this budget. We earmarked cash in the Stability Fund to pay for much needed infrastructure to responds to years of neglect and to catch up to the population growth we ignored in the Klein days. Using that designated cash on hand to build schools and hospitals and roads is not creating a deficit.
What I really want to do is direct your attention to an excellent editorial in the Edmonton Journal of Saturday Feb 26. The title captures the mood of the piece "Budget Rich in Troubling Questions." I think there are some unsettling questions Albertans need to ask themselves about if we are paying our way for the necessary public services we demand from government. We also have to revisit the "huge handouts ...to oil and gas companies...in the drilling stimulus program."
Read this editorial carefully and consider if these policies make sense to you on incentives and royalty breaks. Do we really need them or should Albertans start acting like the owners of our resources and have a more mutually beneficial business-like and not serf-like relation with those we license to develop our resources.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
It is Saturday Morning - Time for a Creative Diversion
Here is something that is worth watching if only for the sheer enjoyment of design and creativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qybUFnY7Y8w
(H/T to Paul Traynor for the link)
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qybUFnY7Y8w
(H/T to Paul Traynor for the link)
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)