Op-Ed | “Energy East Pipeline Should Never See the Light of Day”

There has been more talk recently about the energy east proposal – a pipeline to carry 1.1-million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada.  Along with the Friday announcement from the federal government for climate change feedback, its now timely to review again why energy east is a non-starter.

On a rational planet, the energy east pipeline, as with any future petroleum pipeline, should never see the light of day.  Why not?

First, the energy east pipeline will never meet investment projections to transport fossil fuels before fossil fuel extraction must be eliminated.  Even if this proposal passes the regulatory hurdles, teases investments from an increasingly carbon-averse investment community, and gains any political traction, it still must navigate an inconvenient reality: it’s difficult to imagine how a carbon free global economy will have any use for a one-million-barrels-a-day anachronistic infrastructure. The anticipated time frame for construction itself will exceed the time period for the majority of fossil fuels to be phased out globally.  But what really drives a final nail into this coffin is the fact that, in order to make a financially viable investment case, this proposal must demonstrate it can provide not only a return of capital to investors, but also demonstrate a return on investment of that capital loan.  That’s simply not possible in today’s reality of a carbon free world.  In far less time than the requisite life span of this investment in order for it to be productive (read investor attractive), we will have ceased using fossil fuels.  This proposal can only create a stranded asset.

Second, fossil fuels cause environmental damage and costs human lives, pipelines much more so, whether the
product reaches its intended destination or not.  Any form of fossil fuel transport includes risks. Trains derail, pipelines leak, tankers sink.  It might surprise people to know that there are currently hundreds of uncontrolled pipeline leaks of petroleum fuels happening right now in Canada.  That’s the ones we know about.  When a train derails, people always detect that damage, swiftly, and it often becomes big news.  When a pipeline leaks, many are neglected because they are too minor or simply undetected, almost all are difficult to access, and the larger ones can take months to detect and resolve, meaning that a train derailment typically causes less damage than a pipeline leak.  A pipeline, too, is not only difficult to shut down, its economically disastrous to stop and many leak far more petroleum substances than do rail disasters. You can see these destructive pipeline leaks that have been detected on an interactive map on the National Energy Boards’ website.  This should be front page headlines, if not for the fact that it is all too common to even make the news these days.

Third, the enormous costs of such infrastructure (an enormous private sector/private wealth subsidy) is holding back the Canadian economy and wasting billions of dollars of essential investment revenue.  The need for fair and sustainable redistribution of federal dollars for renewable technologies, economic transitions, and poverty alleviation are critical.  This loss of revenue motivated leading Canadian scientists to seriously question the legitimacy of, and the low floor costs of $120 billion for, fossil fuel infrastructure, the mere viability of such infrastructure, and to voice concerns about the irreparable damage to the health and well-being of Canadians and the need to diversify Canadian energy supplies and security.  In other words, some of the brightest minds in Canada have made the point that fossil
fuel infrastructure, such as energy east, is wasteful, costly, dangerous, unhealthy, of no social or economic value, and will serve no purpose other than to risk our security and supplies of energy.  That’s quite a mouthful for a usually quiet conservative bunch.

Fourth, any fossil fuel infrastructure, including energy east, is intended to facilitate the marketability of fossil fuels.  Fossil fuels are devastating to the environment and human health, especially when used as intended.  Addiction “is a medical condition that is characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.”  The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health defines the four C’s of addiction as craving, loss of control, compulsion to engage, and neglect of consequences.  We need only think of our response when gasoline prices rise.  In any classic definition, our use of fossil fuels is a genuine substance addiction.  The worlds’ leaders have signaled their intent to break us of this addiction.  Since addiction only harms society, the best time to resolve any addiction is now.  Continuing to construct fossil fuel infrastructure when we know it will never be used merely fuels our addiction, and sets us up for some very undesirable withdrawal experiences.

Fifth, unlike Alberta and Saskatchewan, energy east will produce negative net benefits for Northern Ontario, including jobs and transfer payments.  The Ontario Energy Board evaluated the proposal and concluded: “Even though almost half of Energy East runs through Ontario, the OEB believes the pipeline will result in only modest economic benefits for the province. As with all pipelines, the benefits will largely accrue to the region producing the goods going into the pipeline and the region taking the goods out of it. This leads to an imbalance between the economic and environmental risks of the Project, and the expected benefits for Ontarians.”  Despite that overly
optimistic diplomatic account, we now know that even the tube mill in Sault Ste. Marie will lose out – the proponent has now signed a major supply agreement with an international corporation instead.  Like the Sault, all of Northern Ontario should declare its opposition to energy east.  That approach would be a progressive marketing bonanza.  It would signal interest in key infrastructure needed for the 21st century, and generate tremendous employment and business benefits locally in addition to improved health outcomes and healthier residents, and a cleaner and safer
environment, not to mention more secure, reliable, stable, safe and economically valuable supplies of energy.

The world is expected to reach it’s GHG emissions budget through safely extractable reserves that will place the world on a 1.5 degree temperature rise – the aspirational target established in the recent Paris negotiations ratified
last Friday by global governments including Canada – by the year 2020.  Energy East couldn’t conceivably be ready for use by that year.  The formal 2 degree rise to which all governments are now targeting?  Given projected consumption rates, that safely extractable reserve budget will be breached, not in the anticipated year of 2100, but by 2029 – a mere 13 years from now.  That means that all fossil fuel extraction will need to cease by that year to keep the world at a 2.0 degree temperature rise.  Need anyone be reminded that the remarkably conservative scientific models have consistently underestimated the rate of climate change and climate impacts as a result of our GHG emissions?  Not to mention the ingenious methods of some politicians and certain sectors of society to manufacture consent for irresponsible, dangerous and socially unhealthy, if not unethical behaviour.  Any longer productive lifespan required for energy east than 2029, and likely 2020, makes it a stranded asset.  By definition. Any fool who believes that pipelines, which will take years to complete, will help reduce Canada’s or the worlds emission budget in line with keeping the world below a 2 degree temperature rise need not be part of this conversation.  Any rational person can understand that, if completed, these pipelines will never carry petroleum products.

Within a decade, almost every energy consuming aspect of our lives will be transformed, for better or for worse.  Vehicles, home heating, resource extraction and industry will all need to experience dramatic transformations of their energy supplies.  One decade.  That’s not much time remaining for a smooth transition.  Wasting time dithering over a pipeline that’ll never be used for its intended purpose is time wasted not constructing a new, better, healthier economy.  It’s time Canada got its head out of the tar sands and wrapped its head around reality constructing that new economy.  This needs to be a conversation about technologies, lifestyles, economies, growth (or degrowth) and our consumption and production behaviour.  We should not be doing what was done in the past if we expect to achieve different results.

The only question remaining is, are we a rational species, or a radical one?  As goes the Captain Kirk joke, “beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here”, this debate is not about our rational brains.  This debate has been all about the politics of control and money, with little basis in reality.  It’s time that changed.