Ethics of the oil sands

CYNTHIA RAMSAY

Any good debater knows his opponents’ arguments inside and out, and Ezra Levant is an exceptionally talented debater.

The Calgary-based lawyer, journalist and political activist begins his controversial new book, Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oil Sands (McClelland and Stewart, 2010), with all the criticisms: the Alberta oil sands are as big as the entire state of Florida, what’s not turned into an open-pit mine becomes a giant toxic lake, birds and fish are dying, production is sapping or polluting water resources, cancer rates are higher in the region, greenhouse gas emissions are the highest of any other method of oil production and corporations are taking all the money, leaving only an environmental, health and economic catastrophe.

“Wow. The oil sands are embarrassing. Not just for Albertans but for anyone in Canada who cares about the environment, or aboriginal rights or our international reputation,” writes Levant. “Except, it’s not true. Every single fact in the preceding pages is false. Every one of them.”

He then goes on to methodically question and counter all of the information generally used to condemn the oil sands. For example, he notes that, while they cover a huge area, “only two percent of that area will ever be mined. The rest of the oil sands are just too deep – they’ll be steamed and pumped out of the ground, not unlike the way normal oil is.” He points out, “All the oil sands companies combined are only permitted to use a maximum of 2.2 percent of the Athabasca River’s flow. In practice, they typically only use one percent.... And only oil sands mines use river water – most oil sands operations drill for oil underground. They don’t use river water at all [for that], and 90 percent of the nonpotable water they do use is recycled again.” The cancer stats were cooked, states Levant, and bird mortality highly exaggerated, while the “oil sands combined emit just five percent of Canada’s total greenhouse gases – less than, for example, the emissions from all of Canada’s cattle and pigs.”

Levant doesn’t restrict his analysis to the operation of the oil sands, but compares it to that of oil produced in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan. While his book is called Ethical Oil, a more accurate title would be More Ethical Oil, as Levant isn’t arguing for the use of oil itself, but rather that, given our current dependence on oil, from where is the most ethical place to purchase it.

In an interview with the Independent, Levant put it this way, “I don’t think people have asked the simple question of those who criticize the oil sands, which is: ‘Then what?’ As in, ‘If we don’t fill up our car with gas that comes from the oil sands, then where should we buy our gas from?’ As in, ‘If not Canadian oil, then oil from where?’ Because none of the answers are any good.”

He freely admitted that the oil sands aren’t perfect. “No industrial project is perfect; no human endeavor is perfect, because no human is perfect,” he said. “And that’s the problem with a context-free discussion of the oil sands. If we are comparing the oil sands to some perfect ideal, some fantasy fuel of the future with no side effects, then the oil sands will obviously ‘lose.’ But that makes no sense, since people have to fill up their cars with gas from somewhere. So that’s why I’m asking people to make a comparison with real-world alternatives, not a science-fiction alternative.

“By the way,” he added, “the oil sands are the cleanest source of oil in the world, when measured by many criteria. And it’s getting cleaner all the time – since 1990, the CO2 needed to make a barrel of oil has declined by 38 percent.”

There are a lot of facts and figures in Ethical Oil and Levant takes on some powerful anti-oil sands lobbyists, such as Greenpeace. When asked why readers should believe his facts and not Greenpeace’s or National Geographic’s extremely negative article on the oil sands last year, Levant said, “The facts that I marshal in my book are meticulously footnoted. Many of them are from impeccable liberal sources, like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations. I also quote two Greenpeace officials, too. But I don’t think any of my facts are particularly controversial – I don’t think it’s controversial that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, etc., are brutal dictatorships. I don’t think it’s controversial that Canada’s environment is superior to that of Nigeria, Russia, etc. The strength of my book isn’t any primary research, really – it’s an argument. I list four liberal values (environmentalism, peace, economic justice and respect for minorities) and challenge liberals to apply those criteria to various sources of oil.”

Given the innumerable factors that go into bringing any idea or product to the marketplace, the Independent asked Levant how he would advise people to go about trying to assess the ethics of, not just of oil, but of buying local or fair trade versus whatever’s cheapest on the shelf, or whatever product they happen to like most.

“Oil is easier than most products: it is a global commodity, with a global price and, unlike fair trade coffee or non-conflict diamonds, it’s necessary for our economy. So knowing the country your oil comes from is pretty much the only thing you need to know to make a moral decision. Other products would be more complicated, I’m sure.”

Levant stressed, “Buying gas for your car is a pretty routine act for most Canadians and Americans. When hundreds of millions of us buy gas, the total effect is massive on things like peace, terror, human rights and justice in the world. Just think how the world would be different if we could divert $5 billion/year from Iran’s nuclear program to Canadian hospitals. Or $10 billion/year from Saudi Arabian fundamentalist mosques to Canadian universities. And that’s just the cash. Think about how much better the world’s environment would be.

“I believe that by talking about it, and measuring, and doing something about the ethics of oil production, we can make the world a better place. And we don’t have to spend a penny a litre more to do it.”

^TOP