How do we balance the economy with the environment?
This is the question underlying much of the debate around pipelines, greenhouse gases, liquefied natural gas exports, reforestation, etc. It is certainly the question at the core of Prime Minister Trudeau's pipeline announcement last week.
The federal cabinet provided approval of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion, which will see the amount of oil shipped out of Vancouver tripled to 890,000 barrels per day and Enbridge Inc.'s Line 3 replacement project, which will ship up to 760,000 barrels per day to the U.S. Midwest. At the same time, the prime minister finally put a stake through the heart of Northern Gateway.
Trudeau's own panel of experts described the Trans Mountain pipeline as being among the most "controversial in the country, perhaps in the world, today." This is presumably because the terminus of the pipeline lies in the busy Vancouver harbour and not in the remote backwaters of northern B.C.
But despite their precautions, the prime minister feels the cabinet's decision to approve Trans Mountain is based on rigorous debate, on science, and on the evidence presented.
"If I thought this project was unsafe for the B.C. coast, I would reject it," he said, adding "We made this decision today because we are convinced it is in the best interests of Canadians."
Trudeau went even further down the rabbit hole when he argued "Canadians know that strong action on the environment is good for the economy. We said that major pipelines could only get built if we had a price on carbon and strong environmental protection in place. We said Indigenous people must be respected and part of the process."
His announcement opened the door for Premier Christy Clark to look both strong on the environment and the economy. Her five conditions were once again front and centre - regulatory approval of the pipeline, world class oil spill response on the terrestrial land base and on the waters, participation by Indigenous people, and a fair share of the profits coming to the province.
In her remarks, Premier Clark described these conditions as the route to a "yes" and felt they had almost been met. Her government has stuck to its guns on protecting the B.C. coast while still allowing major pipeline expansion. She has managed to juggle both the environmental and economic files.
Prime Minister Trudeau's announcement will bolster the fortunes of the B.C. Liberal party in the upcoming provincial election as a consequence. The B.C. Liberals can claim any environmental damage won't be as a result of their decision and any economic benefit will.
But despite the announcements, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline is not a done deal. Groups immediately lined up to decry the Prime Minister's actions. The mayors in Vancouver's major municipalities all got on board with condemning the project as did city councillors.
Vancouver's Adriane Carr, former leader of B.C.'s Green Party, talking on the CBC last week denounced the proposed pipeline and promised to protest even it means getting arrested. Tens of thousands of Vancouverites will be marching in the streets, she says.
During the interview, Ms. Carr went so far as to state Vancouver's principle industry is "tourism" and the pipeline will destroy that. What Ms. Carr seems to forget is Vancouver is first and foremost a port city being one of North America's principal gateways to the Pacific.
It ranks near the top in North America in total foreign exports and second on the west coast in total cargo volume. The port handles over $43 billion in goods and employs approximately 69,000 people contributing close to $9 billion into the local economy.
The GDP value for tourism in the entire province is only $7.5 billion with gross earnings of $13.5 billion. Clearly the Port of Vancouver is a major factor - if not the major component - of the economy in the Lower Mainland and certainly as significant as tourism.
But is the economy then the only criteria that matters? If the pipeline will bring in increased traffic through the Port of Vancouver and result in increased revenue for the provincial government and Kinder Morgan while generating more jobs, is this all that should matter?
What about the potential for the disruption of the environment? What about the possibility of a spill in the Salish Sea? What about the struggling salmon and other fisheries on the west coast? What about the impact on agricultural exports?
The question of how to balance the need for economic growth, driven by the inherent structure of our economic system and the increasing population of both the province and the world, with the desire to maintain an environment which respects a multitude of values should be the core question in this provincial election.
After all, we need to do both but how do we balance them?
