In my last entry in this space, I challenged Mayor Gregor Robertson to provide alternative suggestions to societys reliance on oil.
This challenge was prompted by an op-ed he wrote last week in the Vancouver Sun, where he outlined his reasons for opposing Kinder Morgans plans to increase the number of barrels of crude it wants to funnel down its pipeline from Alberta to its Burnaby terminal. I challenged Robertson because he didnt offer any alternatives. Somehow, this challenge was seen by the mayor and some in the Twitterverse as me taking sides. Simply laughable.
Not sure how asking a politician to provide alternatives to our reliance on oil can be construed opposing the mayors fight. Anyway, as I promised Robertson, Ive given up my coveted space to allow him to answer my challenge and offer some alternatives. Let me know what you think.
--------
Dear Mike,
Last week, you disagreed with my opposition to Kinder Morgans proposal to increase oil tanker traffic through Vancouver harbour by five times. You challenged me to explain what my realistic alternative is, and you graciously offered me your bi-weekly column space, and all the glamour and prestige that comes with it.
(But with a catch: no using the word sustainable and no mentioning electric cars. Come on! Thats like asking Mark Hasiuk to write a column without venting anti-green rage every other sentenceits just unfair.)
First, lets be clear: the tripling of crude oil shipments isnt for Vancouvers energy needs, or B.C.s, or Canadas. The oil will be exported, mostly to fuel foreign economies. The increase in oil tanker traffic is massive - from 71 oil tankers in 2010 to an estimated 300-360 a year for decades to come.
This undoubtedly creates risk for Vancouvers current and future economy with no benefits. The impact of a major oil spill to our shoreline and waterways would be both environmentally horrific and economically devastating. Weve seen many examples of this elsewhere.
We have tens of thousands of jobs on the line that are put at risk if anything goes wrong - notably in tourism, fisheries and development. We have zero jobs that depend on adding 360 more oil tankers a year coming and going from our harbour. Why would we accept five times the risk of catastrophe to our successful economy and local environment?
The alternative to the Kinder Morgan proposal is continuing to be the worlds most livable city with a thriving, diverse economy and global leadership in green, low-carbon industries. When you look at it that way, I couldnt take any other position and remain faithful to the duties of the office of mayor. Last time I checked, my job was to work in the best interests of Vancouverites, not Texas-based oil companies.
You ask about practical and realistic alternatives to our reliance on oil. Theres no doubt we will rely on oil for years to come and thats what the existing pipeline delivers. But unlike most cities, Vancouver is already reducing our dependence on oil.
Thanks to decades of city-wide focus on going green, our fossil fuel needs and GHG emissions are dropping steadily. We are a world-leading example of a city with our population and economy going up while our fossil fuel consumption and pollution goes down. Weve seen a six per cent drop in fuel sales since 1999, and were on track to achieve our Kyoto commitment of a six per cent drop in emissions below 1990 levels.
Thats right Mikeand we did all this without forcing people to live in caves, having to read the Courier by candlelight.
Big picture, our only realistic alternative to running out of oil and unbridled climate change is to ensure that cities can thrive without fossil fuels. That means replacing oil with clean renewable energy, and ensuring that everything is more energy and resource efficientour buildings, transportation, food, business, recreation, etc.
Luckily this isnt rocket sciencethe options to dramatically reduce oil use already exist. As oil supply tightens and prices climb, the shift to renewables and efficiency will accelerateand our green entrepreneurs, top-notch research institutions and credibility give Vancouver a huge market advantage. Becoming Canadas major oil port does not make economic or environmental sense. Vancouver gets all of the risk, but wheres the upside?
Thanks again for letting me use your column space to make my point. But if you think that this means Ill let you be mayor for a day, keep dreaming.
Email [email protected] with your comments.
Twitter: @Howellings
