HOPE OIL SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE SACRIFICED AT THE ALTAR OF CLIMATE CHANGE BLATHER

The buzz word ‘climate change’ was used by President Obama in his joint press conference with Canada PM Stephen Harper during the recent Three Amigos meeting in Toluca, Mexico. Obama was responding to question on Keystone XL pipeline.

In the Liberal Party of Canada convention held in Montreal in the last week of February, the Liberal leader Justin Trudeau also used this buzz word in the context of development of Canada’s natural resources (clearly the allusion was toward oil sands development).

While Obama habitually talks about climate change in the context of Keystone XL pipeline project as if climate change is on the line due to this project – this of course is a preposterous correlation, self-intuitive to someone who is endowed with reasonable amount of intellectual faculties – it is not clear where Trudeau stands on the above correlation. But Liberals also have a habit of mentioning ‘environment’ and ‘climate change’ in a parrot-like manner in their speeches.

Now, let’s see whether the phrase ‘climate change’ is appropriate to use in the context of some different weather conditions seen in some parts of the world, for instance, polar vortex which brought quite cold temperatures in parts of US not experienced in many years. So, if a certain winter becomes relatively colder or a summer is relatively hotter than usual, does it provide sound basis to trumpet the phrase ‘climate change’?

It is well know that the meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region, i.e., climate, are known to be have been different (more severe/less severe) during certain year or years if one looks at hundreds of years data for a given region. So, the point is that: differences in meteorological conditions in a certain winter or summer should not be confused as climate change, rather the more appropriate phase would be ‘climate aberration’.

In 2014, winter has been relatively colder in certain parts of the world, due to the wider impact of polar vortex, all this should be viewed/studied as climate aberration instead of jumping up and down like a clown parroting the phrase climate change. If the temperature, precipitation data of a certain area shows a longer trend of change, then the new set of data could possibly qualify as a basis to characterize a change as climate change.

The next question to ask in the context of so-called climate change, which should actually be referred to as climate aberration, should be: Do the so-called environment scientists really know what is causing the climate aberration(s) of recent years? Why this question is important to ask because the so-called environment scientists have been ascribing the climate aberrations to GHG – first they coined the phrase ‘global warming’, but when winters started to get colder they switched on to this phrase ‘climate change’.

It is well known that factors most responsible for earth’s temperature are water vapour, methane, solar activity, earth’s magnetic effect, Gulf Stream among many other factors, including CO_2, about which the scientists are still not fully knowledgeable about. However, CO₂ is certainly not the main culprit – by no stretch of rational imagination.

So, if CO₂ is not the main culprit for climate aberrations and since emission of this gas is associated with oil sands for levelling all sorts of (irrational) criticism against oil sands’ development, it is clear that Canada’s this very vital resource (namely, oil sands) is not the critical factor for the climate aberrations one is witnessing in recent past, no way!

Hopefully, the Liberals would remember this when they deal with the subject of oil sands development whether as part of any government or any debate within and/or outside Canada. Hopefully, they would also remember the huge contribution oil sands has made to Canada – this fact has been clearly brought out by a recent study by IHS CERA called ‘Oil Sands Economic Benefits: Today and in the future, January 2014’.

And, by the way, if, for argument sake, CO₂ happened to be the main culprit (which it is NOT!), is any one on this planet in a position to shut down ALL CO₂ emitting operations all over the world with a snap of a finger? Of course, not! Can fossil fuel consumption be brought down to zero in next 5 or 10 or 15 years? Of course, not! Not even in next 50 years!

But what CAN be done is to develop resources like oil sands in a responsible manner, meaning, using processes which emit lesser GHG and causes minimal impact on environment. Hopefully, the Liberals would understand and remember this, Trudeau seemed to be okay with ‘responsible development of natural resources’ as he put it in his address to delegates on 22 February 2014.

Obama may not want to see things in scientifically rational manner for his own reasons/agenda, but the Canadian political parties of different stripes need to see and deal with the subject of oil sands development in rational manner and not kill it or stifle it out of some foolish political jingoism. The parties would do well to remember an old English saying that cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face does not help anyone! Certainly not Canada!