Big oil running the show

Big oil running the show

Written by Mark Sandilands

Wednesday, 12 May 2010

According to a recent report from Associated Press about the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, BP somehow avoided submitting a plan in 2008 for handling a blowout. This illustrates how big oil companies can get governments to bend to their will. Here in Alberta, a recent example of this phenomenon is the oil royalties issue. Some highlights: • 2006: all PC leadership candidates call for a royalty review • February 2007: Premier Stelmach appoints a Royalty Review Panel; • September 2007: The Panel calls for increased royalties; • October 2007: Alberta’s Auditor-General Fred Dunn says in his annual report that the Alberta government knew as far back as 2004 that Albertans could collect at least another $1 billion a year from the oil industry; • October 2007: Stelmach increases royalty rates by 20 per cent (25 per cent less than the panel recommended); • February 2008: It comes out that the Royalty Review panel was not given all the data — data indicating royalties could be increased without harming the economy; • March 2008: Stelmach announces a five-year royalty break worth $237 million per year. And on it goes. There are two story lines to the oil and gas royalties issue: 1. Stelmach changed the oil royalties at the absolute worst time — when the prices were plummeting, causing the oil industry in Alberta to flee to other jurisdictions where royalties are lower, making the economic slump in the Alberta oilpatch worse than otherwise. 2. The oil companies were outraged that Stelmach and company and decided to punish him. First, they pulled out of Alberta — their huge profits allow them to lose a bit of money and the loss is worth it to teach Stelmach a lesson. Second, they pull donations from the PCs and funding an upstart further-to-the right party, the Alberta Wildrose Alliance, which promises to give the oil companies what they want. What’s the effect of all this on Albertans? Less money for health care, long-term care, etc. Cataract surgery is pulled out of Lethbridge and long-term care facilities are closed in favour of DAL where costs are carried by families. If you’d like to hear more about this topic, plan to attend one or both of the talks by Brian Mason, leader of the Alberta NDP: Thursday at 10 a.m. at the Lethbridge Senior Citizens Organization.  Title: Good Health Care and Royalty Fair Share. Thursday at 7 p.m. at Southminster United Church Thursday.  Title: Good Health Care, Long Term Care and Royalty Fair Share.

Setting the record straight about climate science

Editor:

The letter from Ben VanHees (April 21: Climate scientists have done nothing to earn respect) contains a number of misleading statements which need to be corrected.

To start, the IPCC scientists did not and do not work for pay from the UN. The IPCC website clearly states, “Experts contributing to the review will do so without any remuneration.” And they didn’t work for a solid year: a glance at the call for applications at the IPCC website mentions frequent week-end gatherings and rely on email the rest of the time.

Secondly, the hockey stick graph, based on an analysis of tree rings (used as temperature estimations) showed clearly how temperatures were fairly steady for hundreds of years and then spiked in the last part of the 20th Century.

The hockey stick graph has been the focus of attacks by certain right wing national newspapers, perhaps because it was prominent in the Third IPCC Report (we’ve received the Fourth and IPCC is working on the Fifth) and in Al Gore’s film. Yes, two Canadians found errors in the Mann “hockey stick” paper, not by visiting trees, but by obtaining the original data and re-analyzing it. However, independent assessments agree that, although there was one small error in the paper, the overall conclusions were reasonable. This website http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html has a nice summary of the controversy.

VanHees says that replication is the basis of the “scientific method” and charges that Michael Mann, one of the authors of the hockey stick graph, refuses to release all of his data. How then did the two Canadians re-analyze it? In fact, Mann’s data are available (see the website above for links). More importantly, the research findings shown in the hockey stick graph have been replicated again and again, using different temperature proxies and different methodologies. The findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals, such as SCIENCE (arguably one of the top science journals in the world) unlike attempts to discredit the research.

That the earth is warming is accepted by the national academies of the G8 countries (http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf) and even by most skeptics who now focus on the cause. There are local temperature changes such as receding glaciers and earlier spring break-ups. More importantly, global temperature averages show the warming (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/). Quick action is imperative.
________

Mark Sandilands

Published in the Lethbridge Herald 2010-4-29, page A8