With dull predictability, the federal Royal Society Expert Panel on the science of whether or not to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas development on BC’s west coast reported in February that there wasn’t enough knowledge to assess the risks, but that shouldn’t stop development. Here are some problems with that report.
by Stuart Hertzog © 2004
1) In reaching its conclusions, the Panel used the same illogic as Dr. David Strong used in the provincial Science Review, that while many knowledge gaps exist they can only be filled by lifting the moratoria, as only then will industry pay forbaseline research.
2) Politicians and not industry are driving this process, and it’s costing taxpayers millions of dollars already with more to come. If industry really wanted to explore the area, energy corporations would be offering research money to get what they want. But because governments are needy, industry will come to the table only if they are promised billions of dollars in tax concessions and incentives, which they are already getting in other areas of the province. Politicians want to lift the moratoria so they can persuade industry to come in and explore, so they can look good for the next election – short-term thinking.
3) The Terms of Reference for the process distorted the Precautionary Principle in favour of development, by redefining it as “it’s OK to use the precautionary principle as long as it doesn’t stop us deciding to go ahead.” This is NOT the Precautionary Principle, and the federal government should be ashamed of distorting this essential ecosystem management concept.
4) The conclusions of the Science panel ignore the reality of global warming, and the consequence of burning more fossil fuel. While federal and provincial governments continue to pour taxpayers’ money into subsidizing fossil fuel explora tion and extraction, non-polluting ‘alternative’ energy technologies languish. This is far from a level playing field, and the conclusions of the Royal Society Science Review do nothing to help end our dependency on fossil fuels.
5) The process used by the Panel was biased and dominated by pro-development bureaucrats and by industry. The workshops were dominated by many long presentations from the energy industry, many of which had no science content, and by consultants to government and industry with a pro-development bias.
6) The Panel consisted of people who derive part of their income from consulting to the energy industry. As they spend their professional lives dreaming up ways of helping industry improve its efficiency and safety record, the Panel was not likely to report it was not OK to lift the moratoria. Even as academics, they stand to gain if industry and government pour research money into marine science on the west coast.
7) The Royal Society Panel made a lot of assumptions which it cannot guarantee will be put in place. The main assumption is that a “proper regulatory environment” will safeguard the environment, but in BC we can almost guarantee this will not happen due to the complete politicization of environmental protection. Both governments are in a conflict of interest over revenues.
8) Another assumption is that relatively small safety zones can protect the marine and coastal environment. On the contrary, the evidence is that a spill in one part of this inland seas system will affect the entire ecosystem directly or indirectly. “Postage-stamp” Marine Protected Areas are laughable in the face of a major oil spill or gas blowout.
9) A further assumption is that safety measures work all the time – they don’t, and often it’s the small spills and mishaps that add up. While the evidence points to an overall decline in major spills and tanker sinkings, they continue to happen. Small spills often are not reported by the authorities, but have a cumulative effect of slowly degrading the pristine coastal environment. No beach will be free of some oil if exploration was to take place in the Hecate.
10) This is a critical ecosystem that is vital for the continued marine life on the entire west coast of North America. To put it at risk simply so some politicians can cling to power or some energy industry academic consultants can make money from industry-funded research contracts, is to prostitute science on the altar of political and economic expediency.
***
Stuart Hertzog is an environmental researcher and writer based in Victoria. He is president of Sea Watch Ecological Society