Feeding the fire that threatens to burn down our economy

It is bad enough that the Alberta government misleads its public about the supposedly settled science of climate change. But in mid-March, they took the same flawed message to the United States in one of the worst public relations mistakes of all time: supporting the climate scare in America’s premier newspaper, the New York Times. When Alberta Premier Alison Redford travels to Washington D.C. in April to lobby for the Keystone XL Pipeline, she must say nothing that would support the controversial idea that humanity’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous climate change. After all, the ultimate aim of climate activists is to end our use of fossil fuels. Why would a province that derives most of its income from those resources support a movement that is trying to kill the market for the same resources?

Redford should prepare for the upcoming meetings by reviewing the strategic mistakes in the advertisement her government took out in the Times on March 17, 2013. Here is what happened: On March 10, the New York Times editorial staff came out firmly against the Keystone XL pipeline. Their main argument was that the project would encourage expansion of Canada’s oil sands, thereby enhancing dangerous man-made climate change. The Alberta government requested a guest column in the Times to respond to the editorial but were turned down. So they paid $30,000 to the newspaper to buy advertising space to counter the editorial. However, the real cost to Albertans was many times this amount since the Government’s ad effectively supported the climate scare and directed readers to a government website that boosted climate alarmism.

---

This approach will sway no one. Yet the Government gives the impression that they would prefer to see Keystone XL die rather than risk the unbridled wrath of the project’s opponents by daring to strike at the heart of the anti-Keystone campaign: the flawed science supporting the climate scare. Here are correct, responsible messages that Redford could deliver. They portray the government as an honest broker working to do what is best for their electorate and the environment: Climate change science is immensely complex. While the field is advancing, it is not yet possible to make meaningful forecasts of future climate. The influence of human-induced CO2 emissions is even less well-understood. However, we recognize that many people are concerned about the possibility of climatic problems due to CO2 emissions from the oil sands. Consequently, the Government of Alberta is taking the following steps:

1. We are convening open, unbiased hearings into the climatic impacts of the oil sands. Qualified scientists will be invited to testify, regardless of whether they do, or do not, support the hypothesis that CO2 emissions are a significant cause of climate change.
2. We will continue to take “no-regrets” actions to save energy and reduce air, land and water pollution. This will also reduce GHG emissions, including CO2, as we increase efficiency.
3. We will continue to fund research into the causes of climate change with a goal of eventually being able to more accurately forecast future changes.
4. We will continue to implement adaptation measures to prepare for future challenges—cooling and warming, drought and flood, and other changes possible in our highly variable and unpredictable climate.

It is perhaps understandable that the Redford government is so frightened of activists that they dare not contest the science foundation of the climate scare. But they do us all a great disservice when they promote it and thereby feed the fire that threatens to destroy the province’s, and ultimately Canada's, main source of wealth. This immense blunder is a one-way ticket to a future with no Keystone XL, no Northern Gateway Pipeline, no oil sands and ultimately no “have” provinces at all.