“One should never do anything without skin in the game. If you give advice, you need to be exposed to losses from it.” Nassim Taleb, 2016
265 academics, mostly university professors, offered advice via an open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau. Click here That advice: Please withhold financial aid to western Canada’s struggling oil and gas sector because, to do otherwise, would be a “regrettable decision.”
My first question upon reading this letter, led by two professors from the University of Alberta (my alma mater): Where is their skin in the game? Their advice was pontificated from the comfort of steady pay cheques supplied courtesy of student tuitions and Alberta taxpayers, a good chunk of which comes from oil and gas and their workers and the many industries that support it. I for one am grateful to the well-site and consultant geologists, seismic crews, rig crews, truckers, and the many others who venture to remote areas in extreme conditions to explore for gas to keep me warm (and employed), and to the many small and mid-sized exploration and production companies that take great financial risks in creating wealth for the province. My hat off to you! But gratitude is no theme in the letter in question.
The letter signatories, by identifying themselves as “Canadian researchers in multiple fields related to the climate crisis and the economy”, claim relevant intellectual high-ground that few actually occupy. My scan of the list revealed, among others, 2 psychologists, 2 epidemiologists, 2 media/cinema researchers, 5 social work experts, 5 philosophers, 6 urban planning researchers, a neuroscientist, an artist/curator, and 3 librarians. Their connection, as purported experts, to the climate/economy looks non-existent or tenuous at best. With no intention of diminishing the relevance of their research in their respective fields, I ask what is their relevance to the theme of the letter, and why should the Prime Minister heed these individuals more than any Canadian citizen? The public should be wary of professors engaging in unjustified leveraging of their academic status.
An extraordinary feature of the letter is the statement that government at all levels must avoid sacrificing democratic principles by involving civil society representatives, including universities (which I take to mean the signing professors) in decision making. Professors have the publicly funded privilege to inform and even influence public opinion and government policy through publications, lectures, op-eds, even criticizing industry supporters of their academic programs (note resource industry sponsors of Women in Scholarship at the U of A Click here - this is academic freedom. But to demand consultation in intergovernmental decisions? I have worked with enough ideologically driven academics to know I do not want them involved in decision making “…about how these large investments in our future will be made.” This is a job for elected government leaders. Professors are not elected. They have their avenues of dissemination and influence, and their right as citizens to voice opinion. If they want more, let them run for office.
As for the letter’s appeal for investment in alternative energy technology - great. I am interested in alternative energy technologies (some limitations of which I know personally having installed an electricity-hungry geothermal system to heat my home), if they are in fact less harmful to the environment, affordable and can perform. But I ask, why must alternative energy investment be instead of, rather than in addition to, a strong oil and gas sector?
Apart from ideological posturing from the safety of tenure-secured offices, what the professorial letter demonstrated is astonishing insensitivity to the plight of many skilled oil and gas workers, geologists, geophysicists, environmental engineers and remediation experts and support industry personnel laid off or out or business and struggling to pay rent and mortgages. Readers of the letter may see the proposed subsidies as aid to “big oil.” It is not big oil that will go down in the current economic crisis, it is small oil.
These resource workers create wealth so that we can afford well paid professors and other benefits of living in Canada. The signatories’ solution to helping these skilled Canadians? —withhold federal aid and let a critical industry die a natural death along with the careers of those employed in it.
Support Canada Free Press
This harsh but urgent solution, the academics explain, is necessary because we are in the midst of not one but THREE concurrent crises: the covid crisis, the resulting economic crisis, and the (highly debatable) climate crisis. Crises, of course, require drastic action - “we have no more time to lose” we are told. To tackle these, the signing professors simply offer up the livelihood of fellow Canadians by advocating the withholding of aid to the industry. And those losing jobs and careers? - let them be retrained (rings of “let them eat cake”). But, could the professors be right about the viability of retraining?
How could we find out? Opportunity has presented itself. These professors, well educated, spurred by multiple crises, and clearly seeing themselves as leaders, could indeed lead - by example. As Einstein said, “Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others, it is the only means.” So let them surrender their faculty positions, sign up for retraining in green industries, and lead us into a glorious green future.
Paul A. Johnston
Associate Professor, Earth and Environmental Sciences
Mount Royal University
As Albertans, we say: “Enough is Enough”. That’s why we’ve launched this website “Action Alberta” and a newsletter to inform, educate, and motivate Canadians to stand up, speak out and take action to address the inequality and s rel=“ubstandard treatment of Alberta and its citizens by our Federal Government. Our goal is to change how we are treated by our Federal Government.
