Climate change resistance is futile so build all the pipelines: Don Pittis

"Resistance is futile," saysthe Borg in the Star Trek TV series. The phrase, spoken by the collective machine intelligence or "hive mind"which is theenemy of all Star Trek individualists,has become an ironicmemeon the internet.

The phrase came to mind this week followingnews articles on the economic pressure to expand Canadian oil and gas production in the face of Canada's commitment to reducecarbon output. And it leaves the Liberal government with a series ofknotty problems.

• Rachel Notley brings revamped pipeline pitch to federal cabinet retreat
• NEB approves Enbridge Line 3 pipeline replacement

The nub of the difficulty comes down to the seeminglyinevitable conflict between the economy and climate change. The question the Liberal cabinet must ask itself is how much economic and political sacrifice it is willing to make to adhere to its international climate commitment.

Economic sacrifices

There's abigger question we must all ask ourselves. Is fighting climate change even possible, or to put it another way, are the economic sacrifices for the Canadian economy so great that we mustignore climate commitments and worry about jobs?

It was actually an op-ed in the Globe and Mail that made me focus on the question. The writer effectively proposes that despite the potentialcost of "awarming planet and catastrophic climate change,"economic growth demands that we continue to pump out carbon. Trying to do otherwise is futile.

In some ways, complete denial that climate change exists would make an easier argument. For those who are convinced thatrising temperatures are a blip or caused by sun spots or divine intervention, ignoring the carbon cutting message may seem likeplainsense.

Well-meaning

For those who believe what the vast majority of scientists say that climate change is caused by the industrial process of liberating millionsof years of geologically trapped carbon into the atmosphere that will causeirreversible, "catastrophic,"destruction to theplanetthe economiccase against climate changeseems much more difficult.

The arguments are not new, but they come in a category that seems to say 'it's awful but there is just nothing we can do about it' and that optimism around limiting climate changeis well-meaning but misguided.

This gloomyinevitabilityis supported by arguments that demonstrate our hands are tied, that economic growth can only happen in the presence of growing fossil fuel use, that if we stop some other country will just produce more, or that we have alreadygone too far and are doomed no matter what we do.

There is danger insuch arguments becausethey are an excuse to do nothing. In a perverse way they favour the status quo and the pro-carbon lobby. They give permission to continue extracting and burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels.Theyencouragethebuilding of pipelines and other infrastructure because, what the heck, we should make hay while the sun shines.

The argument in favour of protecting people's jobs and livelihoods is probably the strongest one in favour of continuing to expand oil and gas exports. The political power of that argumentis what makes it so difficult for governments to fight increasedcarbon extraction.

Optimism is futile

The argument that change is impossible, that optimism is futile, however, isa bad place to start.

If indeed climate change has the potential to be catastrophic, to flood some of the world's biggest cities, to destroy agricultural lands and livelihoodsin Africa and Asia, to wipe out whole groups of plant and animal ecosystems, then 'sorry our hands are tied' seems like a bad argument.

The Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of oil- Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudioil minister

Yes, the recent industrial economy has grown in parallel with oilproduction. But in the past the same thing could have been said for charcoal andleather products. In a nod to the famous quote from Saudi oil ministerSheikhAhmed ZakiYamani, at one point surely economic growth in the stone age increased with the use of stones.

If the scientists are right, then thecarbon age must pass. And one or the other African farmers or Alberta oil workers will have to suffer economicconsequences. The question is merely do governments have the political support to take action now or do we have to wait for some sort of greater crisis to concentrate people's minds and really prove the danger.

'We're doomed'

Of course the longer we wait the more it will strengthenthe "it's too late, we're doomed" argument.

In another recentop-ed,Thomas Homer-Dixon, author of The Upside of Down,condemned the NDP's Leap document because it conflated climate change with a lot of other issues of the political left.

Climate change is not a left-right issue. Avoiding economic destruction will be profitable for the companies able to create the technology of the post-carbon era.

Alberta companies will make some of those profits. It is hard to imagine that the oil giants will not profit from those technologies as well, if they allow themselves to change with the times.

In the war against climate change, as inany war, there are always defeatists. The war may not be won. It may not be winnable. Butbelieving thedefeatists inevitably leads to defeat.

Theirony of the "resistance is futile"meme is thatthe Star Trek heroes always resist and always win in the end.But of coursethat's just television.

Follow Don on Twitter@don_pittis

More analysisby Don Pittis