Today I sent Rachel Notley an open letter inviting her to participate in a public debate to discuss the merits of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the evidence that underpins the decision to approve it. I also asked that it be televised so that every British Columbian who wants to know the facts can hear them live and unscripted.

Below I reproduce the open letter and media release.

Open Letter to Rachel Notley

December 5th, 2016

The Honourable Premier Rachel Notley
307 Legislature Building
10800 – 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2B6
premier@gov.ab.ca

Dear Premier Notley,

British Columbians believe that economic development and environmental stewardship go hand-in-hand. We are home to one of the most pristine coastlines in the world – and we value it deeply. The approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline is perceived by many as a betrayal of these values, leaving us profoundly concerned about the risks our coastlines now face.

Last week, you announced your plans to come to British Columbia to market the merits of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. You looked forward to being able to make the case to British Columbians as to why you believe that the federal approval of this pipeline is a good decision. You noted that it was important for you to inform those British Columbians who link the pipeline to increasing greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent global warming, that in fact your climate change leadership plan has very effectively delinked these issues. If those are your honest intentions, I respectfully request that you hold these conversations publicly and not behind closed doors.

In the spirit of that request, I would like to invite you to a public debate where we can discuss the merits of this pipeline and the evidence that underpins the decision to approve it. I would also ask that it be televised so that every British Columbian who wants to know the facts can hear them live and unscripted.

I sought intervention status in the Trans Mountain National Energy Board hearing both as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and as a scientist with a PhD in atmospheric, oceanic and climate physics/applied mathematics. As an MLA, I represent the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, which is located along the Trans Mountain tanker sailing route on the southeastern tip of Vancouver Island.

As a scientist, I served as Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, where I worked for almost 25 years. I have been a Lead Author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th scientific assessments and have authored and co-authored over 220 peer-reviewed, scientific papers. I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Throughout the hearing process, I have applied my scientific expertise, particularly in physical oceanography and modelling, to evaluate the evidence provided in the National Energy Board application. I reviewed thousands of pages of Trans Mountain’s application and I asked them over 600 questions to test their assumptions.

Based on the evidence Trans Mountain presented, I can say unequivocally that we do not have the ability to clean up an oil spill. Likewise, there is no scientific credibility to the claim that we will be able to build this pipeline and meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets or honour our commitments made under the Paris Agreement.

You are asking British Columbians to take on significant economic and environmental risk without giving us a real opportunity to have ours concerns heard. Hundreds of British Columbians were already excluded from the National Energy Board hearing process. Those who could participate were denied the right to orally cross-examine Trans Mountain on their evidence. Now they are rightfully concerned that backroom political decisions are being made against their wishes and interests.

If British Columbians are going to be asked to consent to a 580% increase in oil tanker traffic, they deserve to hear a full and open debate – not just media interviews and summaries of closed-door meetings. They deserve to hear you make your case, and to have your evidence tested. Until a proper dialogue has taken place on these topics, I do not believe there is any way for us to move forward.

My contact information is listed above. I invite you to please contact my office at your earliest convenience. My team would be happy to organize a public meeting for one of your upcoming trips to British Columbia.

With best wishes,

Dr. Andrew Weaver, OBC, FRSC, FAGU, FAMS, FAAAS, FCMOS
MLA Oak Bay – Gordon Head
Leader, BC Green Party

Media Release

For immediate release
Dec. 5, 2016
Weaver challenges Notley to debate on Kinder Morgan

VICTORIA B.C. – Climate scientist and B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver has written to Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley, challenging her to a public debate on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Weaver’s challenge is in response to Notley’s plan to visit British Columbia several times to “sell” the pipeline project to British Columbians.

“In the last couple weeks we have seen a number of politicians tell British Columbians why the pipeline is good for them, without actually listening to what we are saying. If Premier Notley wants to come to British Columbia to ‘sell’ us on this pipeline, then her visit needs to be about more than media interviews and backroom meetings.  I am asking for a public forum that allows us to have an open and honest debate about what the evidence really says.

“I have heard both Premier Notley and Prime Minister Trudeau make claims that the evidence shows we can safely manage this pipeline. As both a scientist and the only BC MLA to serve as an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings, I can say unequivocally that there is no evidence that supports the notion that we are prepared to respond to a heavy oil spill on our coast. It is critical that British Columbians are able to witness and take part in an honest debate about the evidence.

Weaver’s letter requests that the debate be televised so that British Columbians who want the facts “can hear them live and unscripted”.

“Part of the reason people are so concerned is that they have been shut out of this process. Hundreds of people were denied the ability to participate in the National Energy Board hearings. Those who could participate were denied the right to orally cross-examine Trans Mountain on their evidence. And now it looks an awful lot like political calculation and backroom horse-trading are ramming this pipeline through, despite serious concerns that have been raised by of British Columbians.

“You cannot address those concerns through closed-door meetings and media interviews. Only an open, unscripted debate will give British Columbians the opportunity to hear their concerns truly represented and responded to.”

A specific date will be set for the debate pending a response from Premier Notley.

-30-

Background:

Andrew Weaver received intervenor status in the National Energy Board hearing on the Trans Mountain Expansion Project both as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and as a scientist with a doctorate in applied mathematics and with specialty in physical oceanography and atmospheric and climate science. As an MLA, he represents the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, which is located along the Trans Mountain Tanker Sailing Route on the southeastern tip of Vancouver Island. He was the only B.C. MLA with intervenor status in the hearing process.

As a scientist, Weaver served as Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, where he worked for over 20 years. He was a lead author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th scientific assessments and has authored and coauthored over 200 peer-reviewed, scientific papers. Weaver is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Throughout the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain NEB hearings, he applied his scientific expertise, particularly in physical oceanography and modelling.

Media contact
Mat Wright, Press Secretary, Office of Andrew Weaver, MLA
+1 250-216-3382 | mat.wright@bcgreens.ca

For immediate release

Nov. 29, 2016

Andrew Weaver responds to Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain approval

VICTORIA B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following statement on today’s federal energy announcements:

“Prime Minister Trudeau has betrayed the trust of British Columbians. The approval of this project is completely contradictory to this government’s rhetoric at the Paris climate talks, as well as their commitments to finally embrace a new era of reconciliation. This government was elected with guarantees that change would finally happen – instead we see yet another Federal government steamrolling their pipeline agenda over First Nations and over B.C. communities.

“I was an intervenor in the National Energy Board review. I have read through Kinder Morgan’s application, reviewed thousands of pages of documentation and asked Trans Mountain more than 600 questions about their spill response capacity.

“As a scientist, I can say unequivocally that we remain completely and utterly unprepared for a major oil spill.

“Instating a ban for part of the coast while increasing heavy oil tanker traffic by 580% in another is completely outrageous. It ignores basic ocean science. We need to protect the entire coast.The potential effects of a diluted bitumen spill in our waters would be catastrophic.

“It’s now up to the Provincial government to finally tell British Columbians where it stands. Premier Clark has been hedging her bets for years, appearing ready to approve a pipeline as soon as it is politically expedient.

“The B.C. Green Party is the only party that has offered a consistent, principled position, based on evidence: heavy oil tankers have no place on our coast.

“It is becoming abundantly clear that the ways in which projects are receiving approval no longer meets the expectations of Canadians or First Nation communities. The next government elected in BC will have to confront this reality.”

– 30 –

Media contact

Mat Wright, Press Secretary, Office of Andrew Weaver, MLA

+1 250-216-3382 | mat.wright@bcgreens.ca

Background

Andrew Weaver sought intervention status in the Trans Mountain National Energy Board Hearing both as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and as a scientist with a doctorate in applied mathematics and with specialty in physical oceanography and atmospheric and climate science. As an MLA, he represents the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, which is located along the Trans Mountain Tanker Sailing Route on the southeastern tip of Vancouver Island. He was the only B.C. MLA with intervenor status in the hearing process.

As a scientist, Weaver served as Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, where he worked for over 20 years. He was a lead author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th scientific assessments and has authored and coauthored over 200 peer-reviewed, scientific papers. Weaver is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Throughout the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain NEB hearings, he applied his scientific expertise, particularly in physical oceanography and modelling.

In response to the federal government’s announced Ocean Protection Plan, Premier Christy Clark said she was gratified to say it addressed the gaps the province had identified in our current ability to respond to marine spills. While I agree the plan includes some positive additions that will help preserve and protect our coastline, a dangerous and cavernous gap remains – we still have no capacity to clean up an oil spill.

Given that this initiative may be used by both federal and provincial governments to justify their support of the Trans Mountain proposal – a project that would increase heavy oil tanker traffic in southwestern B.C. by 580 per cent – it is important that you have the straight facts about how our coast would fare in the event of a major oil spill.

During the National Energy Board’s hearing on the Trans Mountain Kinder Morgan Expansion Project, I sought intervenor status both as an MLA and as a scientist. Over nearly two years I reviewed the project in a scientific capacity. I examined the proponent’s understanding of how diluted bitumen (dilbit) – the type of heavy oil that would be transported on Trans Mountain tankers – would interact with the marine environment, and I raised concerns shared by people across B.C.

Oil spill response in B.C. is managed by the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation.

WCMRC is required under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to maintain sufficient capacity to respond to a 10,000-tonne spill. This may seem like a lot, but the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 was 40,000 tonnes and a single Kinder Morgan tanker would be carrying over 100,000 tonnes of oil. That means WCMRC would only have the capacity to respond to roughly 10 per cent of a tanker’s cargo.

Not only that, but the fact that the WCMRC is able to respond to a 10,000-tonne spill does not actually mean it is able to recover the full 10,000 tonnes.

In fact, according to the Federal Tanker Safety Expert Panel, “Evidence suggests that mechanical recovery rates, in optimal conditions, are usually only between five per cent and 15 per cent of the oil spilled.” Despite existing equipment, it’s often hard to contain and recover spilled oil.

To make matters worse, federal government studies show that dilbit sinks in the presence of suspended particles – and the WCMRC has no capacity to recover submerged or sunken oils.

Given the prevalence of suspended particulate matter along the tanker sailing route, a dilbit spill on the B.C. coast would have profound and long-lasting consequences.

Our governments talk a lot about having “world class” spill response capabilities, indeed that seemed to be the theme of the Ocean Protection Plan announcement. If you were suspicious of that claim, you had every right to be so.

Even our friends to the south who share our western coastline are worlds ahead of us. In the U.S., for a ship to be registered to transport oil it needs to be covered by a spill response organization that has the capacity to clean up a “Worst Case Discharge,” defined as the loss of the ship’s entire cargo complicated by bad weather. Washington State also has capacity to deal with sunken and submerged oils.

If Washington State can set these standards, then why should we accept anything less?

We shouldn’t. We are lucky enough to have one of the most pristine coastlines in the world and our governments have an obligation to protect it. Part of that obligation includes providing British Columbians with the honest facts so we can make an informed decision of what happens to our coast.

1. Introduction

This post is the third in our series exploring the concept of a basic income and its implications in BC. Our backgrounder provided an overview of the concept, the issues we are facing today in BC, and the potential implications of a basic income policy. Our second post investigated in more detail the current state of poverty, welfare rates and social assistance in BC. We are grateful for the high level of engagement that our series continues to receive on social media and this website, including the large number of thoughtful comments. Below we continue to engage with the common themes in the responses we’ve received. This dialogue is very important in exploring ideas and creating good policies.

Many of you have noted the current scarcity of jobs and the precarious nature of much work today. A second theme has been disagreement about the role of basic income in either disincentivizing people to join the workforce, or providing people the freedom and self-sufficiency required to achieve personal and professional goals. Finally, many of you spoke with optimism about the potential of basic income to exert a beneficial and potentially transformational effect on society as a whole. In responding to your comments and sketching what we believe are some of the key issues, here we explore the social impacts of precarious employment, the trend towards increasing automation of jobs, and the role that basic income could play in the changing world of work.

2. Precarious Work

The world of work is changing, most dramatically due to technological advance, especially automation, but also due to a trend away from long-term, secure, full-time work with benefits, toward short-term, part-time, and contract-based work.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau stated recently that Canadians need to get used to “job churn”, defined as making a number of career changes in one’s life through short-term contract-based employment. Since the 2008-09 recession, the majority of jobs created have been part-time or temporary. The October 2016 Canadian Labour Force Survey highlights this trend: 44,000 net jobs were created across Canada in the month of October, but this number reflects a gain of 67,000 new part-time positions and a loss of 23,000 full-time positions. Men aged 25-54 have been hit particularly hard: full-time employment for this demographic declined by 63,000 positions over the past year, while part-time employment increased by 36,000 positions. The trend is the same in BC: 55,000 new jobs have been created since October 2015, but the majority (41,000) of these have been part-time positions.

Contract-based employment, which is often short-term, with fewer hours and without benefits, is also on the rise. Many speak of the rise of the “precariat” – a workforce that moves from job to job, taking temporary positions with no benefits and little job security. While some individuals prefer the flexibility of part-time or contract-based work, for most, it is not a choice: many are forced to take the jobs available, and suffer from insecurity and low incomes due to lower wages and fewer hours.

Some sectors are hit much harder than others by these trends: the natural resource industries, manufacturing, and education sectors, for example, have seen some of the largest increases in temporary and contract-based work in recent years. There are indications this trend will continue, with the majority of new jobs being part-time, temporary, or contract-based. This would mean significant implications for the financial security and well-being of huge numbers of people across British Columbia and beyond.

3. Automation

Recent years have also seen unprecedented technological advance in speed and scale, and there has been much talk recently about the impending robot revolution – when robots could increasingly replace humans in a variety of jobs, and the rate of automation outstrips the rate of job creation. We are already seeing the impact of technology on work: automated voice recognition software is already replacing many call centre workers, car assembly plants use more robots than people, and driverless cars and trucks are already significantly impacting the taxi and trucking industries.

Looking forward, a number of forecasts suggest the potential for the rapid elimination of jobs across a range of sectors: a study at the University of Oxford, for example, found that 47% of jobs in the U.S. are at “high risk” of computerization over the next two decades. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs report predicts that we are entering a fourth industrial revolution that will result in the net loss of 5 million jobs across 12 leading economies over just the next 5 years. Barack Obama’s 2016 economic report predicts that jobs paying less than $20/hour face an 83% likelihood of being automated, while jobs paying between $20 and $40/hour face a 33% chance.

Some argue that predictions about the effects of automation overstate the risk: that machine-caused unemployment has been predicted before and always been misguided; that automation lowers costs and creates new jobs; and that any transition would be gradual. Yet the rate of technological advance so far has exceeded most estimates. Furthermore, many of those speaking out most loudly about the disruptive potential of technology, and the need for a basic income policy to deal with the transition, come from within the tech industry itself, and thus have the most intimate knowledge of the technology and its future potential. Y Combinator, the Silicon Valley start-up incubator, is a major proponent of basic income as a way to smooth the disruption it expects to result from technological advance, and is currently running its own basic income pilot project in California.

We are already seeing the exacerbation of inequality as a result of technological advancement, as it further concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. Automation will further exacerbate inequality, as it disproportionately impacts low and moderate paying jobs and affects some sectors more than others: jobs in transportation, manufacturing, and office and administrative support are set to be hardest hit, and soonest. Bill Morneau recently specified that truck drivers and receptionists are most likely to see their jobs disappear in the coming years: these are the second most common occupations for men and women respectively across Canada, so it goes without saying that the social ramifications of large scale job loss in these occupations would be extremely significant.

4. The Role of Basic Income

If automation results in job loss at the rate many are predicting, the outcome could be an unprecedented level of structural unemployment. In this scenario, a basic income would make the transition more humane, as the alternative is a large percentage of people living on current social support systems like employment insurance and income assistance, which, as discussed in our last post, leaves many recipients below the poverty line. If inequality continues to rise, redistribution of the significant financial benefits of the robot revolution – especially for those adversely affected – is a moral imperative.

Basic income could also lessen the psychological strain on those affected by precarious work today, and on those whose work may be made redundant by machines in the future. Among the many comments we received, a number of you spoke to the emotional cost of dealing with uncertain work and an insecure future; in our last post we also touched on the psychological hardships of living on social assistance in BC. Some advocates of basic income even view it as a necessary means to prevent social breakdown resulting from the widespread unemployment and poverty that automation would cause. Basic income could also provide an essential way to keep the economy going by giving people the financial means to continue their participation in the market even if they are unable to find new jobs.

Basic income could also help mitigate against rising unemployment levels due to automation. To adapt to a changing world of work, people need the freedom and means to do so. Basic income could enable those affected by automation or the rise in precarious work to retrain for new professions, attend or return to university, college or trade school, or take entrepreneurial risks. Many basic income advocates view this flexibility as a promising way to spur further innovation and job creation, and create benefits for society as a whole. Basic income could also form part of a more visionary response to a changing world of work: by restoring a measure of financial security and freedom, it could help people create meaningful work (paid or unpaid) and foster social connections, as well as supporting volunteering work and community engagement.

5. Conclusion

At this juncture in our history, the dream of a stable, long-term career is disappearing for many, and the strong possibility exists that automation will fundamentally alter our economy and make many careers obsolete. We therefore have the obligation to create forward-thinking policies that enable us to cope with the magnitude of changes that may be coming our way. But we also have an opportunity to do more than just cope. We have the opportunity to harness these changes and create a more equitable and sustainable society that works better for all of us. 

We want to know what you think about the future of work in British Columbia. Please share your thoughts on precarious work, the threat and opportunities of automation, what work means to you, and the role you think basic income could play in a shifting economy. Thank you in advance for your comments.