Alberta as Energy “Super Power”
An item in the Victoria Times Colonist caught my attention the other day -- “It’s booze, gambling that powers Alberta.” Amazing that with all the alleged oil wealth that drives the economy, Alberta’s government actually gets more money from taxes on alcohol and on provincial government-run gambling than from royalties on fossil fuels.
It used to be something of a joke in Nova Scotia that the revenues from the Liquor Commissions were larger than royalties from the off-shore. The idea that the same is now true in Alberta is astonishing. In fact, Alberta is running a deficit of $4.8 billion.
In my keynote at last weekend’s BGM I contrasted the rhetoric about Canada being an “energy super-power” with the reality that we are “energy lackeys.”
The contrast between Norway and its heritage fund, with $400 billion set aside, and Alberta with its deficit is striking. Norway has a carbon tax. Alberta fights climate action.
Meanwhile, Canadians are told that we benefit from oil wealth. How is it this giant “engine of growth” has fallen behind the revenues from booze and gambling?
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Français
Recent Comments
- David Barclay |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- Erich Jacoby-Hawkins |
- Rick Shea |
- 1 of 2165
- ››
Comments
Our "oil wealth"
Not only do we "benefit" from our oil wealth, the extraction from Alberta bitumen is apparently done without any impact whatsoever on the Athabaska River and environs. Government studies say so. We are most fortunate among humankind.
John Percy
Veteran's Affairs Critic
CEO Sackville-Eastern Shore EDA
Canada is not an energy
Canada is not an energy lacky, its current leadership under a minority government is. How can Canada possibly have anything to gain from oil revenues when well over half are controlled by foreign ownership? We need to stop comparing Canada to nordic successes and begin taking leadership on how this party will resolve foreign take overs and lost revenues.
Claudia Rodriguez Larrain, federal Candidate and CEO for Vaughan EDA.
That's how they get all that oil money back!
The rig pigs that head out to the camps, and most of the others who deal in the oil industry; valve monkeys, electricians, etc, get paid an ungodly sum of money to risk their lives and their health, as well as destroy our economy for all future generations. Obviously. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it. So the boys have tons of cash, and almost nothing to do with it. It's not like they can buy more than two or three Ram trucks... And the provincial gov't certainly isn't taking a cut on the prostitutes that the boys in from the camps are picking up in my neighborhood... We don't even have provincial sales tax here. They can spend years here, and often never save a dime, or buy a house. So how ELSE are they going to get that money back from workers into provincial coffers?
Lotteries are often said to be a tax on the poor. As this oil economy continues to crack, the revenues will switch from gambling and booze to scratch-and-wins...
CANADA IS AN ENERGY LACKEY.
Maybe this current government is beholden to the foreign owned energy industry, but this is not new. Successive governments for the last three decades at least have been as well. (Also energy is not limited to oil. There are several instances of huge hydro mega projects being built in order to sell cheap power to the US with enormous environmental damage as a result.) The Alberta government is almost giving our oil away. Much of the tarsands oil yeilds 1% royalties! No wonder the govenment take from gambling exceeds our provincial income from oil and gas.What do we get from this give away? One of the largest and most environmentally damaging industrial projects on the planet. Also the meagre increases in royalties which came into effect in 2010 have to a large extent been given back to the oil and gas industry with various loopholes and subsidies to encourage investment. Canada is the only major oil producer in the World that does not have a state oil company, apart from the US and the UK, which have the Exxon, Mobil, BP, Shell etc, so they don't need one. Hell, we don't even have a national energy plan with which to become self sufficient in supplying the oil we need east of Winipeg. Because we didn't insist on an opt-out for oil in NAFTA like Mexico we are obliged to supply the US with oil ahead of our own requirements in the event of a shortfall in Canada. We definitely are energy lackeys, and pretty stupid ones at that.
Also comparing our policies to those of other countries are entirely valid. Norway is the only real country with no national debt and by most criteria they have the highest standiard of living in the World. They have policies that ensure that the state oil company keeps the profits in the country and the royalties average over 70%. They are making the reserves last as long as possible and are extracted with the least chance of enviromental damage. I frequently use the Norwegian example of good energy policies in contrast to Canadian and Albertan policies and as an illustration of the kind of policies the Greens want to see enacted in Canada.
Peter Johnston.
Addicted? Denial is the first response.
How insane do AB government policies have to get before everyone recognizes the looniness? We know it, supporters of all center and left parties know it and I suspect even most rightists know it too. Problem is we are like the addicts that are funding government coffers and prefer to shoot the messenger.
Just like most addicts we will go down denying we have a problem.
Alberta?
David, you're talking about a province that might vote Wildrose. And quite frankly, attacking oil production is the wrong end of the argument.
If Alberta doesn't produce oil, someone else will -- probably an Arab League state. Far be it for me to suggest that AL states may have slightly worse environmental controls than Alberta, let alone the export of large sums of money to some of the worst regimes on the planet.
If we want "deniers" to wake up, we should address the situation holistically. To Albertans, I suspect this looks like NIMBYISM, ie, if we get it out of Canada, then we are good. However, if we still consume the same amount of oil, who are we really kidding? All we are doing is moving the problem around the planet.
I prefer oil production in Canada. If we are going to consume oil, we should pay the direct environmental cost of its production.
ALBERTA
The tarsands extraction process is causing irreversible pollution to the aquifers that underlay the huge area up for development. I don't care in which part of the Planet this kind of activity takes place, this is an outrageous crime against our future generations and the environment on which we all depend. Canadians may not have the right to dictate how other countries develope their resources but we sure as hell have the right and, in my opinion, the duty to say how and if our resources are developed.
By the way, David is a vegan who cycles to work all year in Edmonton! He consumes as little oil as living in Alberta allows.
Peter Johnston.
Tarsands..
Are tarsands worse than BP's exploded well? Certainly not on the basis of energy mined. My concern is that if we don't purchase oil from the oil sands that we will be just as happy to buy polluting oil from another part because it's, "out of sight, our of mind." At least with the oil sands, there is some possibility that we will recognize our own folly. I guess this is a philosophical difference between us.
Also, when it comes to oil, there is more than just the environment as a concern. How does one compare environmental damage to the enabling of subjogation of women, religious minorities, and other such moral challenges? The best way to avoid such apples-to-oranges comparisons is to reduce oil consumption.
That David is a vegan who cycles to work all year in Edmonton, is certainly notable, but we shan't expect that lifestyle to apply to everyone. We need to find better solutions that people will participate in. I'd love to see covered / partially enclosed biking lanes developed so everyone could bike regardless of weather.
We need to recognize that large numbers of people want to live in houses, and our policy item that regales in critique of household living is obnoxious and counter-productive. We need to recognize that as a party.