Our premier capped off 2013 — the most impressive year of her political career — with a trade mission to Asia, where she hopes to sell fracked-in-B.C. natural gas. Speaking in Tokyo on December 2, Clark offered a startling glimpse into her vision for our province’s economy.

It could be that Clark was simply telling some overseas businessmen what they wanted to hear. Or perhaps her new messaging reflects her true economic beliefs. Either way, British Columbians are about to be offered a false choice.

Here’s what Clark said in a speech at a natural resources conference, according to the Globe and Mail’s Justine Hunter:

“The fundamental challenge for B.C. – and in fact, all developed economies in the world – goes beyond the recent global downturn and a fragile recovery. We need the courage to take a broader and deeper look, and admit the truth about most of the developed economies around the world.”

Amen, Premier. You’re absolutely right. Please continue.

“When was the last time we had real growth? It was the 1950s and ’60s, when 6- or even 8-per-cent growth was the norm.”

Well, okay. Bear in mind, the post-war boom was a different era. The global population only cracked 3 billion in 1960. That year, Canada’s GDP was $2,295 per person. Oil cost less than three dollars a barrel. Even adjusted for inflation, that’s less than a quarter what we pay now. With all that cheap energy, it’s not surprising the economy grew.

“That wealth set a standard for government investments – for infrastructure, for health and education, for social programs.”

Canada’s corporate income tax rate was also 50%. Again, a different era.

“But over the past four decades, economic growth for most developed economies has been more like 2 or 3 per cent at best.”

That’s right. As we’ve burned all the easy, irreplaceable energy, costs have gone up. And because we’re still heavily dependent on fossil fuels, when oil prices spike — the economy slows down. You can’t build infinite economic growth on finite resources. That’s not philosophy, it’s physics.

“So how can we afford to maintain the high standards that were set more than 40 years ago?”

To start with, we could focus on four things: equality, efficiency, education, and energy security.

By equality, I mean sharing wealth in ways that reduce the overall burden on social services. Efficiency means reducing the amount of energy we currently waste. Education means training and retaining more innovators and problem-solvers, so our province can stay competitive. And energy security, frankly, means leaving some of our fossil fuel wealth in the ground. What we do withdraw should primarily be used here at home — to power our transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.

Why, what did you have in mind?

“There are two choices. Manage decline year after year – and get by with less. Or take a bold step and grow the economy. I say let’s grow the economy.”

(Cue polite Japanese hand-clapping.)

Did you catch that? This is the great false choice of 2014. Get used to this rhetorical framework, because you’re going to hear it a lot this year: “Either we build more pipelines, or grandma languishes on the waiting list for surgery.” “Either we run more oil tankers down the coast, or close another school.” “Either we frack our own province for the foreign LNG market, or we all shiver in darkness and deprivation.”

It’s blackmail, and it’s premised on three deeply problematic assumptions.

The first assumption is that fossil fuels, including liquified natural gas, will be a fiscal bonanza for the province. The second is that energy exports lead to balanced government budgets, and funding for social services. The third is that 6-8% economic growth, year after year, would be a good thing for British Columbia.

Assumption #1: The LNG bonanza. Simply put, B.C. is late to the party. Russia holds the largest natural gas deposits in the world, with a liquefaction terminal already built and more on the way. Russian companies pay Russian wages, Russian taxes, and operate according to Russian environmental standards. They also share a land border with China, with an agreement to ship gas by pipeline — skipping the entire process of putting it on a boat. Further south, Australia is building seven LNG terminals at once. Meanwhile, Asian countries are in talks to form a buyer’s club, to bargain down the price of natural gas. All of this adds up to lower government revenues than Clark predicts. (Click here to read more from Ben Parfitt in The Tyee.)

Assumption #2: Social services. If you believe that accelerated resource development makes for well-stocked public larders, take a look next door. Alberta, the province with all the oil, has somehow drained its rainy-day fund and fallen into a $2.8 billion deficit. They have the highest wages in the country, but they also have the lowest. A steady flood of new workers is straining government programs and facilities. Strapped for cash, the environment ministry is currently outsourcing enforcement duties to industry. Dependence on commodity exports has been a blessing for producers, but a curse for government. That’s something for B.C. to think about, before we tie our fortunes to LNG or bitumen. (Click here to read more from Graham Thomson in the Edmonton Journal.)

Assumption #3: Infinite growth. This is a fantasy, one that serves politicians more than it serves ordinary people. At 8% growth, the B.C. economy would double in size every nine years. There’s no way our infrastructure could keep up. In fact, it would be a nightmare — for workers, for municipalities, and the environment. Ask planners in Kitimat, B.C.’s latest gold rush town. The fact is, Christy Clark made promises on the campaign trail that were too good to be true. Now she’s grasping for a short-term solution, which is exactly what the fossil fuel industry has to offer. Another spurt of growth, until the market crashes or the resource runs out. Then what — find another, riskier, finite source of energy? That’s no way to run a province. (Click here to read more about infinite growth in the Vancouver Sun.)

To save her own political skin, Clark appears willing to sign our whole province to a Faustian deal. What she fails to realize is that the solutions whispered by energy lobbyists are in fact the source of the problems she now faces as Premier.

“There are two choices. Manage decline year after year – and get by with less. Or take a bold step and grow the economy. I say let’s grow the economy.”

There’s another option, and that’s to focus on the four E’s: equality, efficiency, education, and energy security. What’s more courageous — to do the same thing we’ve been doing for the last fifty years, or to ready our economy for the next fifty? That’s the real choice, the one faced right now by Christy Clark. I hope her bravery is real.

This article originally appeared on KaiNagata.com.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared it will enhance Canada's “energy security.” The premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick call it a “nation builder.” Even the Toronto Star agrees: “this project appears to be in the national interest.”

Those are just some of the reactions to what sounds like the rebuilding of Canada's transcontinental railway but was in fact the announcement of a proposed oil pipeline from Alberta to Canada's east coast. Last week TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. announced it will seek regulatory approval for its Energy East pipeline project, expected to ship 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and tar sands bitumen from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick, crossing through six provinces on its way.

“Energy East and other tar sands pipeline projects will build a nation dependent on exporting tar sands oil overseas,” says Ben Powless, a tar sands community outreach coordinator for Ecology Ottawa.

“A true nation building project would decrease or eliminate Canada's dependence on fossil fuels,” Powless told DeSmog.  

Energy security for Canadians or securing exports for oil companies?   

The Energy East project involves converting 3,000 kilometres of TransCanada's 'Mainline' natural gas pipeline and constructing another 1,400 kilometres of pipeline mostly from the Quebec-Ontario border to Saint John. Three new oil terminals will be built in Saskatchewan, Quebec City and Saint John to accommodate the pipeline.

The terminals in Quebec City and Saint John will be outfitted with ocean-going tanker loading facilities raising concerns Energy East may turn the St. Lawrence River into a “highway for oil exports.”

“Energy East's oil and bitumen will go to the highest bidder whether it is refineries in eastern Canada or markets in the US, Asia or Europe,” says Andrea Harden-Donhaue, an energy campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

A substantial portion of Energy East's 1.1 million bpd shipments will have to be exported outside of Canada. Eastern Canadian refineries – refineries TransCanada claims it will supply – collectively refine 700,000 bpd. One of these refineries is Irving Oil's refinery in Saint John, the largest refinery in Canada (300,000 bpd). According to a press release from Irving Oil earlier this year “the refinery exports over 80 per cent of its production to the US” as refined products such as gasoline.  

“There is no guarantee oil refined in eastern Canada will be for domestic consumption,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog.

Eastern Canada cannot refine large quantities of bitumen

TransCanada has not yet said how much bitumen from the Alberta tar sands Energy East will transport. This is another factor in determining how much of Energy East's shipments will be exported since Eastern Canadian refineries are not outfitted to refine large quantities of the heavy unconventional crude oil.

With bitumen production surging and conventional oil sources drying up in Canada it is safe to assume this pipeline will eventually carry more bitumen than conventional oil if the project is approved. Unless eastern Canadian refineries are willing to invest an estimated $2-billion to upgrade their facilities to refine bitumen, the bulk of Energy East's bitumen is likely to be exported.

Shipping bitumen through an old gas pipeline

Shipping bitumen through the TransCanada Mainline, a 55-year old natural gas pipeline, is another cause for concern especially for Canadians living along the pipeline's route. According to a report by the National Petroleum Council for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2011:

“Pipelines operating outside of their design parameters such as those carrying commodities for which they were not initially designed, or high flow pipelines, are at the greatest risk of integrity issues in the future due to the nature of their operation.”

The Kalamazoo spill in Michigan in 2010 and the Mayflower spill in Arkansas earlier this year involved old pipelines designed to transport light crude oil that ruptured while shipping bitumen. Changing the contents of what North America's aging pipelines move may very well be a recipe of disaster.

Opposition to Energy East has already emerged

The same day TransCanada announced Energy East, one of Canada's largest civil society organizations – the Council of Canadians – launched a nation-wide campaign against Energy East, a pipeline the Council of Canadians believes is unsafe, and unlikely to provide energy security or create “decent jobs.”

Later that same day the Assembly of First Nations' Chiefs in New Brunswick announced, although not opposed to Energy East, they "will avail themselves of any means necessary, legal or otherwise" if the pipeline threatens their treaty rights or the environment.

Opposition to Energy East had already sprung up before TransCanada's announcement last week in places such as Ottawa and North Bay, Ontario. Some unorthodox opponents of the pipeline are three gas distributors who claim Energy East will mean less natural gas for the Central and Eastern Canada markets. Gas customers may be forced to pay higher rates if gas distributors have to find new sources.

It may prove to be a fool's errand to attempt to build in the new pipeline in Quebec that Energy East requires to reach the Atlantic coast. Quebec stopped its own fracking industry dead in its tracks because of public outcry. Constructing a pipeline along the St. Lawrence River to facilitate further expansion of the tar sands industry may be a tough sell for environmentally-conscious Quebecers.

Energy East: The Tar Sands Resistance Building Pipeline

“People on Canada’s West Coast have rejected the Northern Gateway pipeline; Americans are rejecting pipelines going south. Why would we in Eastern Canada accept the risks that no one else will?” Gretchen Fitzgerald, director of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, said in a press release on the day of TransCanada's announcement.

If the campaign against Northern Gateway in BC and the more recent campaign against Enbridge's proposed Line 9 pipeline in Ontario and Quebec are indicators, Canadians tend to become more actively opposed to the development of the tar sands when the industry proposes to operate tar sands pipelines in their provinces. Energy East may face the greatest Canadian opposition to any pipeline to date. No other pipeline under consideration for oil and bitumen shipments involves so many provinces as Energy East does.

“Energy East may build and unite Canadian opposition to the expansion of the tar sands from coast-to-coast,” Powless told DeSmog.

TransCanada intends on applying for approval of the Energy East project in 2014. The company hopes to see the pipeline up and running by 2017.

Images Credit: Vicki Watkins Flickr and TransCanada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.