Recently, I’ve been in the throes of a group project that requires students to address a social issue. At the start of the semester, I groaned inwardly when classmates expressed their interest in an environmental topic. During presentations about environmentally related issues, I resisted the urge to roll my eyes.
Before you peg me as the anti christ of environmentalism, let me tell you that I believe we need to take better care of our environment. In fact, my summer job for the past three years has been picking up garbage and planting greenery.
However, the idealistic and utopian ideas that tumble out of my peers’ mouths like rainbow-coloured vomit is appalling. Not only does this show a lack of understanding in terms of how things work realistically, but it is often only substantiated by information gleaned from biased pieces that exclude the full picture and have no accountability for misinformation.
If oil were a person, I am certain some of my fellow students would form a mob, hang him in the Academic Quadrangle and feed his remains to the koi fish in the pond. However, what they neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives. Did you wear a sweater today? Oil product. It rains a lot in Vancouver, thank god for umbrellas! Oil product. Did you brush your teeth today with a toothbrush? Oil product.
What students neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives.
I’m not advocating that you go out and purchase a foam finger with the words “#1 Oil Sands Fan” printed on the front, but I do think it’s high time that students opened their eyes to reality. Unless you are hiking the mountain to school, sporting ‘Adam and Eve’ leaf couture, you cannot feasibly say that you are accustomed to a lifestyle without petroleum products.
The grim reality is that we currently do not have any other energy sources that can replace and improve on what we get from oil. So no, the oil sands are not in business solely because greedy oil tycoons want to watch the world burn as they soak in bathtubs full of crisp hundred dollar bills; oil is actually something we rely on to maintain the quality of life modern society demands.
In a tutorial, my TA asked if we supported pipelines. I was the sole person to raise my hand in support. My classmates’ eyes burned into me as the TA asked for my reasoning. My answer was simple enough, but a revelation to the dissenting crowd: oil was going to be transported regardless, and I’d rather have it done via the lesser of evils.
A quote from a Forbes article serves as a poignant reminder that “1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in a single day last year in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and 47 people were killed” during a railcar accident a little over a year ago. Plus, let’s not forget that “five out of the 10 largest oil spills in US history were from boats.” Pipelines aren’t perfect, but are you really advocating what’s best for the environment by protesting against them?
When it comes to the environment, enough is enough. Students, of all people, should know that, while ideals are really nice and we all yearn to live in the romantically simplistic world they paint, these notions are just not realistic.
What is realistic is that oil is a finite resource. Even if burning oil did not cause climate chnage, it would still be a finite resource.
This is reality.
Yes, we use oil for a lot of stuff. And yes, there is no substitute for oil.
This is reality.
So what do we do? Keep using oil until oil is too scarce and expensive to use and there’s nothing left to provide at least some energy?
Or do we engage our societies in a crash program of energy conservation and development of non-oil, renewable energy sources?
You and your fellow students get to choose.
MAlanLewis: ”
Or do we engage our societies in a crash program of energy conservation and development of non-oil, renewable energy sources?”
Rather pointless since society has no ‘Plan B’, at least none that will allow its members to continue their current lifestyles. Most will keep burning stuff until they can’t. How that will work out for society-at-large doesn’t look so great, but this doesn’t preclude individuals from minimising their reliance upon many of the complex systems that fossil fuels enable. Our fossil fuel based economy is just one collection of interdependent systems that are beginning to fail (if one is actually paying attention). Our hyper-complex society will decomplexify and dictate what our options will be, going forward.
Best to decomplexify one’s own circumstances ahead of the curve, personally and locally. This will have the knock-on effect of reducing one’s consumption of finite resources and reduce supporting the unsustainable culture we find ourselves in. Starve the beast.
How many of these petroleum-based items can you do without or substitute for?
Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD’s & DVD’s Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline
Just askin’….
I’ve deleted those things I do or can do without. Of the remainder, the following have existing substitutes:
Upholstery (natural fabric), Sweaters (wool), Clothing (cotton, wool), Tool Box (metal), Caulking (fiber, pitch), Clothesline (cotton), Curtains (cotton), Soap Dr. Bronner’s), Shoes (leather), Electrician’s Tape (fabric), Slacks (cotton),Yarn (cotton, wool), Toilet Seats (wood), Ice Cube Trays (metal), Candles (beeswax), Water Pipes (metal), Shampoo (Dr. Bronner’s), Wheels (metal), Eyeglasses (metal, glass), Clothes (natural fibers), Toothbrushes (wood, animal hair), Combs (wood), Sun Glasses (metal, glass), Telephones (non-mobile), Pillows (cotton, feathers), Dishes (ceramic), Cameras (metal, glass), Bandages (cotton), Drinking Cups (glass, ceramic), Toothpaste (baking soda)
The following do not have substitutes, but do have other means of providing the same result:
Refrigerant, Roofing, Refrigerators, Bicycle Tires, Faucet Washers
Add current hemp technologies for concrete, fuel, fiber, and food, then were cook’n with clean alternatives. 😉
Regardless of this voluminous list, fossil fuels are still a finite resource. Dependency on them does not affect their ultimate availability.
You’re preaching to the choir here. As one who has spent the better part of the last 20 years moving away from petroleum, I can testify as to the difficulty. Just pointing out the enormity of our predicament.
Try producing most of the products on your list without petroleum embodied somewhere in the process. Now scale that production up to sufficiently supply 7 billion humans. This is the nature of our collective situation. Even the solar panels on our home were dependent on oil for their production. When it comes to humans leaving oil (or oil leaving us), society as we know it is basically screwed.
I responded to your “Just askin'”
It has been clear for the past 40 years or more that our present society based on unbridled consumption cannot continue. There is not enough energy and resources for the existing population, let alone more.
So the choice is: crash or controlled descent? Do we accept the inevitable and have a party till the end? Or do we whatever we can to cushion the fall.
It sounds like you have taken the latter route, as my wife and I have. We’ll be dead before the show is over. It’s up to the young people, such as the author of this unfortunate article.
I think the most important thing to impart to young folks is that there will be no ‘controlled descent’ on a society-wide level; only impotent responses after the fact, and triage. This is why we taught our kids to be self-reliant and to take comfort in a certain level of ‘poverty’, relative to what the rest of society expects. Waiting for top-down solutions is a fool’s plan for the future at this point.
JM Greer’s “pre-collapse”/”voluntary poverty” guidance may be useful to some who are open to such things. As I can attest to, it ain’t the end of the world. It’s clear that all of the stuff people think they need isn’t making them happy anyway.
Let’s not forget that we can also swap, barter and reuse. So even though those products are made out of petroleum, if even 10% of current products were reused by 3 different people instead of 1 person and then dumped, what a difference that would make!
And that is just one idea…really we can’t go on justifying we buy crap and throw it out six months later or that it is made so poorly we buy it every year….that is just not sustainable. Products used to last far longer before corporations got greedy and built in obsolescence and perceived obsolescence (you still sporting last year’s iPhone? Get with the times!)
“The grim reality is that we currently do not have any other energy sources that can replace and improve on what we get from oil.”
And the implication there is that we must use oil. The fact that we do use it does not mean we must. Humanity advanced perfectly well before the first oil fields were discovered, and it will advance perfectly well after the last oil rig is shut down. Unless, of course, our over-use and abuse of oil kills us first – which it might.
“…while ideals are really nice and we all yearn to live in the romantically simplistic world they paint, these notions are just not realistic.”
Not in a world where oil “must” be used for humanity’s survival. But we don’t live in that world. If we did, the future would be pretty bleak, because one thing is certain – that oil ain’t gonna be there forever. The reality is that humanity’s long-term survival is probably reliant on us using less oil and conserving what we have as long as possible. One thing is certain: continuing to use oil at the rate we are now is what’s truly not realistic.
While many products we use are currently made from oil, that’s only because oil is so cheap. The vast majority of the products we need can be made from resources that renew far faster than oil. Personally, I think reliance on oil is incredibly stupid, given that it is effectively a finite resource, but if you want to pretend that it’s infinite, preach on. Just don’t come crying to me when you find out it isn’t and you don’t have a plan B.
As for me, I’m pretty much off the oil teat in terms of transportation, heating and clothing. I don’t drive, I don’t use oil for heat and I wear cotton and wool. So the idea that we “must” use oil is nonsense. Given that oil is a hugely useful yet finite resource, to claim that it’s “nauseating” to conserve it is, to be perfectly frank, monumentally stupid.
Monumentally stupid people probably shouldn’t be teachers, because young minds often don’t have the tools to judge when their teacher is teaching bullshit.
What a stupid article. Basically, an “educator” no less, despises the
very thought that he might have to encourage his students on the merits
of environmentalism. He shudders!
This asswipe should be fired. Petroleum may have “touched our lives”, but it’s done far more damage then this.
“they neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives.”
Or maybe they don’t CARE about how many “petroleum products touch our
lives” anymore. But this dunderhead is too stupid to give his students
any credit for thinking outside the box like he refuses to do.
This “educator” has compromised the principles of education –
teaching other to THINK and to respect their perpsectives and points of
view.
I reiterate – this dung pile should be FIRED for incompetence.
We do not “need” oil – or ANY of the products (profits) produced.
This the basic assumption and it falls flat on its face.
The “price” for this demand (addiction) is destruction. There is no other description that fits better.
Oil extraction and oil use is incompatible with a habitable planet. End of story.
The children are the smart ones. This “educator” is a fool.
“We do not need oil” .. guess you’ll have no problem discarding your laptop and way of life and living in a cave then
Wow, this strawman has been beaten to death. Yes, our society is deeply dependent on oil. No, environmentalists aren’t all completely unaware of this. What the vast majority of environmentalists (or even non-environmentalists that can expand their view of the future beyond the pinhole view this article offers) are advocating is for a transition from fossil fuel energy to more sustainable alternatives. They’re not saying bomb every resource extraction project tomorrow, they’re saying “let’s take real steps toward building more sustainable energy infrastructures and ways of living.” Again, it’s a transition.
Building more fossil fuels infrastructure signals a commitment to maintaining the destructive status quo, it shows that industry and government are unwilling to sacrifice short term economic gains for long term prosperity (and equity). Alternatives are out there – but to come to fruition, they need a new politics: they require commitment via policy change, investment, innovation, public support, and maybe even a change in lifestyle. This is what environmentalists fight for. “Reality” only precludes that possibility if we desperately cling to it.
It’s the imagination and optimism of your classmates that will change the world. Appeals to “realism” are the classic justification for apathy.
(also, re “five out of the 10 largest oil spills in US history were from boats” – you do know that much of the concern around pipelines like Northern Gateway or Kinder Morgan is about the boats, right?)
Wow, couldn’t say it better myself Dudequality. The only thing I’ll add is the call for the status quo, the call that things cannot be changed just smacks of complete ignorance of our shared collective history as well. Things simply must be changed or else we’re looking at billions of deaths and our civilizations collapse, and in the past even impossible things have been accomplished because they must be changed (end of slavery, invention of vaccines, etc).
Total BS!!!!!!…. whom ever wrote this article is just a pawn for the 1% ….SHAME on you for making this statement ” what they neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives.” Yes this is true because we live in an oil based fossil fuel driven economy.
We need to transition out of using fossil fuels immediately, we have stalled and it is already too late. Our planet is suffering and we will fall like the dinosaurs unless we become the change. I am disappointed that a SFU student wrote this BS it shows a lack of understanding the Big Picture, and i hope this person fails in life because we don’t need more leaders like you.
“I hope this person fails in life because we don’t need more leaders like you” wow really?? Just because this person has a different opinion from your own?? SHAME on you, for being so closed minded and shallow.
Ok, Cass Lozynski from Fort McMurray, AB, let me get this straight. You’re nauseated by individuals who want to see a shift in the status quo of destructive use of petroleum products to more sustainable forms of energy? Well, that’s unfortunate. Of course anyone with a grade three education is aware of all the petroleum products in our lives. But, is it all necessary? Your doom and gloom forecast seems to paint that picture, but the “the idealistic and utopian ideas that tumble out of my peers’ mouths like rainbow-coloured vomit” isn’t as far fetched at you believe. Now, I’ve probably lost you as you’ve drifted off to Snapchat or something. I just hope you can open your mind to what your peers are advocating. Maintaining the status quo has our planet, and everything living on it, heading in a pretty grim direction. The technology and know-how to create more sustainable energy sources is out there! It’s simply a matter of divesting from oil/gas/coal and really committing to new, cleaner methods.
Dear Alex Dove from British Columbia? Aside from the fact that you failed to actually read the article and understand the message it is putting forth, your condescending and mysoginistic tone is downright embarrassing. I sure hope you do not paint all women you come across with that ditzy blonde stereotypical paintbrush. Then again, your comments would indicate otherwise.
“Not only does this show a lack of understanding in
terms of how things work realistically, but it is often only
substantiated by information gleaned from biased pieces that exclude the
full picture and have no accountability for misinformation”
Whereas you, have a firm grasp on reality? If so, kindly educate the rest of us by providing some proper analysis as to why we need to support the current status quo – and worst, support NEW pipelines.
I’ll keep it simple. Just because the society got hooked on cheap and wasteful products does not mean that is the ONLY path forward. We can learn to consume less. Nobody from the environmental movement even debates that we should for now (till we find more sustainable solutions) stop the flow of oil for essentials such as jackets and umbrellas.
What we advocate is that we do NOT need MORE oil. That we do not need oil from tar sands that take 3 units of energy to produce 1 unit of energy (explain how that makes sense please). We need subsidies to be diverted from oil towards sustainable solutions currently in labs as prototypes and put on the market – and fast.
You completely misunderstood (or deliberately twisted) the environmental movement’s arguments. Your own arguments are shallow and not supported by any evidence – it is a pure fantastical opinion of one lonely person in a classroom of people who did their research
Back up your points by evidence and we can have some debate. We can provide plenty of evidence for ours.
Cassondra, I have read your article and you are correct in that we are currently entirely dependent on oil as individuals and societies living in the modern world, if we want to maintain and improve upon on standards of living. Even the most hardcore natural-living advocates can’t argue with the fact that the majority of humans alive today, including ethical/organic-purchasing, social/environmental-justice-volunteering-and-facebook-posting, urban wannabe pseudo-hippies (myself included) use oil and oil products on a daily, if not hourly basis, every single day of the year.
What I have issue with though is your claim that you care about the environment and that oil will be transported regardless. If we want to see a massive mainstream shift in our use of oil we need there to be economic incentive to do so. We do live in a free market, capitalist society, which you would probably agree with me is a good thing and isn’t going away anytime soon (I’m expecting the “well we need to change the system” comments, and that’s not a realistic or productive argument, and one I’d like to table for now). So one way to spur technological innovation away from oil dependence is to reduce the supply of oil such that other alternatives become more attractive, entrepreneurs are willing to take risks on developing solutions, companies and institutions see economic and social gain to be had from investing in oil-alternatives. While pipelines are safer than rail cars, the trans-mountain pipeline would significantly increase the volume of oil leaving the Alberta oil sands on a daily basis, increasing tanker traffic in the Burrard inlet from 1/week to 1/day. The risk of a spill associated with this increased volume would thus rise, such that pipelines are not the environmental answer. This one particular project is inconsequential on the world stage but if citizens were able to rise up and stop this pipeline in BC, that would send a huge message to the rest of the world and the ripple effects could significantly change how similar projects would be viewed in and outside of the courts in other jurisdictions.
Could reducing oil supply impact me and us personally? Yes, things will start getting more expensive in the short-term, like gas, and that’s going to suck, but its a price I’m willing to pay to incentivize innovation and avoid an increase in the likelihood of a devastating oil spill off my coast.
Environmentalism isn’t about returning to the state of nature and acting like Adam and Eve, but rather changing our attitudes and practices to make a more sustainable future. This article takes “going green” a bit to far in my advice.
This is so dumb that it doesn’t deserve more comments than EVOLVE
this doesn’t deserve more replies than STUPID!
Ms. Kosynsky: Oiled paper makes really cool umbrellas. Bamboo is great for bike frames. Electricity is everywhere all the time and can be generated in a myriad of ways. “Accustomed” doesn’t happen overnight. Let’s get going!
As has been pointed out before, we didn’t exit the stone age for lack of stones, and we won’t exit the oil age for lack of oil. Would we transition out of the oil age faster if pipelines were stopped? Probably not. Would a carbon tax speed things up? Probably. Does society as a whole suffer from the increased costs and environmental risks caused by this recent silly fixation on pipelines (by far the safest way to transport oil)? Definately.
Lozynsky’s point that students suck up both information and misinformation from their favorite sources, and discount sources they don’t like, is perfectly valid. And ignorance combined with fervor is nauseating (and dangerous).
Everyone here wants to improve environmental protection, but some have a clearer idea of what actually does that than others.
Bravo Lozynsky, for voicing an unpopular viewpoint in the heart of Lalaland.
we protest Northern Gateway, we fight against Kinder Morgan, we struggle with Site C. So much energy consumed in moving *against* the destructive status quo because we do not want it to destroy us. We’re perpetually with our backs against the wall, our hackles raised, our teeth barred. Fire and fear in our eyes. It is what needs to be done.
You have seen videos and photos of Burnaby Mountain. You have been there even. You have read the updates. The people! The commitment! The spirit! The action! We have so much amongst us that could be channeled towards living a more beautiful world, if only we could stop fighting for a moment. If the status quo was less destructive, more healing, we could step away from the wall we are always backed against and start *leading*, start *moving*, start *living* a world of energy alternatives, community resilience, human connection.
This is a much felt and often unspoken tragedy, a tragedy of our struggle to slow the destruction. There is so much that needs to be done, so much living right and so much fighting wrong. Every pipe-line we must struggle with removes us from living the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible, removes us from supporting those we care for, from connecting with those we might move together with.
We have so much, you have so much. This world needs changing, this world needs healing. This world needs you and it needs me. Please… let us move together.