"It’s just not true that we need that pipeline so Alberta does a better job on climate change."

Permit me this thought experiment.

Let’s say Ontario decided they needed to dump their nuclear waste in Alberta because of the great geology they have in Alberta for storing stuff like that. Say the Ontario government and the federal government both signed on saying it was a great idea and said don’t worry we have the best procedures, if there were an accident we know how to clean it up though we have no real experience and other jurisdictions have had real problems. But that’s fine because this is in the national interest. And we are going to build even more nuclear reactors now because we have a way to dispose of that problematic stuff.

Think Alberta would be happy? No, they wouldn’t and shouldn’t be.

Having your neighbours take unreasonable risks without seeing some of the benefit isn’t very neighbourly. Now say actually there are other alternatives to Alberta, maybe other places that are even safer. As a matter of fact with the Alberta option there is too much storage capacity. Would Alberta think this is a good idea then? No, who would?

Okay, so why does Alberta and the Trudeau government think sending bitumen overseas via B.C. waters is a good idea? There are other pipeline routes that can meet the expected need. With Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL there would be more than enough capacity so there wouldn’t need to be rail. And the oil sands aren’t going to grow much more, that becomes more obvious by the day as American shale oil continues to expand by leaps and bounds even at this fairly low price level. So those two pipeline projects would be more than enough.

And there are even more alternatives besides those two projects. When Enbridge Chief Executive Al Monaco was asked about the possibility of the Capline reversal project proceeding (the largest pipeline in the US) he said Enbridge would expand to meet the demand to feed that pipeline. So why again should we be talking like a Trans Mountain expansion is the end of the world when these other viable options are out there?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau keeps telling Canadians how it is the “national interest”. For a while that was because he said we needed to access new markets but of course that was untrue, we can access those new markets already from the Gulf Coast. Maybe it was true when we didn’t know that the oils sands growth was almost over, but we do know that now and have for some time. Maybe it was true before Donald Trump revived the already declared dead pipeline knows as Keystone XL. But it isn’t true now he has.

But Trudeau and others are spinning the story it was necessary for Alberta to agree to only increase their carbon emissions a little bit more instead of a lot. This reminds me of the various reasons we were told we were losing brave young soldiers in Afghanistan — to fight the Taliban, then to stop the drug trade and then to make sure young Afghan girls could be educated. The government kept changing the story. Those initiatives were all very worthwhile but didn’t explain why our soldiers had to be undergo what was happening over there, the linkage was false since there were other ways to achieve the worthwhile goals.

It’s just not true that we need that pipeline so Alberta does a better job on climate change. Alberta has been trying to come up with plans to address carbon emissions well before Trudeau and Notley came along. They weren’t particularly effective but neither is Notley’s plan.

So Andrew Scheer, this isn’t the disaster you are saying it is. No, Rachel Notley you don’t need to buy this pipeline, you’ve already committed billions to Keystone XL, you don’t need both. No Justin Trudeau, this isn’t in the national interest you don’t need to burn any of the political credit you have left with the progressives of this country. Catherine McKenna, this won’t affect anything you are doing, your climate change action plan is a sham and Trans Mountain is immaterial to that fact. Jim Carr, this project is important for Chinese investors that want cheap Canadian oil but it’s not important to the oil sands whose growth is limited by competition from cheap better quality supply in the US.

And given all this beware of environmental groups claiming great achievements by blocking the line. It is true that if Trans Mountain is blocked it greatly reduces the flow of oil along the West Coast. But the crude then will move by rail or by other pipelines to the U.S. and likely will also move by ship out of the Gulf Coast to export markets. It is surely a victory for the Vancouver environment and Indigenous rights but will have zero impact on oil sands development. Big Enviro has not stopped Big Oil in Canada, U.S. fracking has.

The facts are the oil sands aren’t going to grow much more whether there are pipelines or not. Alberta’s climate change policy is not dependant on whether this pipeline goes ahead or not. And Canada’s climate change achievements are going to be underwhelming regardless of whether this pipeline goes ahead. Everybody take a deep breath, stop the overblown rhetoric and start talking facts instead of politics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.