Dispatch — December 4, 2015, 5:31 pm

The End-of-the-World’s Fair

“If a wealthy country won’t contemplate tapering down a relatively new industry, then what are we to say to Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, whose economies rely hugely on fossil fuel?”

Photograph by Darren Aronofsky

Photograph by Darren Aronofsky

What do you say to the woman sitting atop the third biggest carbon bomb on earth? I began by admiring her shoes, chunky bright orange pumps. Then Rachel Notley, the recently elected premier of Alberta, and I sat down on a couple of beige banquettes in the Ikea-furnished upstairs of the media center at the climate conference. Notley’s aide, who set up the interview, presumably hoped I’d talk about her much-lauded climate plan for her province, but I wanted to talk about the Alberta tar sands. Notley, the fifty-one-year-old head of the Alberta New Democratic Party, won election in a surprise victory last spring. But having good energy policy for your own people while unloosing vast quantities of carbon on the rest of the earth is a bit like being a gun manufacturer who goes to a Quaker meeting.

The Alberta tar sands are the third-largest petroleum deposit on earth, and unlike, say, the Saudi hoard, they’re low-grade, filthy, sludgy semi-solid bitumen that takes a lot of water and fossil fuel just to extract and leaves vast quantities of toxic matter behind. If you’ve seen the pictures you know that central Alberta—the tar sands region is the size of New York State—looks like a festering sore in the middle of a belt of boreal forests and rivers. The widely accepted scientific assessment concludes that preventing worst-case-scenario climate changes means keeping 80 to 85 percent of all known reserves of fossil fuel in the ground for the foreseeable future. The climate conference is not negotiating a global climate budget—despite what scientists, activists, and vulnerable countries like Bolivia think—and it’s not addressing production as well as consumption. But when it comes to climate change, the really important thing about Alberta is that gigantic pile of bitumen.

So I asked Notley what about the fact that keeping the world to two degrees (centigrade) of warming pretty much requires keeping the tar sands in the ground. It was a pointedly naïve question, since politicians don’t generally offer to change course dramatically or halt a major industry. But here at the climate conference, with Amazonian tribal people in traditional feather headdresses, island-dwellers and sub-Saharan Africans all speaking bluntly about the death sentence that runaway climate change means for them, their places, and their futures, the question needs to be asked.

Notley replied, “I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that. I think it’s a question of pace and I think it’s a question of the technology that goes into the extraction. So you know the fact of the matter is that the world is not going to be off nonrenewable energy. It just isn’t. So the question is whether our supply, which is very stable and very predictable not only in terms of its nature but in terms of its political and administrative context in which it lives, may well continue to be one of the suppliers.”

She added, “Can it be done responsibly? Can it be done in a sustainable way? We are a relatively wealthy and a very progressive jurisdiction and if anybody can be a progressive energy producer my belief is that it’s going to be Alberta.” Which is a completely standard thing for a politician in a petroleum state to say and is also completely insane. There isn’t really a responsible, sustainable way to release vast amounts of carbon to be pumped into the atmosphere. Notley wants the burning of the petroleum extracted in Alberta to be chalked up to someone else’s account, and she wants credit for plans to make the process more efficient—that is, to burn less oil to get this oil—and to cap emissions in Alberta at one hundred megatonnes per year, which allows for continued industry expansion.

The good news is that it’s not necessarily up to Notley. The tar sands are landlocked, and pipelines have been essential to their profitability. Shipping oil by rail is, from a humanitarian and environmental standpoint, far more dangerous than doing so with pipelines—one such train incinerated forty-seven people in a fiery explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in 2013, and there’ve been many accidents since. From an industry perspective, it’s more costly. About ten to fifteen dollars more per barrel, according to Stephen Kretzmann of Oil Change International, an activist think tank on all things petroleum. This means that at the current price of oil, many of the tar sands projects have dropped below the break-even point. Blocking pipelines strangles the Alberta industry. And activists have done exactly that.

The defeat of the Keystone XL pipeline, after six years of tenacious fighting by climate activists in Canada and the United States, was a huge victory for the earth and huge blow for the Alberta industry. Notley called it “a kick in the teeth from the Government of the United States” and told me she is committed to building another pipeline. But she may not be able to. Keystone XL’s crucial northern segment is now dead. Many other pipelines and pipeline expansions have been held up by activists, notably by indigenous Canadians refusing to let pipelines cross their lands.

Being at the climate conference is being where all the points of view come together—and clash. Just across the warehouse-like room from Notley, I found Kretzmann, cheerful and brilliant in a chartreuse tie with bicycles on it, and he handed me Oil Change International’s new report. That handy document notes that “industry expansion plans are no longer inevitable. Public support for climate action, and therefore opposition to export pipelines for the tar sands, has publicly impacted the viability of expansion plans. Growing public opposition has put this high-carbon, high-cost sector in a position in which it could run out of pipeline export capacity once it reaches a production level of 2.5 mbpd [million barrels per day], a level likely to be reached as soon as 2017.”

What’s dismaying about Alberta is that it’s, as Notley notes, a wealthy province in a wealthy country in the global north. She didn’t note, though she could have, that major exploitation of the tar sands only dates back about twenty years. 1995 is not some deep desperate past to which the province can’t imaginably return. And if a wealthy country won’t contemplate tapering down a relatively new industry, then what are we to say to Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, whose economies rely hugely on fossil fuel? 

Climate change means that there is no status quo. Either we make dramatic changes in our greenhouse gas emissions or we accept dire changes in the impact on oceans, sea level, weather, agriculture, geopolitics, species extinction, economics, and human and nonhuman life generally. The situation in Alberta is an example of the lack of politicians’ will and imagination to make real change. It’s also a model of what may be the best hope for the future, that civil society will continue to lead the way. 

The climate conference is tens of thousands of people from civil society, government, and industry gathered in what I’ve come to think of as the End-of-the-World’s Fair, a vast, secured suburban cluster of convention buildings with exhibits, displays, meeting rooms, conferences, and cafes. The meetings are essentially editorial meetings; the editors are the 195 nations’ negotiating teams. The text is a document proposing how we manage the fate of the world. There are line-by-line fights, battles over the terms, which result in terms being placed in brackets and in brackets inside brackets.

Of course every sentence translates into what we will and won’t do, how we will do it, and how we will live (or die). It’s just text, but in the same sense that your trial verdict is just speech. This week Saudi Arabia sabotaged the language about human rights by insisting it be changed to the rights of ‘occupied peoples,’ a clear reference to Palestinians that the United States will balk at and then the whole thing will go down the tubes. And so it goes. 

Though only nation-states edit, they are pressed by citizens and climate activists on one side and financial interests on the other. Today, there’s a meeting of cities, regions, and states like California to address the way that sub-national powers can do some of the real work of shifting away from fossil fuel. Thursday activists held a demonstration to demand that the organizers “kick big polluters” such as fossil-fuel corporations out of the conference. Wednesday young activists demonstrated inside the security perimeter to support the Vulnerable Nations Forum’s demand for a commitment to 1.5 degrees of warming and zero emissions by 2050. The good news is Germany has joined 107 other countries to support the 1.5-degree standard, a remarkable change this week, and a remarkable victory. What may happen a week from today could be miraculous—or disastrous. No one yet knows.

Share
Single Page

More from Rebecca Solnit:

From the July 2018 issue

Unmusical Chairs

From the March 2018 issue

Nobody Knows

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

November 2018

Rebirth of a Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Tragedy of Ted Cruz

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Combustion Engines·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On any given day last summer, the smoke-choked skies over Missoula, Montana, swarmed with an average of twenty-eight helicopters and eighteen fixed-wing craft, a blitz waged against Lolo Peak, Rice Ridge, and ninety-six other wildfires in the Lolo National Forest. On the ground, forty or fifty twenty-person handcrews were deployed, alongside hundreds of fire engines and bulldozers. In the battle against Rice Ridge alone, the Air Force, handcrews, loggers, dozers, parachutists, flacks, forecasters, and cooks amounted to some nine hundred people.

Rice Ridge was what is known as a mega-fire, a recently coined term for blazes that cover more than 100,000 acres. The West has always known forest fires, of course, but for much of the past century, they rarely got any bigger than 10,000 acres. No more. In 1988, a 250,000-acre anomaly, Canyon Creek, burned for months, roaring across a forty-mile stretch of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness in a single night. A few decades on, that anomaly is becoming the norm. Rice Ridge, for its part, swept through 160,000 acres.

At this scale, the firefighting operation is run by an incident management team, a group of about thirty specialists drawn from a mix of state and federal agencies and trained in fields ranging from aviation to weather forecasting and accounting to public information. The management teams are ranked according to experience and ability, from type 3 (the least skilled) to type 1 (the most). The fiercest fires are assigned to type 1s. Teams take the name of their incident commander, the field general, and some of those names become recognizable, even illustrious, in the wildfire-fighting community. One such name is that of Greg Poncin, who is to fire commanders what Wyatt Earp was to federal marshals.

Smoke from the Lolo Peak fire (detail) © Laura Verhaeghe
Article
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Article
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
Article
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Article
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

H

e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Chance that a homeless-shelter resident in a major U.S. city holds a full- or part-time job:

1 in 5

Turkey hunting was deemed most dangerous for hunters, though deer hunting is more deadly.

The unresolved midterms; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III replaced; the debut of the world’s first AI television anchor

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today