#17: Interview With the Rt. Hon. Edward R. Schreyer
Esteemed political figure, Edward
Schreyer, comes out of retirement with the hopes of addressing Peak Oil
in Canada's Parliament.
By Dan Crawford <dcrawford@republic-news.org>
During May 19th-20th the 4th International Workshop on Oil and Gas
Depletion Conference was held in Lisbon, Portugal. Edward Schreyer
participated on a panel 'The Oil Depletion Protocol: Panel Discussion
on Political Action'. His communication from the event titled 'Global
Energy Crisis Emergent' can be found here.
On Dec. 15th, 2005 Schreyer announced his candidacy in Canada's 2006
Federal election. An almost unprecedented move for a former Governor General.
All media in Canada has focused solely on controversial comments that
Schreyer made nearly 20 years ago. This interview is the only one that
uncovers his true motivations for returning to politics.
If Schreyer is successful in his campaign he plans to raise the issue
of Peak Oil in the House of Commons. To date, no politician in Canada
has openly discussed Peak Oil in Canada's Parliament.
Schreyer's political career began at the age of 22. On December 21st,2005 he will be 70 years old.
Why is it that a man like Schreyer must come out of retirement in order
for Peak Oil to be brought to Parliament? Furthermore, why has Canada's
media not made mention of his intentions? These are important questions
that need to be addressed for the sake of Canada's future.
Edward Schreyer :
Premier of Manitoba 1969-77
Governor General of Canada and Commander-in-Chief 1979-84
Canadian High Commissioner to Australia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands & Ambassador to Vanuatu 1984-88
Visiting professor at universities in Canada & Europe on Energy & Strategic Resources in Global Context 1990 - 2002
Chancellor, Brandon University, Brandon, Canada 2002
National Representative for Habitat for Humanity
Honorary Director of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund
Director of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Schreyer's website : www.edisback.ca.
Interview:
Sat. Dec. 17th 2005
Interview length 40 min
CRAWFORD: Has 'Peak Oil and Energy
Availability' had any influence on your decision to run in this Federal election?
SCHREYER: Yes! CRAWFORD: If elected, will you raise
the issue of 'Peak Oil' on the floor of the House of Commons? SCHREYER: You bet. CRAWFORD: What solutions/preparations
are you advocating for?
SCHREYER: To begin the transition
to renewables and subside or diminish the rate of depletion of Oil and
gas. That is the first step in starting to make the transition now because
the lead times involved are very considerable. CRAWFORD: What message do you have
for the youth of this country in dealing with their uncertain future? SCHREYER: To continue your insistence
on better conservation and efficiency efforts and continue to improve
upon those standards and those efforts. To watch the current generation
of policy makers to see whether they are making real and genuine efforts
towards conservation, efficiency and renewables as opposed to giving
lip service and “press release” service only. CRAWFORD: Has anything come as a result
of being involved with the 4th International Workshop on Oil and Gas
Depletion held in Lisbon during May of 2005, were any relationships
forged with fellow participants such as Matthew Simmons, Colin Campbell,
Richard Heinberg?? SCHREYER: I have had the most contact
with Colin Campbell. In fact, I've been to his home. I have spoken at
length with Matt Simmons. I think these conferences are important
but could become much more so if media attention were more genuinely
involved. It seems to me that the media has certainly not given particular
attention to the oil and gas depletion issue. it’s impossible to know The reason for this, I'm sorry I can
not explain to you, simply because I do not understand it myself. [Later in the interview Schreyer added]
...why is it that media is not giving
more attention, not just during this election campaign but in the past
5 years to peak oil and oil depletion? I believe that there is a media
strategy or at least a media pre inclination to minimize the peak oil
coverage or conversely to play it off against the 'there's lots of oil'
lobby. I don't know if you have noticed but
there is peculiar sort of dual track campaign or self-canceling campaign
going on here. The best example I can give you of that is Chevron Oil
and also BP. Now BP they have changed their name and logo by having
a logo of the sun and the word BP is spelled out as “beyond petroleum”.
Now in the same vein, Chevron about 4-5 months ago began an advertising
campaign 'Will You join us'. When you read it at first its seems all
very genuine and dramatic evidence of their acceptance of the notion
that the word “depletion” really does mean something—that they
are finally acknowledging all that! But in the case of both of
them notwithstanding all this, they later go on in lengthier statements
to imply that there is enough oil for the next 30-40 years . You can
hardly blame people who haven't had the chance or the time to do in
depth research for becoming completely confused. However, if you
look carefully at the Chevron statement and weigh it against the peak
oil message it is not a complete contradiction. Because peak
oil theory says that there will be, unquestionably, there will be oil
around but that the ability to produce it in a way that is commensurate
with demand will slowly and steadily diminish and the consequence of
the demand gap is that immediately the price goes haywire. Chevron says
there is enough for 30 years and well, yeah, but they don't, however,
make it clear that within those 30 years there will be oil but not enough
to meet demand. And that's something they fudge. CRAWFORD: In your communication for
the Peak Oil conference, titled 'Global Energy Crisis Emergent' you
state "In this respect I am not a pessimist. I am at one with those
who do believe that many citizens wish to be responsible toward the
environment and toward the next generation by avoiding the fast track
depletion of oil and gas which are also major contributors to CO2 emissions
and POSSIBLE climate change." For clarification, do you support
the theory that climate change is real? and that CO2 emissions are a
leading contributor to climate change? SCHREYER: I support the view that
the theory is certainly sound science. The offered examples of the acts
of commencement of climate change are often times persuasive enough
especially in high latitudes in the Arctic and subarctic. But thus far
the evidence is slightly short of being conclusive. But there is no
doubt that 30 billion tons of CO2 per year globally is a prelude to
some extreme event and that’s about all I can say. The amount of emissions
already taking place is bound to cause problems. It’s just too vast
a scale to be innocent much longer. I know that some writers try to
attack the science of climate change and the warnings But here is where I inject what I
consider to be a very sound public policy guideline —something called
the “precautionary principle”. The precautionary principle is that
if you have the prospect of overwhelming negative results or dangers
and if this danger can be fended off or postponed or delayed by adopting
a policy and course of action that succeeds in putting off that prospect
then why not follow it. Simply as a matter of common sense precaution,
it should—especially if the economics are even close to neutral. I feel very strongly about this. In
fact that’s one of six main reasons I'm in this campaign at the age
of 70. It Is that we could be practicing following, in common-sense,
some very sound precautionary principles that would cost the Canadian
economy, in net terms, virtually nothing. Yes, there would be some costs
but there would be tremendous benefit as well, quite apart from the
major future sustainability questions. But we are not doing it and its a great
pity. It may in a few short years be something that we will regret tremendously
and the future generations may well curse us for this fast track depletion
of oil/gas that we are guilty of. We are not doing it and its not as
though it would cost us any unmanageable amount of money. This is just so frustrating that I
can bear it no longer in silence. CRAWFORD: What is the NDP's position
on Peak Oil? SCHREYER: You would be better served
by contacting the national campaign office because I haven't had an
opportunity these past weeks to communicate with anybody on this issue
and for the next 40 days or so I will be out in the rural areas. CRAWFORD: How did you become a member
of the Energy Council of Canada ? SCHREYER: I simply received an invitation
one day [this year] from the offices of the Energy Council of Canada
asking if I would wish to become a member. I accepted. CRAWFORD: You mentioned that you have
6 main reasons for running in this election, what are those reasons: SCHREYER: - Agriculture, rural life and the
decline of towns, especially across the prairies.
- Energy and the Environment
- The Reform of Parliament
- Parliamentary authority and effective
use of committees. A simple but all-important point about
oil/gas depletion and climate change is that if you solve one problem
we automatically solve most of the other. If we fail in one, then we
fail in both. These are intertwined—the depletion of non-renewables
and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we produce. Some people seem
to want to rate one as more important or imminent than the other, but
in fact they are inseparable. The reform of parliament so that parliament
can clean up cabinet. So that cabinet reinforced and restored to its
former status can hold people in meaningful check It is important to ensure that the
Prime Minister relates and the office relates to cabinet like it used
to 100 years ago. Which is to say collegial, and with collective responsibility.
The Prime Minister is first among equals but is not a president, nor
a king. Cabinet has got to get back to making decisions in a collegial,
collective way instead of “log-rolling”. By log-rolling I mean the
rather lazy habit, (although it does save a lot of time) and it’s
a very bad habit of decisions being made between the minister and the
Prime Minister and then in another case yet another Minister and the
Prime Minister. So therefore a lot of decisions of quite some importance
and scale are being made in recent years by the Prime Minister and ministers
one-on-one instead of on a collegial basis. This is a bad habit and it has got
to be stopped because it is part of the reason why we have such recurring
problems with corruption and sleaze. Because things are not being hammered
out on a collegial basis, except on far too infrequent a basis. For
this to happen I do think that parliament has to re assert itself. The
individual member of parliament has been marginalized over the past
couple of decades and because of that cabinets tend to not be held responsible.
The issue of transparency is circumvented often. It’s ironic, isn't it, because cabinet
government initially 100 yrs ago meant responsible government. The term
“responsible government” means that the cabinet is responsible to
the elected democratic institution of parliament. That doesn't seem
to happen anymore. All to often the members of the back bench on both
sides are treated rather indifferently. I think its because of the excessive
degree of party discipline and both sides of and etc, etc and there
to, it is an integrated linkage. Which leads to my next point, A reformed
parliament would give more status and more scope and authority to the
members of parliament. One way to ensure this happens is to
give parliament the authority to have a really meaningful system of
committees. Here, we can will borrow a page from the American congressional
system, in so far as committees are concerned. By that I mean that more
subjects of crucial public importance ought to be investigated and deemed
investigatable by committees of Parliment. They should be given the
authority to summon witnesses and to take testimony under oath,
and with that, to start in on the task. To give you some examples of
tasking—to hold accountable corporate executives in Canada and the
whole area of “governance” of corporations. There is need to help
shareholders regain control of executive salaries that have become scandalous
and which have gone out of control. There is no system in Canada to
deal with this phenomenon but it has become so ridiculous that it has
become scandalous. I'm referring to the fact that boards of directors
which are supposed to govern the executives hired— the CEO's and vice
presidents ... There is no mechanism for keeping a lid on
it We will never know what was so egregious
that they would pay out $2.2 billion. They say “well we settled, but
we weren't guilty”. Therein lies the the horns of the dilemma. If
not guilty they have breached one of their most important duties which
is fiduciary trust. They settled out of court. They weren't compelled
to. They willingly did so, which means they breached their this trust
by simply trashing away 2 billion dollars of shareholder's money. So
the whole thing, in or out of court, is just a scandal. At least in
a parliamentary committee you could, if nowhere else, you could compel
testimony under oath and could get to the bottom of the why and wherefore
of it all.
| 