Pétrole / Oil

La semaine passé, j’ai vu l’exposition « Pétrole » d’Edward Burtynsky au Musée McCord. Le site web du musée déclare que « L'objectif de Burtynsky capture également les effets de l'exploitation pétrolière sur nos vies, son emprise et ses conséquences sur les gens, les villes, les paysages et l'environnement”. En général, je dois admettre avoir été quelque peu déçu par l’exposition, mais j’ai définitivement trouvé très puissantes les images représentants la dépendance de notre société face au pétrole.

La plupart des photos présentées en début d’exposition ont été prises à Fort McMurray, en Alberta. Un endroit qui, pour beaucoup de Canadiens, est devenu synonyme du très controversé projet des sables bitumineux. Au Québec, le débat autour des sables bitumineux semble se concentrer sur l’argument moral, à savoir leur impact sur l’environnement, maintenant et dans le futur. Beaucoup de Québécois, ainsi que d’autres Canadiens vivant dans des provinces sans champs de pétrole, sont confiants de prendre cette position de supériorité morale. Inversement, les habitants de l’Alberta et des autres régions du Canada dépendants fortement des produits du pétrole pour leurs emplois, s’unissent avec une confiance égale autour de l’argument économique pour les sables bitumineux : ils fournissent un moyen de subsistance pour des communautés entières, et continueront de le faire pour les générations futures. Étant convaincu qu’ils ont tous deux raison, que leur argument est supérieur à celui de l’autre, chaque camp a fortement défendu son point et maintenant la question des sables bitumineux est possiblement la plus controversée au Canada. Pour ceux qui prennent la position pro-sables bitumineux, la vie suit son cours habituel. Par contre, pour ceux qui croient que la production de pétrole à partir des sables bitumineux doit être réduite ou carrément arrêtée, une réponse plus élaborée que l’indignation morale est de mise.

L’impact environnemental du projet des sables bitumineux est certainement double : le processus de production du pétrole, et ensuite l’utilisation du pétrole comme carburant. Les images initiales de Burtynsky montrent la production sur une grande échelle. Tandis que les machines et les structures sont en quelque sorte visuellement familières, peu d’entre nous pourraient revendiquer comprendre concrètement ce que ces images représentent. Cependant, les photos qui suivent sont celles de vastes réseaux d’autoroutes, de rues où les stations d’essence s’alignent, de restaurants « drive-thru » et autres zones urbaines entièrement définies par les routes. Ces images sont plus que familières. Elles sont celles de la vie de tous les jours, des endroits que nous croisons constamment, bref, de tout ce qui nous entoure. Même si le paysage sévère et mécanique de Fort McMurray présente bien peu de ressemblance avec ces images, le lien entre les deux environnements est clair : l’un existe pour servir l’autre. Présentement, la plupart des Canadiens s’opposants aux sables bitumineux sont dans l’étrange position de se battre contre quelque chose qui est à la base de leur vie. C’est l’équivalent moral de militants pour les droits des animaux qui protesteraient contre l’abatage et la consommation de la viande, tout en savourant des hamburgers, du bacon et du poulet rôti à tous les jours.

L’argument moral n’a pas à exister séparément de l’argument économique. Dans la même veine que le blog de la semaine passée, il apparaît peu probable que la solution proviendra du gouvernement. Elle viendra de Canadiens individuels agissants ensemble. Si les Canadiens excercent leur primauté de consommateur (l’utilisation de leur pouvoir d’achat – argent – pour motiver les producteurs) en changeant leur mode de vie, nous pourrons demander moins d’énergie, de même qu’une énergie plus propre. Face aux « grandes entreprises », plusieurs consommateurs se sentent impuissant, mais c’est loin d’être le cas. Tandis que  les arguments moraux peuvent être ignorés pendant des décennies, les argument économiques, eux, sont irrésistibles. Si la demande de pétrole par les Canadiens chute, les corporations répondront. Il voudront trouver un moyen de maintenir leurs profits en venant chercher notre argent à nouveau Les consommateurs Canadiens doivent s’assurer que cette recherche les mènera vers des produits, des comportements et des profits plus verts.

Le futur du Canada serait mieux servi en reconnaissant et en rectifiant l’économie qui sous-tend les sables bitumineux, qu’en dépeignant les communautés créées par leurs réserves de pétrole comme étant inhumaines. Ces communautés font seulement nous exposer à la réalité des vies qu’elles mènent. Ultimement, nous devons décider ce qui est le plus important : qui devrait se sentir mieux, nous ou la planète?

Tous les Canadiens désirant s’élever à une position de supériorité morale par rapport à notre besoin de pétrole doivent s’assurer de se rendre jusqu’à cette position… à pied.

***
Last week, I saw the 'Oil' exhibition at the Musée McCord by Edward Burtynsky. The museum's website proclaims that 'Burtynsky's lens has also captured the impact that petroleum development has on our lives and its hold on people, cities, land, and the environment.' Overall, I have to admit to being slightly underwhelmed by the show, but I did find the images depicting our society's reliance on oil very powerful.

Many of the earlier images in the exhibition were taken in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Somewhere that, for many Canadians, has become synonymous with the environmentally controversial, tar sands project. In Québec, debate about the tar sands seems to focus on the moral argument, ie. its impact on the environment now and in the future. Many Québecers, and other Canadians living in provinces without oil fields, feel assured taking this high ground. Conversely, inhabitants of Alberta, and the other parts of Canada heavily reliant on oil production for jobs, congregate with equal confidence around the economic arguments for the tar sands: it provides a livelihood for entire communities, and will do the same for their children.  Feeling secure that they are both in the right, that their argument is the superior one, each side has fought their corner strongly and the tar sands are now possibly the most divisive issue in Canada. For those taking a pro-tar sands stance, life is business as usual. However, for those who believe that oil production from the tar sands must be reduced or stopped, a more sophisticated response than moral outrage seems necessary.

The tar sands project's impact on the environment is surely two-fold: the oil production process, and then the use of the oil as fuel. Burtynsky's initial images show production on a large scale. Whilst the machinery and structures are somewhat familiar visually, few of us could claim to understand the detail of what the images depict. However, the images that follow these are ones of vast networks of autoroutes, streets lined with gas stations, drive-thru restaurants and urban areas utterly defined by roads. These are more than familiar sights. These are images of everyday life, the places we pass through constantly, in short, they are our surroundings. Though the stark, mechanical, industrial landscape of Fort McMurray bares little resemblance to them, the link between the two environments is clear: one exists to service the other. Currently, most Canadians opposed to the tar sands are in the strange position of fighting against something which underpins their lives. It is the equivalent of animal rights activists protesting against the slaughter and consumption of meat, yet enjoying burgers, bacon and roast chicken on a daily basis.

The moral argument does not have to exist separately from the economic one. Following on from last week's blog, it appears unlikely that the solution to this problem is going to come from government. It is going to come from individual Canadians acting together. If Canadians exercise their consumer sovereignty (use their purchasing power - money - to motivate producers) by changing their lifestyles, we can demand less energy, and also cleaner energy. In the face of 'big business' many consumers feel helpless, this is far from the truth. Whilst moral arguments can be ignored for decades, economic ones are irresistible. If the demand for oil amongst Canadians drops, corporations will respond. They will look to maintain their profits and they will come in search of our money again. Canadian consumers must ensure that this search leads them to greener products, behaviour and profits.

Canada's future will be better served by acknowledging and rectifying the economics underpinning the tar sands than portraying the communities created by their oil reserves as inhumane. These communities are merely exposing us to the realities of the lives we lead. Ultimately, we need to decide which is more important, making the planet or ourselves feel better?

All Canadians who are going to take the moral high ground in regard to oil need to be sure that they get there on foot.

Adieu Kyoto!

Lundi, le gouvernement Canadien s'est officiellement retiré du protocole Kyoto, le seul accord mondial existant pouvant légalement engager un pays à atteindre un objectif de réduction de ses émissions de carbone. Le Canada est le seul pays à s'être retiré de l'accord. Successivement sous le pouvoir de gouvernements Libéral et Conservateur, le Canada à échoué à restreindre ses émissions, lesquelles ont augmentées de 20.4% entre 1990 et 2009.

La déclaration est venue une journée après que le marathon de discussions sur les changements climatiques se soit terminé à Durban, en Afrique du Sud. Des négociateurs de presque 200 pays en sont arrivé à une entente pour qu'un nouveau traité mondial sur les changements climatiques soit signé d'ici 2015 pour remplacer celui du protocole de Kyoto, lequel doit arriver à terme l'année prochaine. Pendant ce temps, le Ministre de l'Environnement Peter Kent déclarait que "Pour le Canada, Kyoto est du passé. À ce titre, nous invoquons notre droit légal de nous désengager". Jusqu'à présent, le gouvernement n'a toujours pas indiqué ce que sera la future politique environnementale du Canada.

Ruepublique est extrêmement déçu de ces derniers développements, le leadership du gouvernement sur LE problème mondial de notre temps étant très important. Cependant, les Canadiens doivent se souvenir que nous pouvons encore agir en tant que citoyens, à travers nos comportements et les choix quotidiens que nous faisons et qui déterminent notre façon de vivre. En fait, cela à toujours été le meilleur moyen de rencontrer les exigences du protocole de Kyoto. La responsabilité du leadership est simplement passée des mains du gouvernement à celles de la population. C'est sans contredit un immense défi, mais ce défi n'a pas changé depuis lundi. Ruepublique s'engage à offrir son leadership dans notre communauté, et encourage les Canadiens à travers le pays à faire de même pour ainsi remédier à la lacune de notre gouvernement.

Dans la section des commentaires ci-dessous, les membres de Ruepublique offriront leurs réflexions face à l'annonce du retrait de Kyoto et nous invitons tout le monde à se joindre à la discussion.
---
On Monday the Canadian government formally withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, the one existing global agreement that legally binds countries to emission cuts targets. Canada is the only country to withdraw from the agreement. Under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada has failed to do much to curb its carbon emissions, which rose by 20.4% between 1990 and 2009.

The announcement came a day after marathon climate talks wrapped up in the South African city of Durban. Negotiators from nearly 200 countries agreed on a deal that sets the world on a path to sign a new climate treaty by 2015 to replace the first Kyoto protocol, whose current provisions expire next year. Durban's accord envisions a new treaty with binding targets for all countries to take effect in 2020. Whilst the evironment minister Peter Kent claimed that "Kyoto for Canada is in the past. As such, we are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw," at this moment in time, the government has not indicated what represents the future for Canadian environmental policy.

Ruepublique is extremely disappointed by this week's developments as government leadership on the global issue of our times is very important. However, Canadians must remember that we can still take action as citizens, through our behaviour and the daily choices we make about our lifestyles. In fact this has always been the best way to meet the requirements of the Kyoto protocol. The responsibility for leadership has now simply passed from the government to the people. It is undoubtedly a huge challenge, but the challenge has not changed since Monday. Ruepublique is going to offer leadership within our own community, and encourages Canadians across the country to do likewise and fill the void left by our government.

In the comments section below, Ruepublique members will offer their own responses to the Kyoto announcement and we invite everyone to join in the discussion.

Active Transportation/Transport Actif

This week we have a guest blog from The Daily Bike/Le Vélo Quotidien, a blog run by Ruepublique member Maclean. Maclean's blog talks about his life as a cyclist and why more people should join him in using their cars less and their bike more.
---
Cette semaine nous avons un blog invité de Le Vélo Quotidien/The Daily Bike, un blog par Maclean, un membre de Ruepublique. Le blog de Maclean parle sur sa vie comme un cycliste et pourquoi plus de personnes devrait utiliser leur voiture moins et leur vélo plus.

'One of the recurring themes RuePublique likes to entertain is that of promoting active transportation. They do so for a number of good reasons.

Transport actif  is basically anything that amounts to some form of exercise while getting you around, and can be more than just good for the heart: it often is thoroughly economical and equally practical too. By definition, transportation by motorised means does not qualify as active transportation, but to be fair all modes of transport lie along a spectrum, if you will, where some forms of vehicular transport involve much more activity than others: Running to catch a bus, or walking the stairs up from a metro like Lucien l’allier are, after all, somewhat active indeed. On the far end of the spectrum there’s passive transportation: moving about with as little effort as possible. It’s a sort of Faustian dream come true, but of course it comes at a huge expense.

Without dwelling too much here on the well-documented negative effects that the convenience of the personal automobile has had of the fabric of urban communities; or on the drawbacks that accompany urban/suburban sprawl; or on the global implications of our dependence on petroleum and of the consequences of emitting greenhouse gasses on a global industrial scale, suffice it to say that active transport is one of the key tools in the “green tool-kit” that most urbanites are at least physically, intellectually and possibly psychologically capable of embracing.

Indeed, if we are genuinely serious about “tackling” climate change, or promoting healthy lifestyles by reducing pollution and increasing physical activity, embracing active transport is a no-brainer. And to be fair, mainstream programs like the Bixi initiative represent a good first step. But to make a real difference we’ve got to inspire more people to go much deeper into active transport and leave their cars parked at home. So in fact we should settle on a number, eventually: a percentage of traffic as a target. That way we can measure our success in real terms, and once we get there we can truly assess the impact and benefits of the changes.

Let’s aim high. Let’s get some 30% of cars off the road, and get those thousands of people onto bikes (or at least onto buses), in all kinds of weather, with all kinds of technical adaptations that will accommodate this with the greatest degree of convenience as possible.

But of course, before we get there, we have a lot of work cut out for ourselves. Not only are we talking about a massive publicity campaign that will require help from industry, and from all levels of government, but we are also talking about accommodating a whole new faction into the existing culture of cycling. This means not only asking car-drivers to accord more space on a regular basis, but also asking seasoned cyclists to foster a welcoming atmosphere for the great number of novice cyclists who will be struggling, for a time, up a fairly steep learning curve. Those seasoned cyclists are a privileged few who get away with a lot because they slip through the cracks of the traffic laws and bylaws. But if we collectively succeed in converting to bicycle-based day-to-day operations (ie. a significant increase in cyclists on the street on a daily basis, all year long), we will have to have a much more established set of ground rules. Drivers and seasoned cyclists alike are going to have to accommodate the masses and the potential chaos.

This is no small challenge. Biking is scary to a lot of people : from anarchist bike couriers to monster SUVs and snow removal trucks, there’s a lot to be afraid of. …Not to mention those novices who do dare to, say, ride a Bixi occasionally; they are often quite dangerous in their own right!

But as far as I’m concerned, this is the only way forward. The requirements not only of our moral and legal obligations under the Kyoto protocol, but also of the new realities of economics and Nature’s limits that are now just beginning to press down upon our global economic systems, are such that we will have to make these and/ or similar changes across the board, eventually. In no way should the world of future be envisioned as one fuelled by the same means as our recent past. You could wait for technology to change its course in due time (but don’t hold your breath), or you could embrace the established “old” technology of cycling that is proven, reliable, and fun.'

Cycling in the Mile End/Cyclisme dans le Mile End

An interesting discussion began at last month's Comité des Citoyens du Mile End at Bar Waverley about cyclists and their respect, or lack of, for the laws of the road. Reports of traffic signals being ignored and cyclists going against the flow of traffic were just two of the examples cited. Most cyclists would probably acknowledge that they have witnessed this kind of behaviour from their two wheeled comrades, and few could honestly say they've never been the guilty party themselves. So what should be done? 

On the one hand, Ruepublique is passionate about public safety on the streets of the Mile End, so any vehicles disobeying traffic laws are clearly a concern. However, from a practical perspective, bicycles need to continue to be encouraged as a form of transport within the community. They possess crucial advantages over cars: they are far less likely to cause accidents which result in injury or worse; they have an extremely low carbon footprint; and they provide physical exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle. Bicycles are neither cars nor pedestrians, but they are far closer to pedestrians on the scale of human mobility. Recognizing the importance of the bicycle, some local residents at November's meeting suggested cyclists should be viewed differently to cars and that certain traffic rules should differ for cyclists (eg. yielding instead of stopping at stop signs and being able to go against traffic on one-way streets). This is an approach that Ruepublique is very interested in pursuing. Similar schemes already exist, for example, the Netherlands has over 6000 'Woonerven', streets where cyclists and pedestrians have legal priority over cars.

Ruepublique will be organising an event with the Comité des Citoyens du Mile End in early 2012 to discuss this issue further and hear the thoughts of local residents. Please join the conversation by offering your thoughts below. Ruepublique will post further details about the event once we have them, as well as our own response to how cycling can continue to be encouraged, yet respect other road users.
---
Une discussion intéressante a été entamée le mois dernier au sein du Comité des Citoyens du Mile End, lors d'une réunion au Bar Waverly, à propos des cyclistes et de leur respect du code de la route, ou plutôt de leur manque de respect. Des rapports de cyclistes ignorants les signaux de circulation ou encore roulants à contresens ne sont que deux exemples parmi tous ceux ayant été cités. La plupart des cyclistes reconnaîtraient probablement qu'ils ont déjà été témoin de ce type de comportement de la part de leurs camarades à deux roues, mais peu d'entre eux seraient prêt à avouer qu'ils en sont eux-même coupable. Alors quoi faire?


D'un côté, Ruepublique a à coeur la sécurité publique dans les rues du Mile End, donc tout  véhicule désobéissant au code de la route est clairement un souci. Cependant, d'un point de vue pratique, il est important de continuer d'encourager l'utilisation du vélo comme moyen de transport dans la communauté. Il possède des avantages cruciaux par rapport à la voiture : les chances qu'il cause des accidents avec blessures ou pire sont moins grandes; il a une empreinte carbone (ou empreinte écologique) extrêmement faible; et il contribue à un mode de vie sain en procurant de l'activité physique. Les bicyclettes ne sont ni des voitures, ni des piétons, mais ils sont beaucoup plus près des piétons sur l'échelle de la mobilité humaine. Reconnaissants l'importance de la bicyclette, quelques résidents locaux ont suggéré à la réunion de novembre que les cyclistes devraient être vue différemment des voitures et que certains codes de la route devraient donc différer pour eux (ex : céder le passage au lieu d'arrêter aux signaux d'arrêt et être capable d'aller en sens contraire de la circulation dans les rues à sens unique). Ceci est une approche que Ruepublique est très intéressée de poursuivre. Des arrangements similaires existent déjà ailleurs. La Hollande, par exemple, possède plus de 6000 "Woonerven" : des rues où les cyclistes et les piétons ont priorité légale sur les voitures.


Ruepublique organisera un évènement avec le Comité des Citoyens du Mile End au début de 2012 pour discuter de ce sujet et pour entendre plus amplement les idées des résidents locaux. Si vous le désirez, vous pouvez vous joindre à la conversation en offrant vos idées sur ce blogue. Ruepublique affichera plus de détails à propos de l'évènement lorsque nous en aurons, ainsi que notre propre réponse sur comment le cyclisme peut continuer à être encouragé tout en respectant les autres usagés de la route.

Mission in Action

A month has passed now since ruePublique’s last instalment of Journées des Bons Voisins of 2011 took place, and the group has had the time to relax and reflect on our success and good fortune. Indeed, we had our first meeting since just this past week-end and the consensus was that ruePublique has gained enough momentum in the form of recognition and support that we will indeed continue in our work. What this means is that yes, we can all look forward to another summer of street parties in 2012; but what’s more, it looks as though you will not have to wait until then before some other ruePublique activity comes your way. That’s right folks! We have begun the brainstorming process that will bring public space surprises to the neighbourhood over the course of the fall, winter and spring months ahead. And, as always we are open to like-minded volunteers who would like to jump aboard and help out in any number of ways.

The catch, if there is one, is what does “like minded” actually refer to? I say this because ruePublique has had something of an identity crisis over it’s short lifetime. First, having donned the completely different name of CarFreeMileEndsansvoitures for the first year and a half, then working under the very vague banner of Journées des Bons Voisins, ruePublique’s identity was obscured somewhat, at times confusing supporters and on-lookers alike. This is not to take away from the concerted efforts of the group to define our mission, articulate our objectives and share in our research findings, especially at our last street event.  It’s just that you would be forgiven if you had already visited all of our events and even volunteered at them, without fully knowing what the heck ruePublique, as a would-be non-profit organization stands for.

Meanwhile, would I be forgiven for pulling out my hair at the thought of rewriting a sort of “mission statement” for the forty-third time?

Well, no. I wouldn’t forgive myself, since there’s less hair to spare with every passing day…

In fact I am glad to do it. Every time I do so, it comes out a little bit different, and it must just be part of the process of a group’s evolution and development. For sure, our vision and objectives have changed since we first started CarFreeMileEndsansvoitures, as is reflected in the name change to ruePublique. Personally I have learned so much stuff, and have met so many fantastic people that I have the pleasure of working with, and who have helped to shape the group into what it is today: a would be non-profit group focusing on the public space of the street as a means to realise change in our own back-yard. And as young as the group is, it does have roots, firmly planted in the culture of what might be called urban ecology, with motivations stemming from global “carbon” issues that also pose economic and political challenges that can well be addressed in our own back yard.

To sum up our mission, then, in a few sentences, I came up with the following:

Embracing the adage of thinking globally and acting locally, ruePublique exists in order to improve the chances of one urban community’s ability to respond to the crises of unsustainable activity surrounding us. By raising awareness, providing information and engaging in dialogue as well as providing tangible examples of ecologically minded actions, we hope to inspire people to work toward reducing their carbon footprint, individually and collectively.

This is a work in progress, as is the whole ruePublique project: it is all about the dialogue. Actions will generate discourse. Discourse will raise awareness. Awareness maay inspire the will to engage, and seek change. Change in our environment begets a general change in consciousness, which in turn determines our actions… At least this is the theory of cyclical evolution that I hope for.

As always, I remain open to commentary and guest/ member contributions here on this blog. So feel free to reply!

P.S. translations too, are always welcome!

Who is ruepublique?

We are a local community group who collaborate with urban planners and local stakeholders in working toward tangible measures and real changes to the current use of the public realm known as “the street”. So far we have focused on the heart of our neighbourhood, la rue St. Viateur.

Formerly known as Car Free Mile End sans voitures, ruepublique is made up of a team of volunteers who work toward summer-time, week-end street closures under the banner of “journées des bons voisins” -- our next event, on the 18th of September, being the last of the season.

“We started this project because we have perceived problems with what we’ve been told to consider as normal. Once you start making connections, you can say on the one hand, the status quo just isn’t right, and on the other, what little push in the public realm can help lift us out of the rut? The main purpose is for the research to continue and hopefully at the same time people’s understanding of the issues evolves, and we can make real changes in response to this kind of question.”

Journées des bons voisins is essentially your neighbourhood street party with a purpose. This is not modeled on the St. Jean parties of yore, nor is what we do going to resemble rue Ste. Catherine in the Village. As you walk up and down St. Viateur today, you will find an array of cultural activity coming from a number of different community groups, small businesses and local artists, as well as some great bike technicians at our free bike-repair tent!

Results of Research Published

Next week's street closure is timed to coincide with International Car Free week. In this context, the group is pleased to present a recent McGill report entitled Repenser/Rethinking St. Viateur – a document containing results and analysis from their recent surveys, workshops and other research that began in early 2010. This document will serve as a tool for further the dialogue within the community, concerning prospective changes to the current arrangement of public space, street amenities and quality of life in the neighbourhood.

Keep your eyes peeled for the ruepublique booth at our upcoming event.

All are welcome to discuss the street, public space, and the theme of car-free living. This will be the best chance yet for local residents and merchants alike to interact and participate in the ongoing dialogue that ruePublique has initiated.

 “If we want to somehow curb pollution and urban sprawl, and start retaining more families in town, it is essential to create safer and stronger communities, and offer a quality of living which cannot be reproduced in the suburbs. ”