Many people in Canada are employed in fossil fuel industries. Were production of carbon-laden, climate damaging products to decline or end, many towns would be disrupted. However, quality of life would improve since toxic contaminants are by-products of oil, gas, and coal production. Overall employment would increase and stable populations would lead to safer communities.
Studies have shown that man camps bring violence and localize violent crime in places where it would not otherwise be. The camps by nature create a rapid increase in the population of the area, which can strain community infrastructure, such as law enforcement and human services, especially in rural areas where law enforcement is charged with providing services to extensive swaths of land. The increase in population can lead to an increase in physical and sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, sexual assault of minors, and sex trafficking in the affected communities.
University of Colorado: Violence from Extractive Industry ‘Man Camps’
It should surprise no one that indigenous women and children are victimized at a rate far higher than experienced by others in resource towns.
Losing employment is a frightening prospect to those who would be affected. However, the International Energy Agency says that jobs would not be lost.
The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs: while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs.
UN Climate Action: Renewable energy – powering a safer future
Of course, new jobs will be geographically distributed so the transition is not a simple one. But retraining and relocation programs can ease the pain.
In-Sights reader Barry provided an example that demonstrates either real fear of electrification or misinformation intended to increase the fear:
I was getting nowhere in a Facebook discussion with a man that scoffed at solar and wind power in Alberta.
He claimed — but wouldn’t share his source — that Site C could only charge 500 EV semi-trucks. I know Site C is not our most-potent dam… but only having the capacity to charge 500 EV semis?
He offered that I could look it up for myself, as I “wouldn’t believe” anything he provided. I gave him the laughing emoji that he had been using constantly and walked away.
We concluded the man did not provide a source because he had none.
Heavy trucks may drive an average of 45,000 miles (72,400 km) a year. Tesla says its electric Semi will consume 2 KWh per mile, so one would annually consume 90,000 KWh or 0.09 GWh. Since production of Site C is promised to be 5,100 GWh, the dam would power 51,667 Tesla Semi trucks for 12 months.
If you find value at IN-SIGHTS.CA, please consider financial support. Significant payments for site hosting
and subscriptions for software and news sources are required and the site carries no advertising.
As Tony Stubblebine said, “It’s expensive to write about things that you don’t already know.”
Supporting this work is a straightforward process explained HERE.
Categories: Energy
in-sights.ca 
Barry’s interaction may well have been with someone who is understandably afraid of losing his job, and who has latched on to soothing mistruths injected into the debate by others in his perceived predicament. But he could also be paid or heavily influenced by big-money vested interests deliberately peddling misinformation.
This article in the Narwhal outlines the problem in Canada:
https://thenarwhal.ca/competition-bureau-greenwashing-investigations/
Look at just the elements of the article dealing with Enbridge.
“Environmental Defence asked the Competition Bureau to prohibit Enbridge Gas from sending these advertisements to residents in communities in gas expansion areas. It also wants the company to have to tell customers about the cost-effectiveness of heat pumps versus methane gas.
‘Enbridge’s marketing materials combine both falsehoods about the true cost of heating with gas and deceptive greenwashing,’ the complaint says. ‘Consumers are highly susceptible to these falsehoods and deceptive messages because heat pump awareness is very low among most Ontarians.’
Company’s response:
‘No thank you, we will pass,’ Enbridge spokesperson Leanne McNaughton told The Narwhal, in response to questions about the company’s response to the allegations in the complaint.”
Here’s a Wiki excerpt describing Enbridge:
“Enbridge’s pipeline system is the longest in North America and the largest oil export pipeline network in the world. Its crude oil system consists of 28,661 kilometres (17,809 miles) of pipelines. Its 38,300 kilometre (23,800 mile) natural gas pipeline system connects multiple Canadian provinces, several US states, and the Gulf of Mexico. The company was formed by Imperial Oil in 1949 as the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company Limited to transport Alberta oil to refineries.”
This morning on the radio we were treated to an advertisement from Enbridge, attempting to impress upon the audience that Enbridge’s pipelines are filled with products that are not only key to our wonderful lifestyle, but are “sustainable”. In fact the core message, repeated three times, was sustainability.
The Cambridge dictionary defines environmental sustainability as, “causing, or made in a way that causes little or no damage to the environment and therefore able to continue for a long time.”
The United Nations Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
I don’t believe any reasonable person can assert that fossil fuels cause little or no damage to the environment, or that they do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Like breathing for example.
And so they’re engaged in misinformation. Again.
But I wonder why now? Why is Enbridge, and Resource Works, through Mr. Penner, suddenly spending money to talk to us about energy? They don’t gear up expensive (mis)information campaigns for nothing. Something is afoot.
LikeLike
“Studies have shown that man camps“. Do you think Ft Mac at the get go would have been a candidate?
As to EV Tesla hauling and the helping hand to execute via site C .. the penciling of operating cost may seem attractive but whether that savings on transportation costs gets passed on down in the cost of a product to the consumer at time of purchase is probably in 649 country.
Setting trucking aside for the moment the biggy is still the eventual site C power cost to consumers to keep the lights on.
Yes 2030 is the climate line in the sand but this province with LNG exports does not pick up the climate impact of consumption which may be in the neighbourhood of 60 to 70 percentage of the total climate impact of LNG. The purchaser picks up the cheque on that one so we are ok…right? It just can’t get any better than that.
Onward and downward.
LikeLike