(The following article is from the September 1-15, 2008, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Kimball Cariou

Fuel prices have dipped slightly in recent weeks, but energy policy is still being hotly debated right across Canada. People's Voice supporters used our booth at "Under the Volcano" in North Vancouver to discuss the issue with the thousands of people who attend this annual music festival. As well as newspapers, leaflets, buttons and T-shirts, we brought clipboards with a petition to Parliament urging full public ownership of the oil and gas industry.

     Light rain disrupted our efforts that day (August 10), but a steady stream of people came to our table, directed by friends who had already signed. Nearly everyone agreed that the billions of dollars in windfall profits taken by the energy corporations should be used instead to pay for social programs, environmental protection, and expansion of mass transit. Many talked about the destruction of northern Alberta, where indigenous people face a devastating health crisis caused by the extraction of oil sands on their traditional territories. In a few hours, we collected almost 100 signatures.

     This episode reinforces the findings of a 2005 public opinion survey, which found that 49% of Canadians favour nationalization of the petroleum industry. More recently, delegates to the Canadian Labour Congress convention in Toronto adopted a similar position.

     But while countries such as Bolivia move to put oil and gas under public control, this option backed by millions of Canadians is absent from the platform of any "major" political party. Stephen Harper's Tories, of course, are in the pockets of the energy monopolies, and the Liberals are also a party of big business.

     Jack Layton's NDP calls for reforms to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but not for expanded public ownership of the single most valuable natural resource in Canada. Here in British Columbia, the provincial NDP is campaigning to "axe the tax," the latest 3.5 cents/litre on gasoline imposed by the Campbell Liberals. It's a popular campaign, but it fails to point out that profit-gouging energy corporations are the culprits behind high fuel costs.

     The debate in Parliament about these issues is important. But by refusing to advocate public ownership, those politicians and environmentalists who do see the impending crisis fall short by leaving control in the hands of corporate interests opposed to real change.

     There are two sides to the looming crisis of energy and the environment. One is the potential for catastrophic changes linked to the emission of "greenhouse gases": rising ocean levels, accelerated species die-off, and sudden climate shifts. The increased burning of fossil fuels makes "climate change" ever more inevitable.

     At the same time, most analysts believe that the earth is nearing the decline of global oil reserves, with serious economic implications. Unless radical measures are taken to cut fossil fuel use, oil and gas will become ever more expensive. The trendline may be temporarily affected by factors such as this year's decline in vehicle miles driven in the United States, or the occasional discovery of new oil and gas fields. But looking at the big picture, some 85 million barrels of oil are being consumed daily around the world, more than the discovery of new sources.

     Dozens of books shed some light on this complex subject, while also revealing critical differences of opinion.

     Those who laugh at the "doom and gloom" scenarios should read the 2006 book, It's the Crude, Dude, by author Linda McQuaig, who starts with an October 2003 Pentagon study on the dangers of global warming and energy insecurity. Nobody accuses the U.S. military of being tree-huggers, but the men in uniform are bluntly warned about the future of "constant battles for diminishing resources."

     However, as McQuaig documents, the most reactionary section of U.S. ruling class misses the point. Instead of reducing the largest standing army in history, imposing more stringent emission laws, or investing in renewables (with the exception of the bogus "biofuel" option), the neo-fascist clique around Cheney and Bush stubbornly press ahead with their drive for military occupation of the Middle East. Why? Because the latter option is enormously profitable for shareholders of Exxon, Halliburton, and the entire military-industrial-energy complex. McQuaig does a masterful job of exposing the oil industry and the Pentagon, but holds little hope for avoiding environmental destruction and endless war.

     Fortunately, there are many paths diverging from this road to armageddon, although few authors willing to raise public ownership as a key part of the struggle for survival.

     Lives Per Gallon: The True Cost of Our Oil Addiction, by Terry Tamminen (Island Press, 2006) is another wide-ranging expose of the deadly consequences of fossil fuel dependency, and the corporate interests which profit from it. But unlike McQuaig, Tamminen has faith that capitalism can somehow be saved by pointing out its "true interests." The first step to salvation, he argues, is to take personal responsibility by using less energy. The second step is to elect public officials who will work for "energy independence." And step three is to press the corporations to change their fuel-guzzling behaviours. Tamminen's optimism is touching, but I'd rather start by taking control away from the imperialist classes which got the world into this mess.

     Other authors focus on particular technologies, with mixed results. To give one example, Travis Bradford left Wall Street behind to found the Prometheus Institute, a non-profit "focussed on using the power of the business and financial sectors to deploy cost-effective and sustainable technologies." Again, I doubt this strategy, but in Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry, (MIT Press, 2006) Bradford makes a good argument for solar energy as the best alternative. Without dismissing wind and tidal power, or hydrogen fuel cells, Bradford describes important factors limiting their role. Nuclear energy, he argues, is at best a high-risk desperation alternative. Solar power, on the other hand, is available across the planet, and is well-suited to small-scale "off the grid" applications. He documents the technical improvements which make solar a viable solution, even before the latest scientific discoveries which may greatly enhance its efficiency.

     Those of us on the left need to explain the roots of the energy crisis facing our planet, but also to elaborate policies to salvage the future. That will take considerable study, so let's hit the books and step up the debate.