A Nihilist Who Cares

Politics Are Messy, For Good Reason

Joe Oliver, Canada’s minister of Natural Resources, has taken aim at opponents of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline in a letter (you can see it here), calling them radicals supported by rich foreigners. It’s not the first time that the Conservative government has disparaged their opponents, but there is still a high level of outcry over the letter. Allow me to add to the outcry.

Oliver decries the foreign environmental interests at play (ignorant, it seems, to the foreign investment in oil development related to the pipeline), saying that development is in Canada’s national interest. This, of course, ignores the fact that there are many within Canada opposed - or at least with reservations - about the development of the pipeline, so the “national interest” - if it can be easily articulated - is quite nuanced. It also discounts the concerns of those out of the country, and given that some of the environmental concerns related to the project (mainly the project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions - directly and indirectly) are truly global in scope, I think a good case can be made for accounting for international interests.

Oliver calls, in the end of his letter, for objective analysis and science to base decisions on. Objectivity however, is by definition indifferent, so to call for decisions to be based on objectivity frankly makes little sense. Values are necessary in decision making, and to ignore that ignores alternate views and beliefs.

And that, I think, is the most significant part of this argument. Decisions are by nature influenced by subjectivity - it is what defines the goals of decisions. Despite calls for objective analysis, values are (clearly) influencing Joe Oliver’s position. To limit the discussion under the guise of objectivity limits other values from entering the discussion. Doing so bounds the discussion, and when the bounds prevent other voices from being heard, the democratic spirit of the decision process should be called into question.

Yes, jobs are important, and so are having access to diverse markets and energy security (the arguments for the pipeline), but the pipeline isn’t necessary to meet any of these values. And developing the pipeline is unquestionably worse for the environment (rather, for how the environment benefits us) than not developing it. But this post isn’t about what the correct course of action should be. It’s about treating a political issue as a political issue. Politics are messy because there are multiple stakes involved. To ignore this last point, or not give it proper credence, is to simplify politics. Politics - in a democracy - are not simple, but it’s the complexity of it that allows for national interests to be identified in the first place.