Why Do Our Governments Act Like Subsidiaries of the Oil Companies?

What happens to a society when a commodity and those who have been made rich by it takes control of economic and political decision making?  What happens when commercial benefit tops the interest of the vast majority of citizens?  The result is that rational evidence based decision making is thrown out the window.  Decisions get made based on ensuring the share value of securities held by the wealthy elite are protected and their flow of profits is maintained or increased.  Short term commercial benefit becomes the compelling rationale that ‘trumps’ science. It trumps logic and the public good.  Bizarre, irrational positions are ferociously adopted as absolute truth by business and political leaders and usually by the media as well.  Even suggesting a rational evidence based approach will be ridiculed as naïve and unrealistic and result in being angrily denounced and even portrayed as a form of treason.

Basic Facts

Fact one:  15,000 scientists from around the world are agreed that the continued use of fossil fuels, will drive climate change and cause increasingly frequent and more powerful weather events.   They also agree it will have devastating effects on the ocean’s ability to support life.  The Munich RE (a leading global insurance company ‘reinsurer’ and risk analyst) chart below tells a clear story.  The scientists are right.  Climate change is leading to huge costs and severe damage to the economy.


But the oil and energy lobby and government argue that we need to ensure we have a growing economy.  At the same time their actions hit at the heart of the economy destroying lives and infrastructure.   As the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notes, “More notable than the high frequency of these events is the cumulative cost, which exceeds $300 billion in 2017a new U.S. annual record.”  That is in the US only.  The annual global cost is in excess of a trillion dollars and rising.  The biggest threat to our economy in the long run is using oil.

Fact two:  The continued use of fossil fuels will rain enormous hardship on our children and grandchildren over the next five decades and cost many trillions of dollars more in damage to our economy and society.  It will happen unless we have the wisdom to leave a significant percentage of our known oil and gas and coal reserves in the ground.

Fact three:  The Scotian Shelf off the coast of Nova Scotia is close to one of the richest fisheries in the world and washed over by daily tidal flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy with the world’s highest tides. It is one of the riskiest places on earth to drill for oil and gas.

Fact four:  The bitumen that comes from Alberta’s tar sands can be very difficult to clean up in waters with a lot of sediments if a pipeline ruptures or an oil tanker sinks or leaks.  Most people in British Columbia do not want this toxic substance flowing across their land and rivers or floating on their beautiful coastal waters, sinking to the bottom or coating the shores.

Fact five:  In 2007 there were 34 pipeline leaks in the United States and 8 so far in 2018.  Pipelines leak with regularity.  Since 2005 there have been five oil spills from Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and since the mid-1950s six in the Jasper National Park.  An estimated 400 tankers a year will be going from Burrard inlet in Vancouver to the open sea.  The question is not if there will be a pipeline leak or a tanker accident.  The honest question is how often.

Fact six:  Permission to drill on the Scotian Shelf includes acceptance that in the case of a well blowout (like the one in the Gulf of Mexico) it would take two weeks to get the equipment in place to stop the massive flow of oil and another week or two to get the flow to stop.

Fact seven:  Abandoned or orphan oil wells could end up costing Albertans billions of dollars.  The oil was found, extracted and the profits pocketed but the funds put aside to clean up the enormous mess are only a fraction of what will be needed.  The people who made the profits can walk away from the mess.

The above facts are based on statements by the Canadian government, the government of Alberta, respected organizations and Kinder Morgan.

So what decisions have the government/oil industry consortium made?

  • BP, the company whose drilling rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 workers and creating the largest marine oil spill in world history, has been authorized by the governments of Nova Scotia and Canada to drill on the high risk Scotian Shelf with a high probability of an accident and massive fishery losses.  Presumably gambling with the fishery is not much of a problem.
  • Kinder Morgan’s Trans mountain pipeline expansion has been approved by the government of Canada with strong support for the Government of Alberta.
  • Tax payers are subsidizing BP and Kinder Morgan. We are compelled to subsidize what amounts to an attack on our children and grandchildren so that the superrich owners of the giant oil companies can make greater returns on their investments with lower risk.
  • The governments of Canada and Alberta are saying they have a right to force the people of British Columbia to accept whatever they put in a pipeline or ships no matter: how toxic the substance; how certain the spills and shipping accidents; how difficult the cleanup; how devastating the environmental damage. The people of BC have no right to even have a say.   If the people of BC refuse to accept the pollution of their land and water ways, they are attacking the national interest of Canada.

So now the questions.

So is the question who do the democratic governments of Nova Scotia, Alberta and Canada work for or is it which oil company do they represent best?   Is this a democracy, a quasi-democracy or a so called democracy?

Alberta is a special case.  Is it possible for a government in Alberta to get elected if they do not do what the oil companies want?  Is that a sort of democracy?  One might argue that selling out the interests of Alberta’s grandchildren indeed has the support of the majority of Albertans.  It is deemed to be in the interests of Albertans to export huge quantities of toxic bitumen rather than refining it in Alberta to provide jobs for Albertans.  Indigenous peoples are left with the terrible environmental mess and the corporations get the profits.

What would happen if the government of Canada stopped subsidizing the oil companies and instead, in partnership with Alberta, poured a couple billion dollars into renewable energy jobs and renewable energy development?   What if the renewable energy companies were created as co-operatives less likely to pollute, unlikely to relocate, with the gap between highest and lowest salaries being 15 to 1 or less, with work available for women as well as men and equal pay for equal work?  We could do that!  If oil wells were owned by the people and communities who lived around them would we have the orphan well mess?  What if refining co-operatives owned by Albertans were encouraged (like Peter Lougheed did with gas co-operatives)?  What if common sense ruled instead of the oil industry?  What if energy production and distribution was co-operatively owned rather than being owned by huge corporations whose purpose is not to supply us with energy but to further enrich the 1% regardless of the consequences.

Could I, as a Nova Scotian, support that massive expenditure to spur a world leading renewable energy industry in Alberta just so my grandchildren could live reasonable lives in a stable climate with less pollution?  Not sure about all Nova Scotians but it sure looks a lot better to me than continuing with the irresponsible madness we are now witnessing.   Does our society and economy really care about our children and grandchildren?  The evidence says no.  Could we care about them?  Sure we can.

Are Co-operatives Likely to Build a Better World? (1)

The trends sketched out In Chapter 1 of From Corporate Globalization to Global Co-operation: We owe it to our grandchildren are daunting.  That said, the co-operative business model offers a healthier alternative.  It does not drive the worst trends.  Credit unions did not create the bad mortgages and worthless derivatives that caused to 2008 collapse nor did they need a multi-trillion dollar bailout.   Its different purpose, values and principles, lack of need for a growth economy, bottom up nature and ability to put people and nature before profits, are an enormous opportunity in this troubled time.   People in co-operatives can choose to do evil but they are in a business model that not only allows them to do the right thing but encourages them to do it.  An investor owned business management or board that does the right thing is to be deeply admired because the pressure on them is always to make sure shareholders get the greatest possible profit.  A co-operative business, board or management, who does the wrong thing have very little excuse.

A co-operative’s purpose is not to maximize the return to shareholders but to meet the needs of the members who own it and the community.  Based on one member one vote, its democratic base makes it possible for members to raise concerns at annual or special membership meetings.  The people who use it get the opportunity to question its policies and practices.  Does that mean co-operatives are always responsive?  No but it means members can challenge them and change them.  It means they are more likely to listen and act in a responsible way toward members and the community.

It also means they are less likely to pollute or treat workers abusively.  They generally have smaller gaps between highest paid manager and lowest paid staff member.  It means that in terms of  the trends noted in Chapter 1 of From Corporate Globalization to Global Co-operation: We owe it to our grandchildren, co-operatives are less likely to make things worse and more likely to take actions to make things better.  For example, the credit union on whose board I sit, LaHave River Credit Union, has a ‘Green Loan” program to encourage members to shrink their negative environmental foot print.

If we care about our grandchildren and have a choice we can become part of a co-operative and have a say in how it operates in our community.

Building a Co-operative Economy

Some people react to the idea of creating a new economy to replace capitalism as pure naive optimism.  It is just too big a task they believe.  The reality is that if we all believe that, the new economy will never be built.  The realty also is if enough people decide to make something happen it will.  Take you money out of investor owned banks and get all you financial services from a credit union or co-operative bank or co-operative insurance company.  I did it more than 25 years ago and am free of any financial services whose purpose is to make someone else rich at my expense.

Does your community or neighborhood need a service or source of goods?  Create a co-operative to provide them.  Ar you tired of working for someone else just because they have the money to buy your services.  Need to find rewarding meaningful work?  Find a few others with the same need and start a worker owned co-operative.   Find buying ‘stuff’ from cars to food confusing because you cannot trust the information you are given?  Start up a consumers co-operative whose information you can trust and let the workers be members so you can solve problems around the board table based on your shared objectives.  Think about what you buy and find a family business or co-operative to supply it.

Want to see an example from Maine in the USA.  Check out: Rock City Cafe  https://vimeo.com/253301150  This video is courtesy of the Co-operative Development Institute http://cdi.coop/

In the weeks ahead visit the website to learn of more examples.


Everyone Welcome – March 15

With Author Tom Webb

Thursday 15 March 2018, 7:00PM to 8:30PM –

Room 132, Beveridge Arts Center (BAC) Acadia University

10 Highland Ave., Wolfville, N.S.

Exploring Public Policy – Hosted by the Kings South NDP


From Corporate Globalization to Global Co-operation explores some of the interconnected and disturbing trends facing our world and the links between them.  It then looks at the neoclassical economic thinking developed to explain and justify why our world should be heading in these directions and the problems with that thinking.  It also explores various business models and how neoclassical economics is fundamentally supportive of only one business model in spite of its increasingly destructive track record.  It examines why capitalism is great for the very wealthy but bad for the planet, human society, communities and democracy

The book then explores alternative business models with a special focus on co-operatives.  It suggests one healthy response to our challenging times is to shift our economy to one that is aligned with nature and focused on meeting human need without destroying the natural world.  The potential of the co-operative business model to facilitate change is explored – its strengths and potential for improvement.

The author will touch on the key themes explored by the book and some additional insights on the congruence of co-operative organizational models with all life on the planet and especially human life.  Questions and comments are welcome.

Tom Webb has served as an advisor to a prime minister and cabinet ministers, a senior manager in a large co-operative, Director of the St. F.X. Extension Dept., Manager of Co-operative Management Education at Saint Mary’s Sobey School of Business and has lectured across North America, Europe and Oceania.


Co-operation More Powerful Than Competition

An excerpt from: From Corporate Globalization to Global Co-operation, Page 90

“Neoclassical economics and right wing philosophy would tell us that the most powerful driver in human nature IS individual self-interest in the rational pursuit of maximum wealth for minimal effort. Wouldn’t that mean that co-operatives were just utopian dreams
out of touch with what drives “economic man” and destined to remain on the fringe
of the economy? Are people social and co-operative by nature, or competitive and
self centred? These are questions that need to be responded to by both heart and
head because they go to the very core of what it means to be human.
In considering scientific answers to these questions we begin with a reflection
on the emergence of life on our planet. In his 2012 book The Super Cooperators,
Martin Nowak, one of the world’s leading theorists on evolution, points out that
for life to move beyond single-cell organisms cells needed to co-operate. As life
became more and more complex, it was an explosion of co-operation that made it
possible. If the cells in your eyes did not co-operate you would not see this line of
words. If the cells in your brain did not work together you would not understand
anything. All complex life is based on cell co-operation, without which there is no
intelligence and no emotion.5 When cells cease to co-operate and begin to multiply,
simply reproducing themselves, it is called cancer. The absence of co-operation in
cells leads to death.”

This is the foundation of co-operation in life.  As life advanced so did co-operation.  As the book argues the success of humanity owes more to cooperation than to competition.  Humanity has now reached the stage where it must choose between the positive constructive forces of humanity – caring, sharing, compassion, empathy and love – and the dark forces of human nature – competition, greed, hyper individualism and selfishness.  Will our future be win-win-win or win-lose-lose- lose?  Will we choose life or destruction?  Climate change or sustainable, ecological co-operation?  Me first or us together?

Let us choose life.


Searching for Meaning

In our own lives, what is more important, what we consumed today or what we contributed to our families, our communities and our world?  What would leave us more dissatisfied, knowing that we acquired a less than perfect automobile, didn’t have the latest electronic gadget or that an idea we had failed to make the world a better place for our children because we did not have the authority or legitimacy or power to accomplish it?  Is our reality as consumers the most important part of our beings or is it the part that is most likely to destroy the world around us through the consumption of wants rather than needs?  Let me suggest that unleashing the creative, caring and loving parts of our humanity is the most powerful source of meaning for human beings.

Imagine a world where we owned and controlled our work spaces, co-operating with colleagues to help each other be the best we can be.  Where we focused on using our talents and gifts to improve the lives of our families, communities and world.  We can build that world bit by bit, workplace by workplace.  We can replace capitalism and a world focused on money with economic democracy and meeting human need.

Why are so many people angry?

When the economic elite takes and takes and sets the rules for how the economy works and how trade will benefit them, it destroys hope and produces despair.  Despair is where anger grows.  When those who practice the politics of fear, lies, hatred, violence and revenge find despair and anger they cloth themselves in righteousness and win elections.

The average worker at Google makes a pretty penny, as one would expect of a massive, super profitable tech company: about $89,000. Meanwhile, Google CEO Sundar Pichai pockets a staggering $100,632,102, over 1,000 times more than the typical Googler.  In fact 1,130.69 times $89,000.”

Text and graph courtesy of http://inequality.org/

Making the Vision visible


“For example, despite being surrounded by farmland, Marks (Louisiana)  residents had to drive 20 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart just to get fresh vegetables. But Shreveport Federal Credit Union changed all that by organizing local farmers into a worker-owned cooperative, renovating a building, and creating what became the Delta Muletrain Farmers Market.”  James Trimarco posted Mar 17, 2017 in YES Magazine (www.yesmagazine.org/ )

It is About Humanity and Planet Earth

From the preface of From Corporate Globalization to Global Co-operation

“This book is not about economics or politics or society. It is about where they
all meet. It is not value free. The vision that drives it is the search for a better
world. The motivation for writing it is grounded in a growing apprehension about
the capitalism-driven trends of the last fifty years, a profound belief in the general
goodness of humanity and a sense of realistic optimism. It is a set of reflections
about the human condition and how we might better organize our thinking,
structures and processes to enhance human dignity. Intuitively and rationally, I
have come to the conclusion that the ideas, principles and values of co-operation
offer the best opportunity to enhance human dignity. My bias is that co-operation
is more important and healthier than competition; that forgiveness is better than
revenge; that giving and sharing produce a greater sense of personal well being
than getting and hoarding; and that love produces a better world. If these things
are true, we should base our actions and organizations and our economic, social
and political systems on co-operation, forgiveness, giving, sharing and nurturing
love. We have not done so.”

“To work against creation, or to subdue it, will ultimately lead to our own destruction, for we are enmeshed in it. The dignity of people and the dignity of creation are sides of the same coin.”

We should not feel fear about abandoning the ideas of capitalism.  What we should fear is clinging to them until they destroy human society and the natural world that supports our life.  We need to shift to business models that have as their purpose providing for human need.  Meeting that need means looking after each other rather than exploiting each other.  It means developing a healthy relationship with nature that will support all forms of life on the planet rather than mining nature to grow the wealth of the already very, very wealthy.  It means that meeting human need is not done as a means to hoarding more wealth, but because we need a better world.

Every day we should try and find some way, large or small, to disconnect from capitalism and build a co-operative economy.