FRIDAY,MARCH6,2020 | THEGLOBEANDMAILO A
OPINION
W
hen it comes to the oil in-
dustry, Alberta and its
Premier, Jason Kenney,
are swimming against a very
strong current.
Every day, it seems, another
major bank or investment com-
pany is casting doubt on its fu-
ture. The capital necessary to un-
lock crude from the earth is be-
coming harder to find. As Larry
Fink, head of BlackRock, one of
the most influential investment
institutions in the world, recently
proclaimed: “Climate risk is in-
vestment risk.”
And yet, if oil is the new tobac-
co, Mr. Kenney does not seem to
be panicked, at least outwardly.
Ask him about the grim prognos-
tications for a product that has
been the goose that’s laid the
golden egg for his province, and
he resorts to a now-familiar
refrain.
Oil ain’t going anywhere soon.
“This idea that we’re going to
suddenly flip a switch and in five
years we’re all going to be living
off windmill energy or something
is cloud cuckoo land,” the Premier
said in a recent interview in his of-
fice. “It’s not anywhere close to
scientific reality. It’s pixie dust
and unicorn farts.”
Mr. Kenney’s argument hinges
on a couple of things. Even in a
world that is compliant with tar-
gets set out in the Paris climate ac-
cord, we are still going to be con-
suming 67 million barrels of oil
annually in 2040, he says. If that’s
the case, he argues, why shouldn’t
Alberta get a cut of that action,
ahead of some oil-producing dic-
tatorship?It upsets the Premier that ESG –
the acronym for environmental,
social andgovernance, and a term
increasingly used by socially con-
scious investors to evaluate a
company’s corporate behaviour –
doesn’t appear to mean much
when it comes to oil. He has a
point. At the very least, the
environmental element of the cri-
teria seems to be given outsized
prominence at the moment. That
would include the carbon intensi-
ty of the oil produced; how much
emissions are attached to a partic-
ular company’s barrel of crude?
On that score, Canada doesn’t
do as well as countries where oil is
easier to get out of the ground.
But the Suncors and others oper-
ating in Alberta’s oil sands are
steadily finding ways to reduce
their emissions. And they will
bring them down further in the
coming years.
The biggest problem right now,
according to Peter Tertzakian, an
energy economist from Calgary, is
that you can’t easily measure ESG
on a barrel of oil. People have
been scrambling to determine a
standard definition of carbonintensity. This is positioned to
change, according to Mr. Tertza-
kian, but it’s still five years away
from becoming a reality.
Once that day arrives, Alberta
could be in a good position to
make the case that its oil is far
more ESG-friendly (a transparent
industry in one of the most her-
alded liberal democracies in the
world) than the crude coming
from Russia, Saudi Arabia or
some other country overseen by a
ruthless regime. In other words,
fair-trade oil could become a
thing.
So while many roll their eyes
when Mr. Kenney goes on his rant
about why Alberta oil is ethically
superior to that offered by the
Saudis, he’s not wrong. It’s just
that right now, the market doesn’t
discriminate on the basis of
whose crude is more palatable to
progressive-minded investors.
“One would assume this bodes
well for Alberta oil eventually and
I think that’s true,” Mr. Tertzakian
said. “I think it would stack up
well against not just Russian oil or
Saudi oil, but American oil, too.”
Which is crucial. Alberta nowcompetes against the U.S., not the
Russians and Venezuelans. On
that point, it’s fair to ask why Mr.
Kenney is measuring his oil
against the world’s worst suppli-
ers. “Because Alberta is better
than the worst” isn’t really a great
marketing slogan.
Mr. Kenney should be compari-
ng his province’s oil to the
Norways of the world, not deplor-
able autocracies. Alberta needs to
hope it gets extra pipeline
capacity to transmit its product to
overseas markets soon. That will
certainly help the province
emerge from the economic dol-
drums it has been in for five years
now and counting.
But as we know, the energy
landscape is changing rapidly.
Projections that were made even
a few years ago have been ripped
up and revamped. Forecasts a dec-
ade out aren’t nearly as reliable as
they once were. Mr. Kenney may
be able to make the case that oil
from his province is more virtu-
ous than that produced else-
where. Then again, 10 years from
now, that might not mean any-
thing.Albertacouldprosperinafair-tradeoilworld
Manyrolltheireyes
whenKenneyrants
aboutwhyAlbertaoilis
ethicallysuperiortothat
offeredbytheSaudis,
buthe’snotwrong
GARY
MASON
OPINIONEDMONTON
B
uoyed by the momentum of
an incredible Super Tuesday
comeback, the case for Joe
Biden leading the Democrats in
the U.S. general election just got a
much-needed boost of credibili-
ty. He is, according to the Demo-
cratic establishment, some poll-
ing and a handful of former can-
didates who have recently of-
fered their endorsements, the
candidate best positioned to de-
feat U.S. President Donald
Trump.
Their reasoning is fairly
straightforward: Mr. Biden is a fa-
miliar face nationally; a moder-
ate who enjoys the crucial sup-
port of black voters and suburban
centrists. He doesn’t frighten
boomers the way the Vermont
senator who flails his arms talk-
ing about free college and stu-
dent-loan forgiveness does. Rath-
er, Mr. Biden is the “safe” choice:
a progressive who is not too pro-
gressive, whose version of change
is more of a reversion to the pre-
Trump status quo (when, for ex-
ample, the market was not sus-
ceptible to presidential missives
tweeted from the toilet), rather
than a dramatic and unpredict-
able shift to the left.
Bernie Sanders would be a de-
light to Republican propagan-
dists in a general election, which
is why the President, who is unfa-
miliar with the concept of subtle-
ty, has taken to his defence so fer-
vently on Twitter. Republicans
would be quick to attack Mr.
Sanders in Pennsylvania for his
promised fracking ban, in Florida
for his praise of Fidel Castro’s lit-
eracy program, and in other
moderate Midwestern and Sun
Belt swing states for his un-
abashed use of the S-word.
That’s what the Democratic
Party fears anyway, which is why,
as the primary field narrowed,
Mr. Biden suddenly became the
lucky recipient of a handful of en-
dorsements from three former
candidates, as well as former na-
tional-security adviser Susan
Rice and former Senate majority
leader Harry Reid. No doubt the
coalescing of support Monday,
following Mr. Biden’s victory in
South Carolina on Saturday,
helped his phenomenal Tuesday
performance in states where he
didn’t even campaign.
The presumption is that Mr. Bi-den can turn purple states blue in
a way Mr. Sanders cannot. The
problem with that line of think-
ing, however, is that it failed spec-
tacularly in the not-so-distant
past, when the party backed Hill-
ary Clinton over the same flailing
Vermont senator. Her team over-
estimated Ms. Clinton’s base of
support in states such as Michi-
gan and Wisconsin, and underap-
preciated the appeal of a disrup-
tor such as Mr. Trump to an
American electorate hungry for
an outsider. The results of that
election were not only a shock to
pollsters, but also a blow to the
political dictum that the most
broadly palatable candidate will
likely be the successful one.Rachel Bitecofer, a senior fel-
low at the Niskanen Center in
Washington and a relatively new
election forecaster on the scene,
earned herself national attention
after predicting the outcome of
the 2018 midterms with near-per-
fect accuracy. She also thumbs
her nose at the prevailing theo-
ries behind election forecasting,
including the presumption that
elections are decided by swing
voters.
According to Ms. Bitecofer,
swing voters represent such a
small proportion of the result as
to be largely inconsequential.
What matters, she posits, is turn-
out – how voters enter and exit
the political arena. Activatingturnout among potential sup-
porters, either through engage-
ment or negative partisanship
(fear of the other guy, in other
words) is more important than
chasing independents.
By Ms. Bitecofer’s theory, Mr.
Sanders might in fact be the bet-
ter choice for Democrats. His rad-
ical if ill-defined promises –
medicare for all, closing the
wealth gap, legalizing marijuana,
abolishing tuition fees, universal
child care – could engage and ac-
tivate voters, particularly young
voters, far more than Mr. Biden’s
more moderate promises, lack-
lustre debate performances and
confusing stories about his
youthful jaunts at the public
pool.
Polling has also shown that Mr.
Sanders’s supporters are far less
likely to support another Demo-
cratic nominee (53 per cent will
vote for the Democratic nominee
regardless) than Mr. Biden’s are
(87 per cent), meaning “Bernie or
bust” voters might simply stay
home if he loses the primary race.
Yet, it’s also plausible that the
Sanders effect in terms of nega-
tive partisanship – that is, activa-
ting the votes of those who don’t
especially like Mr. Trump, but ab-
solutely do not want a socialist in
the White House – could very
well cancel out his gain among
young and/or Hispanic voters.
There are obviously far more
factors at play here, but what we
think we know about how the
American electorate behaves
might not necessarily be correct.
The 2016 presidential election, if
nothing else, was proof of that.
A moderate Democrat might
seem to be the logical choice for
2020, but with one as gaffe-prone
as Mr. Biden, and against a guy
such as Mr. Trump, it’s anything
but a sure thing.Bidenisthe‘safe’Democraticnominee.IsthatenoughtobeatTrump?
ROBYN
URBACK
OPINIONTheDemocraticestablishmenthasgoodreasontogetbehindJoeBiden,seenatarallyonTuesday,asheisa
popularAmericanpoliticianwithcrucialsupportamongblackandsuburbancentrists.MARCIOJOSESANCHEZ/APA
s the field vying to lead the
Democratic Party narrows,
it ages. With the two re-
maining serious candidates in
their late 70s, this will be the ol-
dest presidential race in modern
American history.
The circle of septuagenarians
ensures that if the next president
is a Democrat, he will be the ol-
dest ever to take the oath of office.
The unprecedented age of the
commander-in-chief will scram-
ble conventional expectations of
physical stamina, mental acuity
and life expectancy. This is Amer-
ica’s senior moment.
If Super Tuesday is a trend, the
most likely candidate to face U.S.
President Donald Trump is Joe Bi-
den, 77, known for his lapses and
gaffes. (Earlier this week, trying to
quote the U.S. Constitution, Mr.
Biden stumbled over some words
and said “you know, the thing.”)
The greying of the president
will bring new respect to the vice-
presidency. It will sharply elevate
the office. With the president ol-
der than ever before, the VP will
be more important than ever be-
fore.
This in itself is a sea change.
Until the late 20th century, the of-
fice was belittled, a consolation
prize. Friends were shocked when
Lyndon Johnson, the “Master of
the Senate,” agreed to run with
John F. Kennedy in 1960. Nelson
Rockefeller called the job “stand-
by equipment” long before he
took it under Gerald Ford. John
Nance Garner, Franklin D. Roose-
velt’s unhappy No. 2 for two
terms, said the office wasn’t
“worth a bucket of warm spit.”
Satirist Tom Lehrer sang of LBJ’s
diminished vice-president, Hub-
ert Humphrey: “What ever be-
came of Hubert?”
That has changed, as presi-
dents have shared duties with
their vice-presidents over the
past quarter-century. As the cli-
ché says, he or she is only a heart-
beat away from the presidency.
That didn’t matter much when
the president was young and
healthy. But what if the president
is old with a troublesome heart,
such as Bernie Sanders?Actuarially, the chances of the
next president dying in office are
higher for Mr. Sanders (78) and
Mr. Biden than they are for Eliza-
beth Warren (70), Amy Klobu-
char (59), Kamala Harris (55) and
Pete Buttigieg (38), all of whom
are now vice-presidential pro-
spects.
Mr. Trump, for his part, is 73. He
and his challengers will be almost
a year older on Inauguration Day
next January.
Expect the choice of running
mate to become an issue among
Democrats as the race moves to
their convention in July. It in-
creasingly makes sense for the
candidates to announce their
running mates before the conven-
tion, as Republican Ronald Re-
agan did in 1976.
First, an announcement will
make a splash, giving voters a
sense of who may well be presi-
dent imminently beyond the top
of the ticket. It is an early measure
of a candidate’s judgment.
Second, it will establish a bal-
ance of sex, race, ethnicity, ideol-
ogy and geography on the ticket.
Since the Democratic candidate
will be a man, he will probably
want to run with a woman. Both
will consider someone who is avisible minority – African-Ameri-
can or Hispanic.
They may consider choosing a
Midwesterner to help reclaim
Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn-
sylvania, which went Republican
in 2016. Philosophically, a moder-
ate nominee might want a pro-
gressive running mate, with the
reverse for a progressive nomi-
nee. A younger running mate
brings youth, glamour and vigour
to the ticket.
Third, choosing a running
mate will ensure a division of la-
bour. A presidential campaign is a
marathon, and these folks are old.
For Mr. Biden, markedly unsteady,
a running mate would offer relief
from an enervating campaign
and share his unrelenting scruti-
ny. This is why he should ask Ms.
Harris of California to run with
him. She is of mixed race, a fierce
competitor and a former prosecu-
tor. Mr. Sanders might name Ms.
Klobuchar, although she has al-
ready endorsed Mr. Biden and
may be too moderate for him.
The vice-presidency this time
will be quite a prize. Given the
prospect of the president dying or
retiring early, it is a more likely
stepping stone to the White
House, as the office has been for14 of 45 presidents. There’s a good
chance of succeeding the boss.
The next vice-president may
well come to power on the death
of the president, caused by illness.
This was the story of John Tyler,
Millard Fillmore, Calvin Coolidge
and Harry Truman. Or it might be
that he or she is elected, such as
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,
Martin Van Buren, Richard Nixon
(eventually) and George H.W.
Bush.
Here’s the deal, as Mr. Biden
says: Given the advanced age of
the next president, your succes-
sor won’t necessarily have to wait
two terms. These prospective
presidents are so old that none
may serve longer than four years.
To admit that now would make
them a lame duck, but the possi-
bility is deadly serious.
With the average lifespan of
Americans in the mid-to-upper
70s, either one of the two remain-
ing Democrats will be in that zone
in his first term. So will Mr.
Trump, if he is re-elected, in his
second term.
This is the reality of America’s
new gerontocracy in 2020. The
once-scorned, much-maligned
vice-presidency has never looked
so good.TheDemocratsarehavingaseniormoment.HopefulVPsshouldtakenote
ANDREWCOHENWASHINGTON
OPINIONJournalist,professorandauthorof
TwoDaysinJune:JohnF.Kennedy
andthe48HoursThatMadeHistory
NEWS |