Kinew’s pipeline proposal reveals an anti-science stance

Opinion

I WAS a bit surprised to see a full opinion piece on me in the Free Press (Kinew’s centrist political balancing act a long way from Pallister’s scorched earth policy, June 11). I am no longer a politician, nor am I currently affiliated with any political party.

I recently criticized the Kinew government and their new stance on building pipelines which has promoted a large response about how this government is “progressive.” A detailed response to Tom Brodbeck’s scattershot approach to “prove” that the Manitoba NDP is not conservative would take many articles. So I will focus here on the primary issue I brought up — Kinew’s proposal to build a pipeline in northern Manitoba.

First I should mention my credentials. I have a doctorate in physics from McMaster University. I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a former Canada Research Chair, and a former fellow of CIFAR. I have over 130 publications, and over $60 million in research funding. I have taught chemistry and physics for over 20 years at different universities as a professor. I am qualified to address Kinew’s war on science.

What do I mean by this phrase? Kinew’s government, in general, does not use science-based policies. I know this being a former vice-president of the Manitoba NDP, so I have seen how the inner party works. Policies come from his office, not from broad consultation.

If there was broad consultation, he would know, for example, that pipelines are a dying industry. My colleague Scott Forbes, a biology professor at the University of Winnipeg, has written many op-eds and social media posts on this and why pipelines are a bad idea from an ecological and financial perspective. The world is rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels. Climate change is real, our province is on fire, and we should be striving towards net zero carbon (instead of the now “climate friendly” phrase that Kinew uses to hide his agenda).

Investing in a pipeline in Manitoba’s North — a land of shifting bogs and permafrost, which will cost billions of dollars for a delivery system of oil or gas 10 years from now when the market won’t be interested in it much — is a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one at that. Kinew said no more pipelines to Manitoba NDP candidates in 2022, but in an opportunistic move, has rapidly changed his mind when dollar signs have flashed in front of him. In the words of another science colleague, this is a “colossal blunder,” and against the fundamental environmental stewardship principles of the New Democratic Party.

Not using science-based policies has other more broad ranging consequences. For example, the Kinew government has decided to not make K-8 teachers take science and math courses as part of their training to teach math and science to our children. Ten years from now, these students that will leave our education system (where we have some of the worst-performing students in the country for math and science literacy) might have a hard time even understanding why pipelines are a bad idea. They also won’t have the skills that are needed to enter university or college programs to seek out careers where they might be involved with environmental cleanups. Because Kinew’s proposed pipeline will involve cleanup efforts.

Now, job creation is one aspect of Kinew’s proposed pipeline that will come to fruition if this is built. They won’t be the “green” or later “clean” jobs that he promised during the 2023 election campaign. There will be cleanup crews needed for the leaks that will undoubtedly come up from building a pipeline on a land with muskeg and permafrost (hopefully with the consent of First Nations that have been consulted beforehand). There will be massive cleanup and monitoring jobs. However, we will also need scientists and engineers to assist in these efforts.

Where will these come from when universities are being defunded in Manitoba? Research Manitoba, our primary source for provincial research funds, has also been defunded for science researchers that might be needed to address complex ecological problems that will arise with a northern pipeline. At one point, Kinew mentioned that he would be bringing professors and faculty here from the United States that are fleeing the Trump regime. This would be a good opportunity to do so, because we will need them to handle the ecological, environmental, and social disasters that can arise from the Kinew pipeline. But to date, we haven’t seen any dollars to attract scientists here from this Manitoba NDP government. In fact, many scientists are now leaving Manitoba because of a lack of provincial funding and the general low morale at our universities under pressure.

Scientists are often the truthsayers in society. In the HBO series Chernobyl, the rebel scientist Valery Legasov spoke out against the lies spread about an environmental disaster. He said, “Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid.” I am asking the Kinew government to be a progressive one, to end their war on science, and to stop this talk of a dangerous and costly pipeline up north.

I am not surprised that a government that spends less than the previous Conservative government on the environment would do something like this.

I am also not surprised because they are pro Sio Silica.

Chris Wiebe is a professor at the University of Winnipeg. He was also a former Manitoba NDP candidate in Dawson Trail and the vice president of the party in the South and Southeast.