Hysteria in the age of Atlantica
The most recent case in point is a 44-page dossier, released last week, entitled “Atlantica: Myths and Reality”, in which the authors claim that while the concept can’t possibly succeed, it somehow poses a clear and present danger to the fabric of the regional society.
Atlantica, you will recall, is the proposal for greater cross-border business and trade links between New England and the Canadian East Coast, favoured by, among others, the ideologically conservative Atlantic Institute of Market Studies (AIMS) in Halifax. And to this, the politically “progressive” CCPA directs its archest condemnation: “The process is being driven by AIMS. Key elements are highly implausible. Therefore, it must be contested and dispatched to the sea like its namesake, Atlantis.”
It’s a nasty bit of reasoning, reminiscent of Soviet-era group think: Your idea won’t float, but if you bring it up again, we have an anchor with your name on it.
Although it warms the cockles of my cold, ironic heart to see a left-of-center think tank make dissidents out of its right-wing counterparts, there are larger issues at stake – not the least of which is the curious absence of moderate voices in a debate that’s rapidly becoming hysterical, in every sense of the word.
Consider, for example, the CCPA’s take on the Atlantican vision of transportation in the dark years ahead: “Supporters envisage Halifax as the gateway for a high-volume roadway along which super-sized ‘truck-trains’ would haul Asian goods to the U.S. mid-west. Halifax is the eastern seaboard’s closest deep-water port to Asia for container ships that are too large to pass through the Panama Canal. Attracting these leviathans, and trucking their cargo to U.S. markets, is the centerpiece of the Atlantica strategy.”
If that image of a dystopian future fails to alarm, here’s what the Centre says about the Atlantica energy corridor: “This is driven by U.S. energy concerns, but gives little thought to Atlantic Canadians’ future energy needs. Despite being a major energy exporter, Atlantic Canada imports 90 per cent of the oil consumed within the region. In the event of a crisis, such as a hurricane, or of a longer-term shortage, the infrastructure needed to supply natural gas throughout the region is not even in place.”
There are so many red herrings and straw men in these arguments, I hardly know whether to cut bait or make hay. So, I’ll take a shot at doing both.
The dreaded “Atlantican transportation agenda” is less agenda than wishful thinking. And, to be frank, it’s not even very interesting thinking. It involves bi-lateral lobbying for funds to build a new highway connecting southwestern New Brunswick with upstate New York. The proposal is dramatic only in the sense that this area remains the sole link between the two nations that is not already extensively laced with international corridors. If anything, Atlantica lags, not leads, transportation policy on both sides of the border.
As for energy, Atlantic Canada does import almost all of the oil it consumes. So does New England, Ontario, British Columbia and two-dozen other North American jurisdictions for the obvious reason that they are not blessed (or cursed) with natural reserves of their own. What, though, does this have to do with Atlantica? In fact, the development of renewable sources of energy, and the green technologies to support long-term sustainability, only serves the cause of regional self-determination.
Still, the rebuttal is moot since the CCPA concedes that few, if any, of its direst predictions will ever come to pass. Regulatory frameworks are too well entrenched. Border controls are stricter now than at practically any other time in history. And cultural warriors – from the right-wing American talking head Lou Dobbs, to the left-wing Canadian activist Maude Barlow – continue to keep their knives sharp and fangs long in the event that the rest of us suddenly forget what’s good for us.
But just to be safe, the CCPA report solemnly concludes that “awareness of Atlantica – and the threat it poses – must spread beyond the exclusive, elite circles that have deftly managed the issue to date. . .This would expose the not-so-hidden, right-wing social policy agenda that underpins it.”
Or, perhaps, the paranoiac blithering of other traffickers in popular misconceptions.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Where is the popular misconception or paranoia? What they said seems to be simply a statement of facts
A. the region exports oil
B. the region needs to import it first
C. if that gets cut off then the region is screwed
And the other statement is simply that the region is tying its energy policy to the states, which isn’t interested in the energy concerns of Canadians. Why would they be? The only reason Canadians tailor their policies for americans is because they have no political power. Canada has so much oil and gas that for our small population it would be maybe ten cents a litre, or at the very least like Norway our government could have trillions sitting in the bank. I didn’t vote for this policy, besides Irvings who would? As they rightfully state, most of the area of the province can’t even access the natural gas that is going to be shipped through. Those seem to be facts, so whats outlandish about that?
And be fair, all they called AIMS was ‘right wing social policy that isn’t hidden’. That also seems to be a statement of fact. So labelling a comprehensive study “paranoic blithering” hardly helps to alleviate the status of the issue from the two extreme views, neither does calling it ‘soviet era groupthink’ just because the group thinks that the current idea of Atlantica should be sunk. That is just more propaganda of the opposite kind. AIMS puts out studies and comments on Atlantica all the time, yet you and Mr.Campbell, who maintains he ‘is no fan’, virtually never comment on them. In fact during the past year or so I can’t think of a single instance where they’re studies are even mentioned even though they often get media coverage.
And thats even though many of AIMS claims are far far more insane than anything the CCPA comes up with, who at the very least attempt to factor PEOPLE into their equations and not just economic statistics. When Crowley came out and said that canadians shouldn’t be too excited by the trucking jobs that open up because the policy should be more foreign mexican workers to drive them there wasn’t a peep, I had to post that. At their site they have the most ludicrous ‘studies’ of energy policy and economic statistics imaginable. I’ve posted elsewhere the complete fabrication of their studies on Vermont, which are done by a professor yet aren’t even peer reviewed (and its easy to see why). But when the CCPA comes out with a paper they are suddenly raving lunatics?
Come on now, like every paper they have positions on policies but we don’t even know what the policies are, let alone their positions, except the ones mentioned above, which seem quite reasonable. If their policies or criticisms are unfounded, then how so? And how are they less economically viable than shiipping in mexican truckers to drive through the province? Inquiring minds want to know!
February 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Sorry, I missed the other policy on transportation. I don’t think that it ‘lags’ in New Brunswick, what are there, at least three major crossings in New Brunswick and several other more minor crossings.
I think maybe people should read that quote again:
“Supporters envisage Halifax as the gateway for a high-volume roadway along which super-sized ‘truck-trains’ would haul Asian goods to the U.S. mid-west. Halifax is the eastern seaboard’s closest deep-water port to Asia for container ships that are too large to pass through the Panama Canal. Attracting these leviathans, and trucking their cargo to U.S. markets, is the centerpiece of the Atlantica strategy.”
That once again is simply a statement of fact. What is missing from all this is policy. New Brunswick has already ramped up the highway system, so there really is no concrete pollicy there. In fact, without the tolls there is virtually even no benefit to New Brunswick. Once awhile ago there was talk at a blog that maybe New Brunswick could capitalize on building ‘super truck stations’. However, I think the current gas stations along the highway contribute little to municipal economies because they are too far from them, and the region only includes hours 2-7 of the truck transit route, so its doubtful that trucks will need to stop during that time frame anyway.
Just a quick drive on most days has as many or more trucks than cars, so that’s not a ‘dystopian future’, its a dystopian PRESENT. And one that will get worse. In fact, let’s skip the rhetoric and talk about policy because in fact it would be WONDERFUL – IF there were tolls. If there were tolls the province could have a viable amount of cash coming in because they simply HAVE to get through the province. This is why Irving is trying to tighten up control of the railways, because then New Brunswickers really get nothing. Well, of course New Brunswickers now get less than nothing on the highways because they have to pay shadow tolls on the lease which has to cover maintenance, etc.
So all this vague talk just distracts from issues of policy. Namely, how many people, and how effective, would tolls be for the various highways? Of course the business groups want to avoid it if possible, but it would still only be a minor cost compared to other shipping. I haven’t read the CCPA report, but I suspect they also gloss over this and don’t mention it. There is already trucking, so are there better policies to gain from that industry? However, to be fair to CCPA they are responding to an idea, not presenting one-or are they?
February 20th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Whew, I just finished reading all forty pages. I do encourage you to check it out as the points they make are pretty rational and not hysterical at all. Much of it I think people would have trouble refuting, and I think if you read it to most of the people in the street they’d probably agree that it makes pretty good sense.
In fact the big concern is that their ‘alternatives’ are so far from being ‘left’ that they leave out viable alternatives. As I mentioned at Mr.Campbell’s site, I’m working on either a mini documentary or a podcast on what is in the document. If people are smart they’ll take a careful look at it (the study, not mine) but the types of groups that protest Atlantica aren’t likely to find their kinds of alternatives in there. Which should make the moderates pretty happy.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Hmmm…..a 44-page report on the myths and realities of Atlantica brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood free trade deniers. Nice. I’ll definitely take a look. On second thought, I was just informed by Brian Cormier that it was pancake day today, so I’ll have to get back to you on this one. Hey, I’m pretty sure I have my Anarchist Cookbook around here somewhere…Ahhh, here it is…pg.32 “How to cook piping hot blueberry hemp pancakes from scratch?” Served with a side order of tree sap and fair trade coffee . Wow, how can you beat that, eh Al?
February 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Good to see I can still inspire a public skin-flaying. It’s also important to know, despite Mike’s cogent, well-argued commentary, that I stand by my point about the tone and content of the CCPA document. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. BTW, Scott, I take my tree sap from Vermont like every good “Atlantican” should. lol guys!
February 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Has anyone considered that the Atlantica agenda, as it’s presently configured, is run by a bunch of old fools sitting around in a cigar room wondering what might have been? There are so many stale ideas in this notion. I vote we banish the word, and get on with the business of building a self-sufficient economy in New Brunswick.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“Banish the word”?
Should we then “perish the thought”?
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I’d be more likely to agree with your comments about THEIR tone if I weren’t so revved up before reading it by YOUR tone. There IS something ‘in their tone’, but it isn’t hysteria. David Campbell will be able to tell you what it is.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I think DC and I pretty much sympatico on this, but it’s entirely possible I’m misreading his “tone”. Anyway, onward and upwards with the debate.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
The Atlantica Party
Our new policies have been posted. http://www.atlanticaparty.ca
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 am
Sorry, I meant what was wrong with their tone was mentioned over at Mr. Campbell’s site.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
A belated comment on this piece – sorry. I’ll keep it brief. In your second paragraph, you appear to scorn the authors’ claims “that while the concept can’t possibly succeed, it somehow poses a clear and present danger to the fabric of this region.” Are you suggesting, then, that if they’re correct on the first point, they should simply be quiet and let others get on with trying to make Atlantica (as envisioned by AIMS) a reality?
If so, permit me to pose a rhetorical question: if a person says they think they beat a grizzly bear in a fight, bare-handed, would you encourage them? Such a boast cannot possibly backed up with the requisite action, but even trying to do so poses a clear and present danger to the fabric of the blowhard in question.
Let’s bring it closer to ‘home’: when George Bush Jr. told his fellow Americans that US Forces would bring democracy to Iraq and make the country safe from terrorist attacks, did any thinking person not recognise that the plan couldn’t possibly succeed and simultaneously posed a clear and present danger to the fabric of the country?
Having read the CCPA analysis and probably more of AIMS propaganda, I’m prepared to believe that trying to make Atlantica a reality, in the form AIMS would dearly love to see, does pose a clear and present danger to the fabric of the north east of North America, mainly because it cannot possibly succeed.
Sometimes it’s better never to have loved…