Costly Fix: Power, Politics, and Nature in the Tar Sands by Ian Urquhart
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Costly Fix: Power, Politics, and Nature in the Tar Sands by Ian Urquhart Kyle Conway Costly Fix: Power, Politics, and Nature in the Tar Sands. By Ian Urquhart. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018. ix + 351 pp. Map, tables, references, index. $39.95 paper. Two things flow in Ian Urquhart's Costly Fix—oil and money—and if there is a lesson to be learned, it's that capital is even more liquid than the sticky bitumen found in Alberta's tar sands. The book traces the history of the tar sands, from the late 19th century when Canada's settler government first surveyed oil-rich northern Alberta, to the present day when international oil companies have taken full advantage of the land (and favorable tax arrangements). It situates Alberta in the global oil trade and shows how international markets shape local and regional governments in Canada's northern Great Plains. The Albertan and Canadian governments, Urquhart argues, have acted in the name of development, wealth, and North American energy independence, but they have sold access to their resources at a bargain price. The key idea in Costly Fix is that of market fundamentalism, or the paradoxical belief that the solution to problems caused by unfettered markets is the removal of still more fetters. The challenge governments face is that oil companies can always take their business—and the jobs they create—elsewhere. The threat of capital flight pits governments of resource-rich areas against each other. As a result, regional economies are anything but regional, as in the case of Alberta, where successive provincial and federal governments have sought to accommodate international oil companies, all the while reacting to changes in the United States as it has sought to decrease its dependence on oil from the Middle East. Over the years, Alberta's government, Urquhart writes, has renegotiated its leasing terms with oil companies, always in the companies' favor, even when Albertans have demanded that their government protect their environmental and financial interests better. Even groups opposed to development have been hampered in their efforts. For instance, the specific terms limiting who can address Alberta's regulator, the Energy Resources and Conservation Board (ERCB), have prevented most environmental groups from testifying. Groups must demonstrate that they would be "directly and adversely affected" by a company's actions, a test the ERCB interprets in the narrowest possible way. First Nations have faced similar structural restrictions. In their case, they have also taken a pragmatic approach to allowing oil exploration on their land: money from oil companies helps them solve problems related to immediate material needs, but at the cost of long-term environmental damage. Overall, Costly Fix is a thorough and well-argued polemic. Although it would benefit by engaging with similar books (such as Jon Gordon's Unsustainable Oil or Dominique Perron's L'Alberta autophage, both of [End Page 172] which describe similar structural and discursive contradictions), it provides a detailed account of Alberta's tar sands and demonstrates the degree to which money and oil move through Alberta, linking it inextricably to the larger network of global capital. Kyle Conway Department of Communication University of Ottawa Copyright © 2019 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».