Thursday, February 13, 2020


After a decade out in the cold, 2020 is shaping up to be the year of the pipeline
Legal wins and investor interest breathing new life into projects that have been on hold for years


AFTER ALL THAT WHINING BIG OIL HITS IT BIG AGAIN 

Demonstrators rally in 2018 in favour of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion outside the Alberta Legislature, in Edmonton.David Bloom/Postmedia


February 10, 2020


CALGARY – A year ago, Enbridge Inc.’s $9-billion Line 3 and TC Energy Corp.’s US$8-billion Keystone XL pipeline projects, as well as, of course, the $12.6-bilion Trans Mountain expansion had been mired in regulatory or legal delays for so long that there were questions about whether they would ever be built.

Indeed, the past decade was largely one to forget for Canadian pipeline companies trying to build major new export projects.
Pro-pipeline supporter demonstrates on Parliament Hill in Ottawa as part of a convoy from Alberta in 2019. Errol McGihon/Postmedia

All the delays, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe told an audience at the Canada Institute in Washington on Friday, resulted in negative economic impacts that extend beyond the energy sector.

For instance, about 10 per cent of Saskatchewan’s energy products are currently moving on rail cars, he said, which creates challenges for other sectors looking to move their products.

“We’re cramping our rail capacity, capacity that we actually need if we’re going to continue producing things that should be on rail, like our agrifood products, like our timber products,” Moe said, speaking alongside Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

But there are signs that the pipeline industry is finally turning around. Major court wins in the first six weeks of 2020 have cleared the way for construction to begin on the Line 3 and Keystone XL pipelines in the U.S. and to continue on Trans Mountain.


What a difference a new decade makes. We’re kind of into a new world
Canadian Energy Pipelines Association chief executive Chris Bloomer

“What a difference a new decade makes,” said Canadian Energy Pipelines Association chief executive Chris Bloomer, referring to a massive change in sentiment in the Canadian oil and gas pipeline industry following the string of legal wins. “We’re kind of into a new world.”

On Monday, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission voted to re-approve the Line 3 pipeline across the state, removing the last obstacle there for Enbridge. On Tuesday, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the last remaining legal challenge to Trans Mountain.Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage speaks to several thousand pro pipeline protesters rallying at Stampede Park during the Global Petroleum Show in Calgary in June, 2019. Gavin Young/Postmedia

“We can’t handle any further delays,” Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said of the three major oil pipeline projects.

Savage said Alberta is currently in a “perilous situation” because of the failure in recent years of other pipeline projects, such as Northern Gateway (which she worked on while at Enbridge until 2015) and Energy East. The result was that a glut of oil built up in the province as total oil production surpassed export pipeline capacities.
Indigenous rail blockades over Coastal Gaslink pipeline cause chaos for Ontario travellers
Cost to build Trans Mountain pipeline jumps 70% to $12.6 billion
With its legal hurdles all but cleared, Trans Mountain's challenges move to a different court — the street

Over the past four weeks, following favourable decisions on Keystone XL, Line 3 and Trans Mountain, she said “it feels like the type of day when the clouds are lifting” and is confident the projects will move quickly now.

Others are similarly optimistic.

“We have more certainty about the Trans Mountain project than at any time in the past,” Trans Mountain Corp. chief executive Ian Anderson said during a news conference on Friday. “There isn’t anyone who could have pictured the journey we’ve been on the for the last number of years.”

It wasn’t all good news. The updated cost estimate for building the 590,000-barrels-per-day pipeline expansion to the West Coast have jumped 73 per cent to $12.6 billion from $7.3 billion in 2018.Trans Mountain construction underway in Alberta. Trans Mountain

About half of those higher costs, Anderson said, resulted from changes such as having more thick-walled pipeline sections after the federal government bought the pipeline system from Houston-based Kinder Morgan Inc. in 2018 for $4.5 billion.

Other additional costs were because of market changes. At the time construction first started on Trans Mountain in 2018, Anderson said there weren’t any other pipelines being built.

But since construction was delayed by a Federal Court of Appeal ruling, TC Energy is in the process of building the $6.6-billion Coastal GasLink project through northern British Columbia and gearing up to build Keystone XL, while Enbridge is also readying to build the U.S. portion of Line 3.

One result of the improved outlook for both oil and natural gas pipelines is that analysts believe generalist investors might be interested in jumping back into Canadian oil and gas stocks. Investors have generally shied away from the industry, but some strategic countercyclical investors stayed behind and bought up assets worth billions of dollars.

“There has been an uptick in venture capital and private equity looking at the midstream sector in Canada,” said Alan Ross, regional managing partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Calgary.

Ross said Canadian pipeline and midstream assets, such as natural gas gathering and processing facilities, have been undervalued in recent years because of regulatory and court delays to major export pipeline projects.Miles of unused pipe, prepared for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, sit in a lot in 2014 outside Gascoyne, North Dakota. Major court wins in the first six weeks of 2020 have cleared the way for construction to begin on the Line 3 and Keystone XL pipelines in the U.S. and to continue on Trans Mountain. Andrew Burton/Getty Images files

“Given some of the market access issues, some of the midstream assets have been overlooked over the last number of years,” he said, adding that sentiment has been improving with legal and regulatory wins by major pipeline companies. “A rising tide floats all boats.”

Eight private-equity firms and the private-equity arms of major Canadian pension funds have sponsored new companies such as SemCAMS Midstream ULC, North River Midstream Inc., Steel Reef Corp. and others in countercyclical investments that cut against much of the pessimism in the sector.

In addition to launching new midstream companies, major institutional investors have said they believe Canadian pipeline assets are undervalued and some, like New York-based KKR & Co. Inc. and Alberta Investment Management Corp. (AIMCo), have been buying into pipelines such as the Coastal GasLink project.

AIMCo also bought an 85-per-cent stake in TC Energy’s Northern Courier oilsands pipeline last year for an undisclosed sum.

“One thing that I think a lot of people investing on the private-equity side have picked up on — and some of those are pure private-equity interests and some are more infrastructure investors — is there’s an awareness that there’s a bit of a disconnect between public and private valuations in this space,” said Ben Hawkins, senior vice-president, infrastructure and timber, at AIMCo, which manages $108.2 billion of Alberta’s public-pension assets.

“I do think the current environment is still favourable,” he said, adding that AIMCo is still “keen to look for opportunities.”

Others see value in Canadian midstream assets, too.

For example, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners LP struck one of the largest Canadian energy-sector deals in the past two years when it spent $4.3 billion to buy natural gas infrastructure assets from Enbridge and then launched North River Midstream Inc.

“As we were looking for ways to deploy capital, we turned to Canada because one of the things about the Canadian basin is we actually thought the contractual profile tends to be better (than the U.S.) for a lot of these assets,” said Brian Baker, managing partner at Brookfield Asset Management’s infrastructure group, noting that Canadian midstream assets are usually underpinned by longer contracts than those in the U.S.

He said there have also been more institutional and private-equity investors looking to invest in U.S. midstream infrastructure, raising valuations to the point where his team saw more compelling value in Canada.

“We were trying to look in areas where there’s a little bit less competition (for deals), just given that there’s a lot of negativity around Canada,” Baker said, adding that regulatory overhauls and reviews in Canada have driven away many would-be investors, leading to more enticing valuations for long-term private investors.Supporters hold signs during a United We Roll Convoy For Canada pro-pipeline rally in front of Parliament Hill in Ottawa in 2019. David Kawai/Bloomberg

But analysts are sensing opportunities in the public markets, too.

“We see a potential $20-billion oil pipeline expansion opportunity for the Canadian pipeline industry related to exports to the U.S. and global markets,” BMO Capital Markets analyst Ben Pham said in a research note this week.

He rated Enbridge, TC Energy and Gibson Energy Inc. as outperformers and suggested smart investors would be accumulating shares.

“In the past three years, every single proposed pipeline export project has faced timing delays and created rifts between Western Canadian provinces and Indigenous communities,” Pham said. “But in the next three years, it is possible that several pipelines could actually get built, providing the Western Canadian energy industry more than adequate pipeline capacity to spur additional oilsands development.”

Recent years have been “long, hard, challenging,” CEPA’s Bloomer said, adding that pipeline companies have had to adapt to the challenges presented by the legal and regulatory delays.

“Everybody on all sides of this issue has learned a lot,” he said.

Bloomer said he hopes the Supreme Court of Appeals Court decisions in recent weeks have created some precedence for how pipelines are proposed, permitted and approved in the future.

“From all sides, we’re a lot smarter than we were,” he said.

With files from Naomi Powell
 Email: gmorgan@nationalpost.com | Twitter: geoffreymorgan
RELATED STORIES


UN racism committee calls for halt to Trans Mountain, Coastal GasLink pipelines and Site C dam over treatment of First Nations


While Canada hesitates, Russia builds 3,000 km gas pipeline to China in just five years


Infamous ‘War in the Woods’ in 1990s offers lesson for the Coastal Gaslink pipeline debate

Great Lakes waters at risk from buried contaminants and new threats



(NOAA/Aerial Associates Photography, Inc. by Zachary Haslick/flickr)

Nickle Beach, Copper Harbor, Silver Bay. These places, all situated on the shores of the Laurentian Great Lakes, evoke the legacy of mining connected with the region.
While mining operations for metal ores and their refining have all but ceased here, there are renewed concerns over the safety of our Great Lakes source waters. One only has to think back to the 2014 water crisis in Flint, Mich. that exposed more than 100,000 people to elevated lead levels or to more recent headlines over lead contamination in water distributed from Canadian taps.


The Great Lakes basin is home to more than 35 million people distributed across two nations and numerous First Nations. They all rely on this resource for potable water, employment, sustenance and recreational opportunities.
Yet, environmental concerns are a recurring theme, compromising beneficial uses of the lakes and connecting rivers and posing a threat to a combined GDP of US$5.8 trillion across the region.
Canadians have come to expect access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water, as well as access to lakes and rivers for recreational use. However, a legacy of natural resource extraction and industrial use, together with new pressures on freshwater ecosystems, challenge the integrity and sustainable use of these resources.

An A grade, for now

Clearly, past environmental crises like mercury pollution of Lake St. Clair in the 1970s, the St. Clair River’s blob of perchloroethylene (a dry-cleaning solvent) in 1985, the outbreak of gastroenteritis in Walkerton, Ont. in 2000, the contamination of Michigan’s Huron River with PFAS (a family of persistent chemicals) in 2017, and the Flint water crisis provide compelling evidence of the need to control contaminants at their source and avoid another tipping point.

People gather outside Flint, Mich., city hall in January 2016 to protest the governor’s handling of the city’s water crisis. Sean Proctor/The Flint Journal-MLive.com via AP

Most people who call Ontario home live within the watershed of one of our four Great Lakes: Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario. Over 80 per cent of Ontarians receive their drinking water from the lakes.
Considering the high dependency within the province on the Great Lakes, we are fortunate that the protection of these source waters is a priority of Ontario’s Clean Water Act. The province, as recently as 2011, received an A grade in Canada’s drinking water report card issued by the environmental law non-profit Ecojustice.
Ontario’s Source Water Protection Plan began in 2004 on the heels of the tragedy in Walkerton. A total of 38 local plans are currently in place, covering 95 per cent of Ontario’s population. Each plan identifies and ranks the risk of land-use patterns, such as locations of waste disposal sites, and effluent threats, such as industrial waste and fertilizers, that could lead to microbial, chemical or radiological contamination.
While the province is doing a good job protecting our Great Lakes source waters to ensure the safety of our drinking water, will these programs continue to protect us into the future and can they address vulnerabilities particular to our Great Lakes?

Heightened threat from climate change?

While the remaining industrial activity on the Great Lakes is regulated, the lakes themselves contain reservoirs of legacy contaminants, mostly in their sediments, that are vulnerable to resuspension. Metals, including mercury, PCBs and other persistent organic compounds top the list of concern. Resuspension is becoming more common under climate change with high water levels, declining ice cover and increased frequency and intensity of major storm events.

A crowd of swimmers and boaters gather at the annual (unsanctioned) Jobbie Nooner boating party in Lake St. Clair, Mich., in June 2015. (U.S. Coast Guard/flickr)

In fact, the manifestations of climate change in the region may be placing our drinking water systems at risk from a myriad of threats. These concerns include antibiotic-resistant bacteria, threats from emerging chemicals, increases in discharge from combined sewer overflows and enhanced agricultural runoff of fertilizers and manure, which are implicated in the massive harmful algal blooms that have plagued Lake Erie’s western basin in recent decades.


While Source Water Protection Plans provide sound tools for managing our watersheds, we must remain vigilant and develop better risk-based tools that consider legacy and emerging chemical threats especially as they relate to changes to high Great Lakes water levels and increasing intensity of storms.
For example, a sediment disturbance triggered by high winds or shipping accidents could be addressed in a manner similar to chemical spills, closing water intakes until the threat has subsided.

Investing in our future

And oversight must go beyond source waters: the renewed concerns in Canada over lead contamination of our drinking water have refocused attention on the need to invest in municipal infrastructure to help ensure a safe and secure water supply.
These investments need to consider old threats, such as replacing lead service lines and antiquated plumbing, coupled with new tools to address growing vulnerabilities related to increased storm-induced discharge events, nutrient remobilization and harmful algal blooms being produced under a changing climate.

The adage holds true — an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!



Disclosure statement

Robert Michael Lee McKay receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and from Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Joel Edward Gagnon receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Ken G. Drouillard receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. He is affiliated with the Detroit River Canadian Clean-Up Steering Committee and Monitoring and Research Committee.
John Hartig and Michael Siu do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
#WATERISLIFE
Wet'suwet'en: Why are Indigenous rights being defined by an energy corporation?

The Wedzin kwa River, an important source of fresh water for the Unist'ot'en and Wet'suwet'en people near Houston, B.C. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito
February 7, 2020 
An unsigned agreement between a Wet’suwet’en First Nation and Coastal GasLink along with financial documents, obtained by Yellowhead Institute, an Indigenous-led research centre, provide reinforcement to Yellowhead’s assessment of the ways these private contracts can dramatically undermine First Nation rights and jurisdiction.
The Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA) and other documents were drafted in 2016, two years before the first payments were made to the First Nation. Because official agreements are not available to the public due to confidentiality clauses, these documents provide a valuable record of Coastal GasLink’s negotiating objectives.
In light of present RCMP raids, these documents offer important insights that support an emerging analysis around how resource extraction companies work with provinces to limit the scope of the Aboriginal and treaty rights.
One of the most alarming clauses in the document is one that positions the band as paid informers to quell internal dissent within the First Nation against the project at the cost of “financial consideration” or payouts.
The document also introduces the possibility of future negotiations with the band on the pipeline’s conversion to crude oil.

Operating on unceded lands

The pipeline, a natural gas project by Coastal GasLink owned by TC Energy, has been approved by the B.C. government, but it is being opposed by Wet'suwet'en Nation hereditary leadership in the region.
It has been criticized by Amnesty InternationalB.C.‘s Human Rights Commission and the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination who say all First Nations affected by the pipeline should give free, prior and informed consent before it can proceed.


Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs from left, Rob Alfred, John Ridsdale, centre and Antoinette Austin, who oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline took part in a rally in Smithers, B.C., on Jan. 10, 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

Provincial and federal governments, industry and the First Nations LNG Alliance have responded to criticism about the contentious project by citing the consent of elected band councils along the route. Coastal GasLink has signed agreements with 20 First Nations, including with each band council in the Wet’suwet’en Nation.
But the terms of consent this unsigned agreement seeks to secure should raise serious concern for those watching the conflict unfold.

Irrevocable consent

According to the unsigned IBA, Coastal GasLink aims to secure “irrevocable consent” for the project from the First Nation.
The First Nation must also act to dissuade band members from engaging in any internal dissent within the First Nation against the project. The unsigned agreement reads:
“[The First Nation] will not take, and will take all reasonable actions to persuade [First Nation] members to not take, any action, legal or otherwise, including any media or social media campaign, that may impede, hinder, frustrate, delay, stop or interfere with the Project’s contractors, any Authorizations or any Approval Processes.”
Experts on IBAs have been warning for years that serious issues can arise when commercial law is used to interpret Aboriginal constitutional rights. With these agreements, we now see how. The draft agreement states:
“[this is the] full and final satisfaction of any present or future claim by [the First Nation] … against Coastal GasLink Pipeline … for any infringement by the Project of [the First Nation’s] Section 35(1) Rights.”


Chelsea Flook holds a protest sign referencing RCMP actions at the Wet'suwet'en Nation in B.C., during a town hall at University of Regina in Saskatchewan on Jan. 10, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Michael Bell

The extent of constitutional Aboriginal rights is being defined here by a private energy corporation, specifically limiting the exercise of Aboriginal rights. A separate provision affirms that the band can take legal action against British Columbia.
Future protection is granted to Coastal GasLink in the case that Aboriginal rights are expanded to the nation through legal or policy means. The draft agreement states:
“If [the First Nation] obtains any interest in land including Aboriginal title or ownership or jurisdiction over lands used by the Project … [the First Nation] affirms the Authorizations … will continue” and that these changes will not affect the Agreement.
Dayna Nadine Scott, a law professor at York University, has recently completed a research project interviewing lawyers who have experience drafting IBAs, due out in the spring. She says this language is highly problematic and is often referred to as “gag orders,” preventing communities from raising concerns when new issues come to light.
Therefore, the unsigned agreement restricts the band from challenging any of the company’s legal rights of development, even in the case of changes to the First Nation’s legal rights, as recognized by courts or governments.

Possibility for natural gas to crude oil conversion?

The unsigned agreement also raises the issue of the possibility of converting the pipeline for other uses. Previously, First Nations in the region were almost unanimously opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge, because it carried significant environmental risks, such as oil spills in coastal waters. Coastal GasLink garnered significantly more support, in part because of its pipeline would carry natural gas, not bitumen.
The unsigned agreement says: “Coastal GasLink will not convert the pipeline component of the project to use for transportation of crude oil, bitumen or dilbit without the consent of [First Nation].”
That line, “without the consent of First Nation,” means the subject of conversion was very likely raised in negotiations between the parties. The First Nation protected itself by confirming this change would require an amendment or a new agreement altogether to obtain consent for the change.


Supporters of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and who oppose the Costal GasLink pipeline, chop wood for a support camp just outside of Gidimt'en checkpoint near Houston, B.C., on Jan. 9, 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson.

However, Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who oppose the project have not consented and signed an agreement. Therefore, it remains to be seen if Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who oppose the project would be afforded the same opportunity.
Though B.C. introduced a regulation in 2015 against the conversion of LNG pipelines, it has yet to be tested and could be repealed.
A once-shuttered energy corridor could re-emerge if the LNG pipeline is built. Hydrocarbons are Canada’s biggest export commodity, with $129 billion in exports in 2018. Enbridge was unable to secure a corridor through the region previously, but TC Energy, the owner of Coastal GasLink, is aiming to succeed.

Subsidizing dispossession

LNG Canada is already subsidized by the province of B.C. for $5.35 billion. A further $1 billion in estimated subsidies will be provided by the federal government in exemptions from tariffs on steel imports.
The provincial funding arrangement puts B.C. Premier John Horgan in a conflict of interest with Wet’suwet’en hereditary governments opposing the project.
Horgan has expressed concern about First Nations experiencing “systemic poverty” and characterized the Coastal GasLink investment into First Nations as “a pathway to prosperity,” according to recent statements in the press.
But a substantial amount of financial support to First Nations are derived from public coffers. Rather than alleviate “systemic poverty” in communities directly, the B.C. government is channelling these dollars through energy companies. Therefore, making First Nation funding contingent upon support for pipeline deals.
The summary of financial benefits obtained by Yellowhead shows that B.C. will put up $1 million to the band in signing payments, $5 million in construction and in-service payments, and an estimated $40 million total in annual operation payments over 40 years. These numbers confirm amounts committed in a Natural Gas Benefits Agreement signed between the parties.

Raid

As the RCMP descend on Wet'suwet'en territory it is worthwhile to reflect on how social license is achieved by industry to access Indigenous territories.
The provincial government has downloaded its constitutional obligations to energy companies to determine the scope and assertion of Aboriginal rights.
A hand-in-glove system, the B.C. government has supported the current raids through financial incentives that have forced communities apart.
With upwards of $7 billion on the line in government subsidies, the interests of Coastal GasLink’s viability appears to have been put far ahead of Wet'suwet'en rights, title and justice.  

Author

How Iran’s millennials are grappling with crippling US sanctions

Within Iran’s lower classes, there is a highly conformist youth culture.
 Farzin MahmoudzadehAuthor provided

February 10, 2020 

In early January, after tensions between Iran and the United States escalated to the brink of war, President Donald Trump announced a detente of sorts, stating, “The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”

It may have sounded like a conciliatory gesture, but the Trump administration went on to levy additional economic sanctions against the country only two days later.

As someone who has studied the lives of Iran’s working classes, I know just how damaging economic warfare has been. It’s hit young Iranians, who comprise a large portion of the population, particularly hard. High rates of inflation – on the order of 38.6% over the past 12 months – and a youth unemployment rate of 28.6% have drastically reduced their ability to purchase basic goods and feel any semblance of financial security.

Over the past 12 years, I’ve studied various groups of lower-class young people and their families in their homes, neighborhoods and workplaces, in shops, and in parks. I’ve also interviewed 44 youth between the ages of 15 and 29 who have been sidelined to the socioeconomic margins.

I wanted to know how they cope with prolonged insecurity and the constant threat of crisis.

Interestingly – and despite what you might see on the news – many don’t react by rebelling against authority or by regularly taking to the streets.

A central observation from my research and forthcoming book has been that, when faced with conditions of uncertainty, the young people I spoke with simply sought respect, acceptance and support from their communities. Life becomes a quest not for revolution, riches or vengeance, but for dignity.
A highly conformist culture

The desire for status and dignity is an integral part of Iranian society.

Most of the poor, younger city dwellers I studied try to achieve this through both their conduct and their dress. They want to be seen as classy, diligent and moral. In communities that value prestige and look down on poverty, this becomes their ticket to a better life.

So in an attempt to conceal their poverty, they’ll spend their limited income on the latest trends so they can attain a “modern” appearance, from having the latest smartphones to wearing brand-name shoes and shirts – or at least knockoffs.

In order to avoid being seen as lazy or delinquent, the young people I interviewed work diligently and avoid being associated with petty criminals, like drug dealers. Even though there’s rarely enough work to go around, they get creative. They work in the informal economy as shop apprentices, street vendors and seamstresses. Those who can’t find work take up unpaid work babysitting for family members or helping with a family business in an effort to appear hardworking. By doing this, they can assume a moral high ground – regardless of how little money they’re actually making.

As one local, middle-aged woman told me, “There’s something wrong with a kid who doesn’t work.”

These young men and women are adhering to a set of values prized by their communities and promoted by society through billboards, national television and official speeches.

The result is a relatively stable social order – and a youth culture that’s highly conformist.

This might come as a surprise to some, since some Western media outlets sometimes fixate on acts of rebellion.

In reality, deviance – especially among the lower classes – is rare. Many simply can’t afford the consequences of being shunned by those around them.
Rewards don’t need to be material

The quest for dignity is only part of the story. Like many young people around the world, most youth in Iran have dreams of a better future. But for those dealing with daily economic hardship, there’s a chasm between their goals and what’s possible.

“I wanted to get my bachelor’s degree and have a job where I sat behind a desk,” said Babak, a street vendor, “but I had to drop out of ninth grade in order to meet my family’s expenses.”

That gap may never be fully breached. But many young Iranians I met still feel as if it’s possible to – in the words of a mechanic’s apprentice – “bring themselves up.”

The young people I interviewed do this not by trying to game the system, but by following the rules: diligence, self-sufficiency, a smart appearance, and moral and sexual cleanliness. For this, communities reward them with jobs, small promotions, or even just more deference. The material benefits might be minimal, but people nonetheless feel validated and included in the broader fabric of the nation.

In other contexts, researchers have found that “looking the part” – performing what’s deemed to be attractive to society – matters to people’s life prospects. The youth I knew in Iran do the same. They might not fully escape poverty, but they can escape stigma.

To them, that matters.
The limits of virtue

Of course, not everyone in Iran can maintain an appearance of industry, class and virtue.

There are young people who are desperately poor, who can’t even scrape together enough money for a new pair of shoes. There are drug addicts. There are young women who have been outed as prostitutes.

Focused on only helping those they deem “deserving,” communities do little to lift up people who have fallen through the cracks. Friends and acquaintances are unwilling to recommend them for jobs, neighbors avoid connecting with them, families view them with shame.

It can all seem a bit Darwinian, with those deemed unfit becoming social pariahs.

And yet, there are many youth who persevere, who believe that living by the rules, day in and day out, is the right way to live. As Ibrahim, a laborer, emphasized, “I try to live in a good way. If people remember you as good, this is reason to be proud.” To youth like Ibrahim, living a worthy life means not simply accumulating material goods, but staying true to a moral code.

In the face of rising prices, dwindling jobs, and few prospects for socioeconomic change, the routines of daily life create space for those who have suffered most under the weight of suffocating sanctions to breathe – and, in many cases, grow.

Author