The 'Economist' criticizes Canada's climate record

Canada described as one of the two top “profligate energy users on the planet”

by Alex Shimo on Monday, February 23, 2009 5:12pm - 22 Comments

A biting article from the Economist magazine on Canada’s green policies, published here. The author highlights several ways that we have been lax on the environment, saying Canada is one of the two top “profligate energy users on the planet,” yet it has spent “little time over the last eight years” discussing what we might do “to combat climate change and the environment.”

On a discussion of our “dirty oil”, it discusses how we have been fighting for an exemption from a 2007 rule that bars the American government from buying fuels that produce too much carbon dioxide, or at least more than produced by conventional sources. The Energy Independence and Security Act, was signed into law in December 2008 by President Bush, and it puts the oil ssands at a disadvantage compared to easy-to-harvest oil from the wellhead.

Summing up, it says “some people in the industry still believe that America’s need for oil is so great that it cannot afford to reject oil, however dirty, from a secure supplier.”

However, with Obama’s continued green policy announcements, these people seem increasingly misguided, the article concludes.

Bookmark and Share
  • DR

    “little time over the last eight years” discussing what we might do “to combat climate change and the environment.”

    Seems to me we discuss it plenty of time discussing it. Spend plenty of money on programs as well.

    The problem is all we end up doing is wasting money on special interest programs like ethanol and the transit credit.

    • Critical Reasoning

      Ethanol and the transit program are both wastes of the taxpayers’ money. Still, at least the ethanol programs will result in a tangible commodity (ethanol) that can be sold.

      The transit credit was a costly (yet purely symbolic) gesture. Harper richly deserved the face slap he got when the program was revealed to have no impact on GHGs.

      Martin and Dion (during his time as environment minister) also deserve to be slapped for lots of lip service and empty symbolism but zero results. To Dion’s credit, at least he tried to do something about it later on.

    • Derek Pearce

      Why is a transit credit a waste of money? Surely (whether or not you believe CO2 is causing global warming or not) people should be encouraged to use public transit, which cuts down on wasted money lost through gridlock and cuts down on basic exhaust pollution of the air in our cities. I’m GLAD to take the subway to and from work, I can’t imagine the nightmare of having to drive in traffic and park and drive home every day.

      • Derek Pearce

        Heh heh, and yes maybe I sould change my avatar from a gas guzzling boat to an LRT or something…

  • Al Heck Brakes

    “The problem is all we end up doing is wasting money on special interest programs like ethanol and the transit credit.”

    That’s what governments do. It’s their specialty. Seize on some crisis, or make one up out of nothing. Demand billions of dollars from people like you, then use some of it buy elections for themselves and slip the rest of the money to their friends.

    If the climate was changing because of CO2 – which it isn’t, so don’t worry – concerted government action would be the last thing on earth which would ever fix the problem.

    • http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com Scott Tribe

      An assertion that has no scientific evidence backing it up, Brakes.. and I’m referring to your claim that Co2 isn’t causing climate change. Just because you Flat-earth society guys keep loudly repeating that doesn’t make it true.

      • JMD

        So why has the earth been cooling the last 10 years as CO2 levels steadily rise? If CO2 is the cause of global warming, like the climate alarmists and our brain-dead media say, shouldn’t the earth be warming instead of cooling? Could there be other, more important factors in play? Maybe one of them is that nuclear furnace 93 million miles from earth.

  • madeyoulook

    Just because you insult a sceptic with a “flat earth” label doesn’t make your lazy insult true.

    • wayne moores

      Right on madeyoulook, I too grow increasingly tired listening to eco fanatics name call anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. They are preaching a new religion and have left the scientific field. The second Suzuki started screaming out of my beer fridge that the debate was over and everyone else should shut their mouths I politely slammed the fridge door back in his face. Anyone with a basic knowedge of the scientific method knows the debate is never over. Science is a self correcting process in which any theory, yes even global warming, is always open to inspection, revision, doubt and retesting. Suzuki says he will go to his grave(one might be tempted to hope sooner than later), and there is nothing anyone can say or show him to make him change his mind. He now reminds me of the Pope who refused to look into Galalaio’s telescope because he might see something that interfers with his fanatical religious beliefs. These fraudsteers seem to be getting more desperate for more money. Big Al now claims the ice cap will be totally gone in 5 years. I invite everyone to google the speech, it’s on line. Finally caught him in a lie that doesn’t take 100 years to disprove. I think however I will wait before buying any toasty warm beach front property on Baffin Island. Cheers

  • Santa Monica

    Of course we are! We sell lots of the stuff so we should promote it’s use…and profit from it. Resources Cheap – the constant Cdn theme….

  • Critical Reasoning

    Why is Canada is such a profligate energy user (on a per capita basis) compared to, say, Belgium?
    3 reasons:

    1. Our cold climate.

    2. The vast distances which separate us – Canada is the world’s second largest country.

    3. A large portion of our economy depends on energy-intensive resource extraction.

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    Not too dispute yr arguement, but couln’t every country dispute, in some way or other, why it should be excempted for this or that reason. As i said i agree we have as good a case as anyone. So, who’s gonna take the first step…anyone?
    This just about where we came in with the Harper doctrine, and nothing seems to have changed. Leadership – hardly!

  • Wayne

    Speaking of largest country … I am curious about something. Since the break up of the soviet union (formerly the largest country) maybe we are the largest now?

  • madeyoulook

    If I am not mistaken, Paul Martin tried to get our vast forests credited as a carbon sink, and the much-ballyhooed world community said no dice. So we get punished for being a big cold country, and we get no credit for growing a huge carbon sink. If we care to play along in this international charade. Remind me again why Canada should care what China & India and Zimbabwe and Cuba and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea and Iran and Sri Lanka think about us in climate diplomacy circles?

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    Why should we care? For the only reason that ever makes any sense, to set some sort of example. And no i don’t mean just being boy scouts and takng on burdens that will unduly harm our economy. Yr question begs the question why do anything at all. You also imply that those countries are getting a better deal, that somehow they’ve all outsmarted poor old Canada, i seriously doubt that. My pt to CR still stands, who’s going to make the first move? Ideally the largest emitters should work together on a feasible plan. Again who’s going to move first?

  • seaandthemountains

    “Remind me again why Canada should care what … think about us in climate diplomacy circles?”

    right because countries totally separate climate and all other forms (economic, political, trade) diplomacy…

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    I’m pretty sure they still own that record.

  • Critical Reasoning

    Wayne – nope. The new Russia is still more than double our size. Russia is enormous.

  • Wayne

    Russia is almost twice the size of Canada, with Russia being 17.10 million square km and Canada being 9.98 million square km. Following closely behind are China and the United States of America, which, due to disputed territories, can be either third or fourth in any given list.

  • Critical Reasoning

    Thanks for looking it up. My mistake – the old Soviet Union was more than double our size, but the new Russia is only 1.7 times larger.

  • Critical Reasoning

    We’ve already made a good first move, by starting talks with the US. There are solid economic reasons for doing whatever the US does, because our economies are so integrated. If we take the first step without them, it will hurt our industries and put them at a competitive disadvantage. This is the kind of common sense that eluded Stephane Dion, who tried to pretend that we could tax carbon without hurting our competitive position.

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    CR
    I can’t really fault yr reasoning and i know this was pretty much Harper’s position. However, in my view that doesn’t absolve him from dragging his feet. As in Baird at whatever conference or two he attended but didn’t get anything constructive done. Harper’s attempt to shovel all this off onto Bush may be smart politically but is nevertheless contemptible.

From Macleans