Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

How ethical is your oil?

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, January 7, 2011 5:32pm - 188 Comments

The Environment Minister observed yesterday (around the 12-minute mark of that interview) that Canada is a supplier of ethical oil—a phrase recently employed by Ezra Levant—because the revenues derived from that oil are not used to “fund terrorism or the destabilization of other governments.” This may or may not beg questions about the origins of our own oil imports.

The latest release of Statistics Canada’s Energy Statistics Handbook lists our sources of crude oil and equivalents going back to 1989. Our noted individual sources in 2010 (through September) were, in order: Algeria, the United Kingdom, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia and the United States.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Dot

    False equivalence.

    "Ethical oil" vs. environmentally sustainable development.

    The oil sands companies can clean up their ops with regulations and still be profitable.

    • TimesArrow

      'a phrase recently employed by Ezra Levant—because the revenues derived from that oil are not used to “fund terrorism or the destabilization of other governments.”

      Ezra's theis is idiotic. Energy demand is on the rise worldwide. Someone has to buy all that oil that funds terrorists anyway.

      • Mike T.

        In fact, if it were possible to separate oil from countries which are "good" from countries which are "bad", and refuse to buy the bad, does it not just mean that purchasers who have no problem with bad oil (who in some cases will be "bad" themselves) get it cheaper?

        • Cats

          Um it is possible to only buy from good countries.
          Its not like all the oil in the world gets jumbled up into one big pot.

          But yeah, the price is set globally so just choosing who you buy from doesn't really make a difference. And China really, really doesn't care.

          Geography would let us mess with Venezuela, simply because it would increase take them a lot longer to reach markets outside of North America, that's about it.

          Sanctions on the other hand can be very, very effective. Restrictions on technology transfers, skilled workers, companies investing, and insurance for tankers come to mind.

          Effective Cats.

          • sourstud

            I much prefer your reasoned and thought out comments to the ones where you are simply trying to ridicule the poster (often justified ridicule, mind you). You should stick to these, it will keep you're coat softer and you're claws sharper.

            Purring Cats!

          • sourstud

            In other, less cryptic words: I agree.

          • Jenn_

            So Cats, what have you to say about the fact that Canada buys oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Russia? We do it the same as China–the difference is we care?

          • Cats

            Eastern Canada buys oil from those countries.

            Kinda your own fault for not developing your own resources. Plenty of oil in Quebec and off-shore.

            Western Cats.

          • Jenn_

            Aha! Shame on Ontario for not having dinosaurs die here!

      • Steve M

        Yes, "energy demand is on the rise", but the point is that if the oilsands were taken out of the picture, EVEN MORE of the "oil that funds terrorists" would be sold.

        Unless of course you believe that keeping the oilsands undeveloped would have spurred a great leap forward in renewable energy. Unlikely, but not impossible.

        • TimesArrow

          Who says it should be taken out of the picture – just properly regulated with an eye to the best available environmental standards – not currently practised. I don't disagree with everything Ezra said – for instance that it supports lots of families with well paying jobs in this country. But the argument that the oil sands will make the world a safer place is nonsensical while demand outstrips supply…unless you can substitute AB oil for say Saudi oil their coffers will continue to overflow and the will probably continue to use the revenue in ways we don't like. No matter how much of northern Alberta we dig up we cannot reduce their revenue – supply and demand – yes?
          Now if we can reduce our need for the stuff, that's leverage… wonder how we might do that?

          • Cats

            Actually you're wrong.

            Environmental standards increase the price of production, which decreases profitability.

            That would shift oil company dollars to cheaper projects which would mean LESS AB oil and MORE bad oil.

            Economics Cats.

          • TimesArrow

            Tell that to the folks in Fort Chip, you know those down stream. Do you live downstream?…i doubt it.

          • Cats

            Um you are aware that the idea that oil sands water causes cancer has been debunked right ??

            Like it never existed to begin with. Totally made up myth.

            Discredited Cats.

          • Jenn_

            They have some three-eyed fish to sell you for dinner. Even a Cat should blink at that.

          • Cats

            There's deformed animals everywhere.

            I guess you're not aware but sometimes when DNA replicates there are errors.

            Yeesh, basic biology Cats.

          • Holly Stick

            That is a lie; it has not been debunked. The credible reports point out that they do not have enough information to be able to tell if the increased rate of rare cancers is caused by the tarsands or not. They do not have enough information because the incompetent dishonest governments of Alberta and of Canada have not been doing proper testing of the water there. And the industry-dominated RAMP has been collecting deformed fish without reporting on them properly.

        • Fred Fontaine

          What a silly argument. That would be equal to telling a produce customer that there is no point buying organic because it is not "really" making making the world a better place, that the are still customers who will buy pesticide ladened veggies.

          • TimesArrow

            This makes no sense while demand continues to outrun supply. It's not like we're taking market share away fom the Saudis, nor are we bringing down the price of oil.

  • Emily

    Only Cons would make the idiotic argument that 'our oil is more moral than yours is, so there!'

    • Mark

      *farting noise*

      • Emily

        Cons are also very crude, their mothers never having taught them any manners. Probably because they didn't know any themselves.

        • Keith in Brampton

          Well, we are disussing "crude" oil – how "refined" a conversation do you expect?

          And how can you be so sure he's a Con – is there something about the scent of their "natural gas"?

          • Emily

            I expect a level of conversation more suited to a major financial and global topic.

            And his answer told you he was a Con. 'Latte-sipping effete eastern elitists' don't talk like Archie Bunker.

          • Cats

            But does America really have a comparatively low corporate tax rate ?

            But are the F-35's really "on probation" or is that a completely seperate model. Oh wait, but they are flying lemons.

            Thank you expert on all things but constantly wrong Emils!

            Garbage Cats.

          • Emily

            Since you don't intend to be serious on here, there is no point in talking to you any more.

            Cats definitely away. Ciao.

          • Emily

            Sigh…another post eaten

  • madeyoulook

    This may or may not beg questions about the origins of our own oil imports.

    Shhh! Who cares about our imports? We don't want to export our imports! Besides, the more unethical oil we buy, the more ethical oil we have around to sell.

    So: pipe down, already! Or at least refine your argument.

    • madeyoulook

      So, um, is it that my non-responding thumbdowners missed my too-subtle sarcasm?

      • Dot

        No, it's the fact that you've been tarred with the same brush as Levant. Properly so, I believe.

      • Keith in Brampton

        Maybe they were groaning at the puns in that last line…

  • Neil from Calgary

    Ezra Levant. Love him or hate him, he knows how to stake his ground in a fight. If that means changing perceptions around the oil sands from being "dirty" to being "ethical", so be it. There's too many jobs at stake to let the environmentalists dictate the terms in this energy debate.

    • Dot

      He is enabled by people like you.

    • Mike T.

      Ezra Levant. Love him or hate him, he knows how to stake his ground in a fight.

      ***

      By writing books where he crudely misrepresents not only the arguments of his opponents but the facts on which they are based? And with a healthy dose of laughable, self-pitying martyrdom?

      • Holly Stick

        Ezra the libeller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant#Libel_ca…

        I prefer to call him Ethical Tar Levant, since he was registered as a lobbyist for a tobacco company for a while.

        • Roger

          Typical… Lefties always attack the person when they don’t have a counter-argument

          **sigh**

          • Mike T.

            The arguments showing Ezra is a disingenous fool are myriad and easy to find. If people haven't already figured him out, it's a waste of time for me to type his many lies again and again.

          • sourstud

            Too bad you're unable to refute any of his arguments, eh? It's a sad pattern with you, attacking the character of others rather than the substance of their comments, which you apparently disagree with but are unsure WHY you disagree.

          • Roger

            ** DING!***

            Let the Pavlovian response character assasinations from the leftards begin…

            If you want to attack a fool, I suggest these:
            -David Suzuki
            -Al Gore
            -The entire IPCC process

            Dare I ask you Mike T. for your position against his arguments, instead of his character (wishfully thinking…)

            Good luck

          • EeeOar

            Pot, kettle.

        • Mike T.

          I like Ezra Lie-vent.

    • Thwim

      Those jobs are going to be lost anyway, sooner or later.

      Our only choice is whether we have the smarts and the willpower to start diversifying our industry now, when we can control the pace and the amount of pain suffered in the transition, or whether we are going to once again wait until reality walks up with a big stick?

      • Cats

        How will these jobs be lost ?

        We are a sovereign nation. So unless our government tells these companies to fire those workers then I see no reason why development wouldn't continue for 100 years.

        Victorious Cats!

        • canstud

          Because before 100 years, the world will move away from oil.

          • Mike T.

            Is there even 100 years of oil left?

          • Cats

            So lets get the most out of these jobs right NOW for the sake of our economy.

            Obviously. Oil sands FULL SPEED AHEAD!

            Faster, faster pussycat!

          • Thwim

            The problem with this line of thinking is the opportunity costs. How much money/tax rebates are we giving to the oil sands developers? Money which could be used instead to help us diversify our economy so we're prepared for the inevitable crash.

          • Roger

            Thwim – So you think that the government should be running the oilsands development as a crown corporation???

            HAHAHAHAHA

            I can just imagine how many more people, how much less output, and how much more benefits would be needed to accomplish this task.

            After all, the government is excellent at running businesses…

          • Thwim

            Learn to read.

          • Jenn_

            Oh come on! You didn't say what he wanted to argue about, so he HAD to change it! Geez, it's like you expected a legitimate counter-argument or something.

          • Cats

            The oil sands are profitable.

            They literally provide the tax revenue needed to fund R&D into new energy sources.

            Full speed ahead with oil !!

            Economics Cats.

          • Thwim

            Do they? Please tell me about this R&D being conducted into new energy sources in Alberta, because I'm unaware of it. If it's out there, I'd love to hear of it.

            What I have seen is our government making it more difficult for independent farmers to make a living, and provide minimal support in times of need.

            I've seen our government bend over backwards to protect the profits of the natural gas companies, even at the expense of their own budgets and our tax-dollars.

            I've seen post-secondary education being starved since 1980, which is where the R&D actually happens.

            What I haven't seen is any signficant investment from the government into alternative energy. Although I have seen them whining about how they don't have enough money to properly support health-care… after they've finished subsidizing the oil-sands that is.

          • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

            I believe the phrase is "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!"

          • Cats

            Not appropriate.

            Obviously Cats.

          • BCer in Mtl

            Not appropriate. Right.

            Change your phrasing to suit your narrative arc, but if you used the real one it might have suggested something negative about your argument.

            Never trifle with the mighty Russ Meyer!

          • sourstud

            To what, exactly? Good intentions? Does fairy dust burn clean?

          • Thwim

            Nuclear, solar, micro-hydro, geo-thermal, wind.. the list goes on, but primarily to vastly more efficient consumer technologies — ones that are hand powered or use miniscule amounts of energy. People will change to this.. because they simply won't be able to afford not to.

          • Roger

            So… you have access to plans for cars and large transport vehicles powered by these technologies?

            Would you share them please?

            Until then, oil is the most economical source of energy. Comparing oil to your imaginary, zero emission, portable, and cost effective energy is not really a fair comparison.

            Ask Spain how well their move to more green energy is going: $1,000,000 in cost to the govt for every green job created, and companies are leaving the country because of the increasing cost of energy!

            DUH!

            Unless you have a viable alternative, short of getting rid of 95% of the people on the planet, you are not contributing to the answer.

          • Thwim

            Thank you for providing an exact example of the asinine short-term thinking currently afflicting our government in Alberta. Do you work there, by chance?

            Right now oil is the most economical source, agreed. To blithely assume it will remain that way is to have absolutely no knowledge of any of the most basic trends — from population expansion, to energy usage, to technology development — in human society.

            So while you may be content to be a grasshopper, some of us understand that seasons change.

          • Cats

            You don't seem to have a point.

            We all agree oil is tops.

            You are saying that one day something else might come along. Sure, whatever. Probably will.

            But until it does abandoning oil doesn't get us there any faster.

            In fact it would take us longer without all those wonderful profits and cheap energy.

            What's your point Cats ????

          • Thwim

            Learn to read.

            Here's a hint, "diversification" does not mean "abandon" in any world but that of the moronic.

          • Jenn_

            Hows about we take the subsidies away from oil, then? Because you can make absolutely anything economical enough if you throw enough subsidy at it.

          • Cats

            These "subsidies" are lower tax rates during the start up phase of development.
            The government makes its money back later because rates spike when profits come in.

            Without subsidies the oil sands would still make economic sense.

            Our government would just be poorer, there would be less jobs, and development would be slower.

            Great economics there Jenn_ CATS!!

          • Holly Stick

            False. The government does not make the money back. We would be better off if development of the tarsands was slower, as Peter Lougheed recommended.

          • Jenn_

            "Without subsidies the oil sands would still make economic sense. "

            Great! We are agreed then. I'm not sure how we would be poorer and have less jobs if oil companies would still develop without the subsidies, but I DO know the government won't make its money back if they give tax cuts as soon as the profits start rolling. Unless you're suggesting we should only be paid back and not make any tax revenue from the natural resource. I'm not sure why anyone would want to simply give away a natural resource. Fortunately, you are the only one who's come out with anything remotely like that, and you're just a cat.

          • sourstud

            Agreed with nuclear, and geo-thermal. They are economically proven energy and we should definitely have more. Wind and solar will never replace anything, though solar is pretty good for my calculator, and might thus save a few miniature batteries. I don't know wtf micro-hydro is, though I know macro-hydro does provide much energy and could provide much more… except for environmental regulations :P Can I setup a small dam in my basement.

          • Thwim

            Actually, micro-hydro is pretty darn close to that. It's limited in where it can be applied because it does rely considerably on the natural conditions of the area — significant elevation changes with flowing water. But given those conditions it can even be done with a fairly small stream, depending on the elevation change. And the amount of energy it can produce for the resource cost is exceptional. There's a couple of companies in BC that are strong in this area.

            As for solar, while I tend to agree that the idea of large scale solar plants supplying our houses through the grid probably isn't feasible, and without significant technology improvements (of which there's some signs they may be starting to happen) probably won't be the sole source of power for a home, I'm also pretty confident in stating that within the next 20 years, most homes will be powered at least in part by solar energy generated at their own site or at the very least within their local neighborhood. Google "Solar paint" for some ideas of what's going on in this area. Wind I think will go in a similar vein, but is less likely to become ubiquitous simply because it's another technology that relies heavily on the area.

            The facts are pretty much unmistakable for anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of math and exponential functions if they care to look at some basic statistics around population growth, industrialization, and oil demand and production figures. If we won't move toward alternative energy solutions because it's the smart thing to do, we'll eventually have to do it because it'll be the only thing we can afford — and unless we take some steps to get ready, we may not be able to afford it either.

            The kicker is, "eventually" is going to be upon us a lot sooner than a lot of people seem to think.

          • Cats

            What does this have to do with the oil sands ??

            Until these technologies become profitable then its full steam ahead with the oil sands.

            You seem to think that continuing our development somehow harms research into green technology. It really doesn't …

            Weird Cats.

          • BCer in Mtl

            Well how about we stop subsidizing it through the various measures in place at federal and provincial levels, and see how it fares on the open market? That should have obvious appeal to small-c conservatives.

            Also, how about repayment with interest of the subsidies in the past? All the types still fired up by the NEP conveniently seem to forget how much money the Trudeau liberals poured into the oilsands development.

          • Cats

            You are aware that these subsidies are good for the gov't right ??

            Ie. the government gets MORE back in tax revenue.
            As opposed to subsidies in solar or wind.

            Start up Costs Cats

          • Holly Stick

            Not good for the government, and very bad for the taxpayer.

          • BCer in Mtl

            But why should government interfere at all with free enterprise? Its a market distortion.

            And the argument about getting back more in tax revenue is bollocks, if there was a business case to be made for oilsands development, gov't would not have had any sunk costs but would have only collected tax or royalties on the revenue stream.

        • Thwim

          Demand continues to grow at an exponential pace. I expect we've got a decade or so, tops, until the price of oil exceeds the costs of mass market alternative energy development.

          Once that happens, expect a sharp drop in oil prices, I would expect to below that which makes development of the oil sands profitable. If we don't already have the capital costs sunk into developing our own alternative energy infrastructure, those jobs will mostly vanish, with the profits having been taken by the management and shareholders, few of whom will likely see any reason to re-invest it into an Alberta that is behind the energy technology curve, and which has increasingly fewer significant other industries to speak of.

          • Roger

            I can only imagine…

            … just like you are…

          • Thwim

            I wish you could actually.. you've already demonstrated you have no imagination whatsoever, and precious little foresight either.

          • Cats

            You've been reading too many "peak oil|" arguments.

            There's tons of oil left. Tons of coal. An outrageous amount of natural gas.

            BTW in the scenario you're describing oil wouldn't drop in price. It would stay high since there would still be a huge market for it, even during some kind of transitional period.

            Let's get those jobs while we can !!

            Build up big profits to invest in alternative energy or whatever we like !!

            Yay oil sands! Full speed ahead !

            Obviously Cats.

          • BCer in Mtl

            If its a matter of choosing between Hibbert and someone going by the sobriquet "Cats" who works a cat-related line in their posts (however tenuous), I'll take Hibbert. Oops, there I go again, foolishly listening to some expert elitist instead of my catgut!

          • Thwim

            The rising price of oil refutes you. How much is left isn't the story.

            Look at how demand is increasing. Look at how China, the most populous nation on earth, is developing and chart the course of their energy demand over the past 10-15 years. Now do the same with India. Now take a serious look at the Middle East and how they don't allow any independent verification of the size of their reserves left in the ground, and look at how in place like Dubai they're proceeding full-steam ahead not with oil development, but with diversification away from oil related industries. You think that's being done on a whim, or are the odds that they know something about their reserves that they're not telling us?

            Now take another serious look at the major oil companies. Look at their quarterly reports and chart how the money going towards on-shore exploration has been dropping as a percentage of their expenditures even as the price of oil was rising. How does that makes much sense unless they know something about the presence of oil that you apparantly don't?

            The price of oil will stay high until economies of scale bring down the price of energy efficient consumer goods and alternative energy generation systems. Why? Because more efficient technologies at the same or lower price than their less efficient counterparts will cause people to switch. When good electric cars are as cheap as regular automobiles, people will switch because electricity is cheaper than gas.

            Oil demand will be relegated to plastics and materials creation. Still an extremely large market, to be sure, but nothing compared to today's market of gas-driven transportation.

      • sourstud

        Ha! Without the Alberta oilsands, any future Liberal government would have no tax base to fund their infinitely growing social experiment. Iggy's pretty much said as much. I suspect that the oilsands will be shut down right around the time they've dredged every last ounce out of them. And even then, it will probably still be a Conservative government that does so.

        • Jenn_

          Please provide a link to someone advocating SHUTTING DOWN the oilsands.

  • Mike T.

    DOWN WITH NORWAY!!!

    • Souil

      DOWN WITH CANADA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      CANADIAN ARE SO FULL OF THEMSELVES, IT'S DISCUSTING !!!!!!!!
      SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME,

    • jdude

      lol awesome comment

  • Olivier

    And that's why I can't bring myself to vote CPC: the holier than thou attitude is truly disturbing.

    • sourstud

      Except that our oil is "holier' than "theirs". I have also not seen any evidence that the Liberal Party of Canada is immune to unwarranted grandstanding.

  • EvInOz

    If our oil is so wonderful, why is it that we are exporting it to the United States, then importing supplies from unsavory places like Iran and Venezuela for our own use?

    Oh right, NAFTA.

    • Dot

      Cheaper to ship south than build a pipeline east. Purely economics.

      • EvInOz

        And certainly politically unpopular. Any mention of such a thing in Alberta brings up shouts of NEP.

  • Holly Stick

    The only "ethical" oil is oil that we leave in the ground.

    Producing oil from the tarsands causes huge CO2 emissions, adding to global warming and to the increase in extreme weather events the world is experiencing.

    • chet

      Holly is right.

      In fact, the last hundred thousand oil barrels produced there caused Britain's last blizzard.

      And the hundred thousand barrels before that caused (insert weather event here, whether warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier, calmer or just the same….it doesn't matter, no matter what happens, it's all man made and to redress it we must increase taxes).

      Science says we must increase taxes.

      Welcome to the new eco socialism.

    • Cats

      Its less C02 than the sources that would replace it.

      That's kinda sorta the entire argument.

      Ethical Cats.

      • BCer in Mtl

        Can you prove that?

        Because I would have thought that if we removed the subsidies from oilsands extraction, it would be less competitive, so other sources using less CO2 would fill the gap (or total available supply would decrease, raising price, but only marginally so that oilsands would remain uncompetitive).

        Point is, all the Natural Gas used to extract oil from the oilsands itself generates CO2, over & above the CO2 generated by use of the resulting oil. To be sure other extraction methods (traditional wells, offshore, oil shale) have their own generation of CO2 for extraction, but probably not as much as oilsands (possibly with exception of shale)

    • sourstud

      Thank you for repeating David Suzuki's talking points. Now please inform and formulate you're own opinion. Thank you.

  • chet

    Actually, this very rational argument is made all the time.

    It's based on a very fundamental premise that those involved in the eco socialist movement care not to take note of:

    There is a worldwide demand for oil.

    The second basic fact is that oil is a commodity.

    If we shut off our taps completely, it would be meaningless.

    Because those who drive will still drive. And they will get their oil from Iran.

    • Holly Stick

      IF you truly want to reduce imports of oil from Iran, you should be eagerly advocating for everyone to conserve energy and drive less, and supporting the development of alternative energy. Put your money where your mouth is.

      • sourstud

        Why don't you put your money where your mouth is: turn off your computer, disconnect your internet, and go back to living in the stone age. I'd bet bottom dollar you type our your drivel on a giant-ass flatscreen LCD monitor shipped here straight from China and bought on the cheap.

        Or possibly a Mac, which you paid double for so Steve Jobs could triple his marketing budget to tell you how Green his computers are, helping you sleep at night, all the while outsourcing the production of his devices to China where there are no environmental regulations, and where they really don't see the difference between Canadian ethical oil, and terrorist Iranian oil.

        In short, to cut oil imports from Iran: Shut Up!

  • chet

    Now for our buying oil from Iran, I appreciate the not-too-subtle support by the far left, with radical Islamic regimes (being as they are against our horrid Western way of life),

    so to many eco socialists, worldwide funds going to Iran instead of Canada isn't a bug, but a feature.

    • Holly Stick

      So are you going to stop driving until you can get a certificate from your local gas station attesting that their oil is the most "ethical" on earth?

      The "ethical oil" argument would be somewhat less ridiculous if its proponents could demonstrate that they understood the meaning of "ethics" and adhered to its practice.

      • chet

        No.

        I'm not going to try to lobby to destroy the most successful part of our economy, putting thousands out of work and putting Canada in an economic tailspin for no practical effect whatsoever, other than me being able to feel morally superior that I aided the "Green Movement", while not aiding it whatsoever.

        Of course I do appreaciate that to many here, the price of thousands of OTHER Canadians going into economic ruins is a price their willing to exact for that feeling of moral superiority.

        • Holly Stick

          So you don't sincerely believe in the importance of buying only "ethical oil"? You are just spouting the false Party Line?

          • chet

            It's more basic that that:

            I'm against any efforts whatsoever to curtail our oilsands exploitation for the "green" mantra.

          • Holly Stick

            So you don't really care if you are using "ethical oil" or dirty oil?

          • canstud

            By "our oil sands exploitation", you mean trans national corporation's exploitation, right? Because you and I are not the ones doing the exploitation.

          • chet

            I'm talking about the exploitation that gives thousands jobs, spins off billions in economic benefits to Canadians, and helps funds a material portion of government programs through tax revenues.

            BTW, you do know that you a free to invest in these eeevil "trans national corporations" right? You are aware that they aren't owned by a single evil man named John F. Transnational Corporation, but rather by people like you an me, via pensions and mutual funds, right?

          • Holly Stick

            As an Albertan, I am one of the ones being exploited, and the rightwing provincial and federal governments allow my province to be poisoned by a bunch of foreign oil corporations who are not paying nearly enough for the natural resources that belong to me and to all Albertans.

          • BCer in Mtl

            You are completely missing the thrust of the question, it was about ethics, not green-ness.

            If some are adopting the rationale that oilsands oil is ethical, and thats why we should continue with it & be proud of it, why don't those same people avoid buying any oil-derived product generated from non-ethical imports? I mean, the small-c conservatives really dislike Iran and Saudi Arabia for their support of terrorism (as do I), so surely they would welcome the opportunity to reduce those imports, either by boycott and/or by supporting efforts to reduce oil use (smaller cars, other energy sources).

            But at the same time, their other small-c principles are violated continuously by supporting various subsidies to the oilsand extraction.

            So which principle wins out? anti-terrorism or less government distortion of the economy?

      • sourstud

        Shouldn't you be advocating that Ontario shut down it's auto industry, and eliminate all coal-fired power plants, instead of asking Chet to make a personal decision to put himself at a competitive disadvantage in the name of the environment? I mean, if demand is the problem, then shouldn't we be targeting our energies at eliminating the demand, rather than the supply? As in the "war on drugs" in the US, it's become abundantly clear that the only way to eliminate the supply is to eliminate the demand.

  • chet

    Dear Western Oil Workers (and all of the employees of the secondary companies that rely on that industry),

    Even though oil is a commodity, and we know with certainty that if we put all of you thousands upon thousands out of work, the same cars around the world (including all of ours) will still drive, except with oil from elsewhere (including Iran and Venezuala), and hence you're horrible economic suffering will have no practical effect on the environment whatsoever,

    in order for us to feel morally superior that we are part of the "Green Movement", we are more than happy to watch your financial devastation.

    Signed,

    The tolerant progressive left

    • Dot

      Dear Wife,

      I'm a fat out of shape slob, so even if I go on a diet and shape up, you'll still be married to me.

      -chet

    • Dot

      huh? my satirical comment was deleted. wtf?

      • Dot

        btw if you are deleting Aaron, " fat out of shape slob" is a metaphor for the existing oil sands ops. jeesh.

        • Keith in Brampton

          This site has been randomly eating comments for the past few days. It's eaten some of mine, and i've seen other posts indicating it's fairly widespread. let's hope the techies who support the site are busily debugging…

    • Emily

      Cars can run on lots of things…alcohol, electricity, steam, hydrogen etc….they don't need to be run on oil.

      The US decided to go with oil because at the time they were producing it, and it was cheap to do so, and so oil barons were born.

      Alberta should long since have diversified out of a primary resources economy. You have only yourselves to blame for not doing so.

      • Holly Stick

        I love it when rightwingers are trying to appear morally superior about "ethical oil" at the same time they are accusing the rest of us of trying to appear morally superior. Rightwing arument = Transference

        You are tripping over your own message, chet, time to change feet.

        • Emily

          Cons contradict themselves on everything….they are just such big cultists, they never notice.

      • chet

        Right.

        The price of oil is going up lately because demand is going down. Got it. And all those businesses that seek to develop and sell the oil is because they are stupid. Electric cars are taking over. We should get the government to force them to act in their self interest eh?

        I have so much to learn about business and economics from the tolerant progressive left.

        • Holly Stick

          The price of food is going up because of crop failures. More climate change leading to extreme weather events will cause more crop failures and the price of food will go up even more.

          • chet

            Ok now you're just pulling my leg.

          • Emily

            Trust me, no one would touch your leg.

          • frobisher

            Not that anyone expects much from this Ministry under any gov't, but to have it reduced to the Oprah Book Club for Levant's thin shill remaimder-bin product is exemplary. Of what, who knows?

          • Holly Stick

            Dec 1, 2010: "Climate change could lead to shortages and punishing 130% price rises in staple foods within our lifetime, raising the spectre of riots and civil unrest, a new study warned today…"
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/01…
            http://www.ifpri.org/publication/food-security-fa…

            Jan 5, 2011: "Food prices have soared to record levels around the world…"
            http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business…

          • Cats

            Droughts don't have anything to do with climate change.

            Remember the dust bowl in the 30's that helped cause the great depression ?

            I'm sure it was climate change LOL.

            Lol Cats.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            Actually, that was caused by rapacious capitalism. The windstorms wouldn't have caused any problems whatsoever if the land wasn't completely sapped of nutrients and utterly mismanaged by banks trying to squeeze every last penny out of foreclosed farms.

            You might want to rethink your example there bub.

          • canstud

            and the rapid advance of climate change is caused by the insatiable thirst of consumerism and capitalism! Yay! It all comes full circle!

          • lenny

            Plane crashes don't have anything to do with pilot error.

            Remember that JAL crash caused by mechanical failure ?

            Wingnut logic skillz. Lol.

  • Holly Stick

    Harper is also spouting the stupid dishonest "ethical oil" argument:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harp…
    http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/…

  • Matlock

    Ladies and gentleman:

    Peter Kent, Minister of Nothing.

    • BCer in Mtl

      Its quite the irony that Peter Kent, who I have seen recently described as a respected journalist, has latched onto Levant's straw man argument that tarsands oil is 'ethical'. A respected journalist cribbing from a columnist notable for his lack of journslistic rigour.

  • Budster

    Oil is a commodity and is neither ethical nor unethical. The retrieving, processing of oil and the use of the products from oil all produce harmful effects on the health of plants, animals and humans. This is just a red herring floated by the Harper government which has no intention of forcing the oil companies to clean up the devastaion they are creating.
    We have purchased and are still purchasing oil from the very countries Kent attempted to label as supporteras of terrorism. That must mean we are also supporters of terrorism.
    Then there is Kent's assertion that we are using our revenues to promote democracy. Apparently he has forgotten the $900,000 spent by Harper's appointees to cover up the politically motivated defunding of 3 small NGO's and the destruction of the renowned R&D Agency and the defunding of KAIROS an agency that worked for 34 years promoting human rights.
    Kent is going to receive all the perks provided at the taxpayers' expense as a Minister to sell this bizarre, bogus rhetoric?

    • Cats

      Those harmful effects are relative.

      Far, far greater in other countries than in Canada.

      So developing our resources here has the effect of reducing the over all level of harm.

      Get over it.

      Harm reduction Cats.

      • Holly Stick

        No, it causes more CO2 emissions which are causing more extreme weather events, which are harming everyone on earth.

        • Cats

          Oil sands emissions are LESS than in non-western countries.

          Get over it Cats.

    • frobisher

      It would seem the sole remaining task at this ministry – aside from dodging the tumbleweeds blowing through it – is a full-court press on the PR front to prevent the fig leaf from falling off. 'Ethical' may even work on that front.

  • chet

    So to be clear then.

    The "progressives" on this site are more than willing to shift the demand for oil (and the billions and billions of dollars used to pay for that oil) away from our own Canadian economy,

    into the hands of despotic countries that produce it.

    I also appreciate that this issue conflicts with the progressive lefts importation of individual rights to international ones resulting in bizarre notions that just as all humans are created equal, so to are all cultures and nations.

    Which I suppose allows some here to avoid being confronted with the fact that they are more than happy to have dollars taken away from a Canadian father with three young children in the oil patch and into the coffers of the Mullas of Iran, to fund such noble causes as….say….stones for stoning impure women, and…oh I dunno…ropes for hanging gays.

    • TimesArrow

      It's about environmentally sutainable development of the rsource Chet. Only a handful of extremists on the left want it shut down, and i bet many of those just haven't thought it through. It might come as abit of a shock to you, but the world isn't just black and white no matter how many ludicous labels you try and attach to people.

      • chet

        Right.

        You only want to hurt the oil sands somewhat. Put only SOME of the workers out of work, shift only SOME of the billions to despotic regimes.

        How charitable of you.

        All in the name of lowering the planet's temperature….or…er…lessening the change in the climate, but most importantly making oneself feel that one's "saving the planet".

        • TimesArrow

          Actually i'm more concerned with the environment of Northern Alberta, that and the geneal idiocy of taking a clean fuel like gas to produce a dirty fuel like the oil tar/sands; I live downstream,people are beginning to worry about the water.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      That's one mighty fine lookin' strawman you built yerself there chiff!

      • chet

        I supposed if you live in a world where you actually believe we can lower the Earth's temperature by raising taxes in Canada,

        you also think basic economic truths are "strawmen", if said truths are inconveinient to the deity of Gaia.

        • Richard_S_Argent

          I gotta admit, I'm kind of impressed by how you got all of that out of my comment about your previous strawman argument.

        • Matlock

          Yep, you're definitely the board's authority on global warming.

          How about you repost that Friis-Christensen 1991 article? That was a real winner.

          • chet

            I could repost the Mann hockey stick graph, since totally debunked,

            Or the myriad of shockers coming out of Climategate,

            Or the predictions by the UK CRU that there'd be no more snow,

            Or a link to hundreds scientists, all of whom world renound (many from the IPCC) who speak out against this faux science,

            to the actual date showing the large South Pole Ice sheet at record high levels (you know, the South Pole which contains the vast majority of the Earth's ice, the poor step-child pole, kept in the closet by our ever-balance media)

            Or, more to the point, the updated study I linked to on that thread about the solar effects, which I said was a "better one" which you deliberately skipped over.

            Take your pick.

            Any or all?

          • Matlock

            Anyone can post debunked research, the question is what do you believe is happening?

            Yesterday you believed the planet was warming and it was due to changes in sunspots, today you're back to believing the planet is not warming.

            You flip flop back and forth, chiff.

            You're not here to argue a point of view, you're here to muddy the debate.

            And you're one of many reasons why today's "Conservative" party scares me. Meanwhile, I remain a political orphan…
            http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Pity+Canada+pol…

          • Halo_Override

            "Climategate" is all that's been debunked. Didn't you get the memo? The paper responsible for the "revelation" has retracted.

            Do try to keep up.

          • chet

            Debunked?

            So someone concocted Mann's emails? The hundreds of incriminating pages of lurid detail?

            Interesting.

            Well there you have it. Just call something, "debunked" no matter that it is a part of public record for all to see and judge for themselves, and voila….never happened.

          • Matlock

            Michael Mann's been exonerated, chiff. The report from the investigation:
            http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_…

            First Friis-Chistensen's 1991 paper (debunked), then this baseless accusation? (also debunked!)

            You're 0 for 2, chiff.

            Scrutinize AGW all you want, chiff, but it's just as important we scrutinize the scrutineers…. especially when they seem to be as sloppy as yourself.

          • chet

            As for the "climate change mantra" that has become vogue since those snake oil peddlers' predictions about a firey inferno for a planet (made a decade ago and to have been rearing its firey head by now) haven't panned out one iota,

            What does the "W" stand for in the AGW theory?

            Anyone?

            Anyone?

          • Holly Stick

            All of chiff's BS arguments can be found here with explanations of why they are wrong, wrong, wrong:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            And about chet's lying claim that the hockey stick is broken:

            "…Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years."
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-sti…

    • Emily

      Now you're down to arguing that the oil sands should be kept going as a form of welfare….so some father of 3 can support his children!

      And you put that welfare payment in opposition to evil mullahs in Iran who follow a different religion than you do.

      I see nothing here on cleaning up the oil sands because they cause harm to people, especially Albertans…for it's own sake.

      Stopping effluent being dumped in the Athabasca river might be a nice start…Suncor just got nailed for it, and you can bet it's not the only time it's happened, nor are they the only company doing it.

      • chet

        Interesting.

        So NOT seeking to destroy a regional business through government intervention is really….."welfare".

        Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you today's "progressive left".

        • Emily

          No, keeping something dirty going without a clean-up 'for the sake of the kiddies'….is welfare.

          Not good for the dad and kiddies either.

          Mines used up suckers like you for over a century, chet.

          Clean up your act.

          PS….and there is no 'progressive left'

          • chet

            No "progressive left"?

            My goodness, you should be sure to tell those who self identify as "progressives":

            here: http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/blog/affiliate….

            Or that gazillion others worldwide who speak of (and for) the progressive mantra, that they are in fact wrong, and that they don't exist.

            Just like the South Pole ice sheet.

            If you don't want it to exist, it just doesn't.

            How….progressive.

          • Emily

            Nope…no progressive left.

            Only progressive I've ever been is conservative

            People can call themselves anything they want….Blogging Tories for example aren't Tories.

            However there is no 'progressive' party in Canada.

            And since you just make up things as you go along…..

          • chet

            All of those on the "progressive blogroll" linked to are conservatives are they?

            I appreaciate your attempt to back out of your rediculous assertion with the "words don't mean anything" schtick,

            but I'll stay here in the real world where words and other symbols do in fact matter very much.

            In the meantime feel free to call up "down", left "right" and night "day".

          • Emily

            Gawd no, no Cons are progressive.

            But there's nothing about the 'left' on there either. Just a bunch of chatter about food, and the US assassination as far as I can see.

            Chet, you've never been in the real world.

    • Fred Fontaine

      how dumb is this argument? The world as we know it will only continue and advance as it has as for the last couple of hundred years, only faster. WE are only half way through our need for oil. Why does the left insist that we sell short on one of our most plentiful resource and invest our future capital in an unproven liability (green energy)? We make up less than 2% of the carbon problem yet our enviro's would have you believe that we should have a leadership role in controling the other 98%. Come on? We need to focuss on what we are doing and work to do it faster and cleaner with less waste of any source. That just makes sense, reduce waste. The oilsands is ethical because Canadians are ethical people. We will continue to make things better as we have since the days of New France and the British Territories. But we must focuss on what we are already doing and do it better, not radically shift from an industry that pay dividends to one that we mortgage our grand children. Oh and green energy has a nasty little secrete. Google rare earth metals and environment. These special little metals the are so necessary for green technology cause far more environmental degredation per output than oil ever will.__

  • Skinny Dipper

    The Conservatives must be going after the ethic vote.

    • Emily

      BOOOOOO! Heh

    • Holly Stick

      They've already locked up the stupid vote.

  • Holly Stick

    And what is "ethical" about the tarsands operations causing fish to be deformed?:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/otta…

  • chet

    Fun question:

    Have you ever seen the base of a windmill?

    That pile of bloody mush I mean?

    OK that was sort of a trick question, I don't expect our liberal elites to let slip the birds that are continuously sliced and diced by windmills.

    Here's a taste:
    http://www.windbyte.co.uk/birds.html

    Remember:

    Slicing and dicing is the politically correct way to kill thousands of birds.

    Oil ponds? The ones who haven't been rescued by bird medivac under media bright lights, who die – that's the politically incorrect way to kill them.

    So shhhhhh. We won't speak of such windmill meatgrinding any longer…mums the word.

    • Holly Stick

      You prefer the Alberta tarsands producing deformed fish?

    • Matlock

      "Slicing and dicing is the politically correct way to kill thousands of birds."

      Oh heck no. The politically correct way to kill thousands of birds is in a tailings pond. At least it must be politically correct given our governing politicians believe it is the correct thing to do.

    • Emily

      So…Holland is hip deep in dead birds is it?

      Sorry chet…flying into windows kills way more birds than your mythical evil windmills.

      • chet

        Of course it's "mythical".

        That there are left leaning progressives is "mythical" if it puts you in a spot on a comment board.

        Indeed there appears to be no basic fact, howsoever incontavertable that you would casually brush aside as a "lie" if it means adding some reactionary comment to a political foe.

        If I saw the sun rise in the East today, I'm sure you'd have no hesitation denying that we either have a Sun or the Earth's rotation produces a sunrise in the east.

        Just as there are no "progressives" there really are no facts, eh Emily.

        Of course, given the inherent dishonesty with which you approach matters, I have no choice but to never again waste a keystroke responding to you. Enjoy this response, as it will be the last.

    • Fred Fontaine

      how dumb is this argument? The world as we know it will only continue and advance as it has as for the last couple of hundred years, only faster. WE are only half way through our need for oil. Why does the left insist that we sell short on one of our most plentiful resource and invest our future capital in an unproven liability (green energy)? We make up less than 2% of the carbon problem yet our enviro's would have you believe that we should have a leadership role in controling the other 98%. Come on? We need to focuss on what we are doing and work to do it faster and cleaner with less waste of any source. That just makes sense, reduce waste. The oilsands is ethical because Canadians are ethical people. We will continue to make things better as we have since the days of New France and the British Territories. But we must focuss on what we are already doing and do it better, not radically shift from an industry that pay dividends to one that we mortgage our grand children. Oh and green energy has a nasty little secrete. Google rare earth metals and environment. These special little metals the are so necessary for green technology cause far more environmental degredation per output than oil ever will.

      • Jenn_

        Where did Dot advocate "that we sell short on one of our most plentiful resource and invest our future capital in an unproven liability"? Responding to a person's point by switching it out with what "someone" else may have said (and I don't know anybody who's ever said that) results in you basically agreeing with Dot and yet being so damn blinded by partisanship that you can't even see it.

        Yup, your argument is dumb.

        • Holly Stick

          Fred spammed several threads here with the same nonsensical post.

      • Dot

        Fast Freddy with the facts.

        Say, here's a Youtube audio file I put together back in 2006 when no one was talking at all about the oil sands, as the NY Times reporter highlights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0DUJBAK8gI .Notice how far the discussion has evolved since then?

        And, a blog entry from WCI in Sept (before I was banned there) highlighting the choices as I saw them:
        —

        Suppose there are two sectors: a "good sector" and a "bad sector". (Dream up whatever sophisticated theory you like about why one sector is good and the other bad, just make sure you use lots of buzzwords).

        The symbiosis created when a booming frontier town engulfs a generation of male highschool graduates, and entrains a culture of boozin', fightin', and whorin', maintains a high average standard of living, while maximizing comparative advantage, is the best economic strategy for the short term, well, until at least the manic pace of building stops.

        Here's an economics question. Say it costs industry $5 /barrel to clean up the oil sands (water,air pollution, emissions) and the output is forecast to grow to 3 million/day. So, roughly $5 billion/yr.

        Do you:

        a) Invest in R&D, bite the bullet, and fix the problem , thereby maintaining your comparative advantage (security of supply to friendly countries)

        b) Spend a bunch of money on pr, spin doctors, talking heads, doomsdayers and engage politicians to "market" your story in order to maintain status quo? It's cheaper.

        Which is the best allocation of resources?

        In related news:
        Alberta’s water watchdog under tighter scrutiny over oil sands http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/albe…

        Prentice, saying he’s ‘disgusted’ by images of deformed fish from the Athabasca River, will review agency overseeing province’s water quality

        • Fred Fontaine

          The oil sands is alread investing massively in R&D, finding ways to eliminate tailings ponds is already starting to happen. This will and needs to continue. Also "resource companies" are investing massive capital in the green sector. This too is good. but my argument is the as a country that contributes less than 2% of the CO2 problem and the oil sands is only a small fraction of that, why on earth would we not exploit that to the maximum? We do not need to participate in these wealth transfer scemes that are trying to pass themselves off as climate policy.

          Dumping toxins should never be allowed and companies should be fined heavily for doing that. Companies will pay attention to that.

          • Fred Fontaine

            But insisting that we cut off our nose to spite our face seems silly to me. And seriously, before people go and push these so-called "green" alternatives they really should do their homework. Almost all of these technologies require rare earth metals in order to make them work. Rare earth metals are for one thing, rare and for another the mining of said metals is environmentally devastating.
            Pushing "geen" is BS. We need to keep doing what we are doing and do it better.

          • Dot

            The oil sands is alread investing massively in R&D, finding ways to eliminate tailings ponds is already starting to happen.

            Yes, but in response to public pressure brought on by the "environmentalists". The key is the customers – the US, not Canada (if your strategy is reactionist)

            So, we agree in principle – perhaps be differ in pace (of development). You can have both – $$$ (jobs etc) and protection of the environment. Good for those involved in R&D.

            Btw, there was a good article on this in Sat's G&M by NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE. Petroleum Patent Pending http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business…

            This is a fundamental shift, and all the more reason to increase the public/political pressure. Most CEOs WANT to improve environmental performance, but they NEED the regs to bring about change – otherwise they do what is most economic for their shareholders – which means status quo.

          • Fred Fontaine

            Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

            I agree that we need to push the iol companies through threat of stiff fines to make the right investment to prevent pollution. What has happened in the past is not acceptable, but thing are improving rapidly. Is this due to the pressure of the environmentalist? Probably. Everybody goes with the staus quo in the absence of a reason not to.

            What I am saying is that things have and will contiue to improve.

          • Holly Stick

            What evidence do you have that things are improving rapidly? Why would we trust the tarsands corporations or RAMP which was collecting deformed fish and not reporting on them?

          • Fred Fontaine

            Big Industry in Canada is and has always been improving and evolving. It has to, but nothing happens overnight. In the meantime the revenue that comes to all levels of government from the different types resource energies pay for the things that our society needs. It would be impossible to suddenly stop that and invest massively in technologies who's imputs are also very damaging to the environment. The extraction of the rare earth metals required in most "green" technologies is anything but green, and far more birds are killed by windmills than oilsands.

          • Holly Stick

            In other words you are spouting meaningless nonsense.

            And it is false to claim that windmills kill more birds than oilsands do. Probably RAMP amd the oil corporations avoid reporting on bird kills when they can get away with it.

      • Holly Stick

        Stop spamming.

    • Mike T.

      You, sir, are an idiot.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    Calling our oil "ethical" because we don't fund terrorists while neglecting to mention the environmental concerns surrounding oil sands development is sorta like Twizzlers advertising their product as "Fat Free" while neglecting to mention that each piece contains about 80 cal.

  • g.fawlkes

    Levant's A-OK with efforts to destabilize the democratic process… funds directed towards a party that relies upon vitrol and fabricated facts and ol' fashion lies against rivals of a certain party. I wonder if one party's regular windfall of donations could be bolstered by employer-encouraged tithing…

  • Cats

    PC is a myth.

    It just means you're a self-hating Liberal.

    Poor gal Cats.

  • Holly Stick

    What needs to be done about the tarsands:

    "…At the end of the day, Alberta's junk crude, a screaming signature of peak oil, remains a strategic resource that should serve as a continental bridge to a low carbon economy. Furthermore, energy transitions take decades not years. This reality alone makes superior environmental performance in the oil sands not a rhetorical luxury or propaganda item, but an issue of critical national importance…"
    http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/01/07/KentsOilyPor…

  • Holly Stick
  • EETremblay

    Buying oil from the Kleptocracy in Nigeria and importing it, is ethically preferable to producing the oil domestically from the Tar Sands in Alberta due to the higher quantities of Greenhouse Gasses released producing oil from Tar Sands. The downside from Climate Change will will be felt by untold numbers of future generations, while the downside of living under a Kleptocracy in Nigeria affects far fewer people.

  • David

    Does the Canadian government really expect us to believe that it does not try to "destabilize other governments"? If so then why do we fund CSIS? And why don't we?
    It wouldn't be too hard to argue that Canadian oil revenues were used to destabilize the government of Afghanistan.

Previous

Next

From Macleans