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

'It's bait and switch'

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, January 10, 2011 10:25am - 73 Comments

Steven Chase looks at the government’s rhetorical turn towards “ethical oil.”

Environmental activists say the Harper government is adopting a classic diversionary tactic to redirect attention away from the oil sands’ poor environmental record. “It’s a rhetorical device; it’s bait and switch,” said Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Pembina Institute. “It’s designed to make us forget about the negative environmental impacts we have in Canada because you are comparing to a completely lower standard in other countries.”

Laura Payton has more.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Oil is neither ethical or non-ethical, it's just a commodity.

    What Kent is actually saying is that we are 'nicer people' than the other suppliers. Something that just politicizes the oil sands, because as a sales pitch, it sucks.

    If the oil sands put even half as much effort into cleaning up as they do into pr/spin/image they might get somewhere.

  • tobyornotoby

    Let's see, Dr. David Schindler, founder of the Experimental Lakes Area (where he and others proved that phosphates were causing eutrophication of freshwater lakes) publishes a paper that shows Tar Sands are polluting the Athabaska River.

    Environment Minister Peter Kent with background in — what was it again? Oh right broadcast journalism — says it's not true.

    Who to believe: Stockholm Water Medal winner with 30+ years of distinguished science and public service, or newbie Conservative mouthpiece in charge of doing nothing about Environment problems?

    • TimesArrow

      http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/david_schi…

      Schindler's bio…who the f**k's Peter Kent again?

    • Cytotoxic

      That study was shown to be bunk I believe.

      • Holly Stick

        You believe wrong. Maybe some lying oil shills attacked it, but that is not a valid way to assess a report.

  • alfanerd

    If its the environment these people care about, as they claim, then comparing the oil sand's record to the worse environmental records of other countries is simply logical.

    After all, the environment is the environment, and an oil spill in Nigeria is just as bad as an oil spill anywhere else.

    It’s designed to make us forget about the negative environmental impacts we have in Canada because you are comparing to a completely lower standard in other countries.

    That's the point genius: the lower standard in other countries.

    • Leo

      Nigeria: 'World oil pollution capital' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10313107

      • Jan

        What the oil companies are doing in Nigeria makes the case for strong environmental standards, Left to their own ethics, they will do whatever they can get away with. .

    • TJCook

      The question here, as you well know, is the carbon produced as the the tar is strip mined, boiled and processed into synthetic crude.

      Oil spills and funding for terrorism are significant issues as well but our government is deliberately changing the topic away from the serious questions about our own oil.

      As you well know.

      We will always be able to find someone with lower standards against whom we can compare ourselves. The question that matters is what standards we set for ourselves.

      • alfanerd

        Yes, Im well aware that "environmentalists" think that CO2 (i.e., main ingredient in photosynthesis) is a pollutant.

        But I think its perfectly legitimate for our government to point out that compared to other sources of oil, ours has plenty of upside. Because it does.

        And when you say "the question that matters is what standards we set for ourselves", who does that matter to? Elizabeth May? In the real world, people who buy oil must ask themselves who to buy it from, and they have to compare various sources of oil. So to compare oil sources for their degree of "ethicalness" is perfectly legitimate and reasonable.

        On the other hand, unless you're an environmental activist (i.e., irrelevant to the economy), there is no reason to consider our standards in isolation. That is until businessmen start refusing to buy oil which is not produced according to some pie-in-the-sky standard…

        • Jenn_

          Yes, fine, agreed with all that. Now, let's take it one step further. If oil has nowhere to go but up as demand increases and reserves decrease, why does it make business sense for the country to sell it all now and have nothing left in 60-70 years when the price is REALLY high? Add to that the possibility that our current procedures just might be affecting the water supply downstream, and maybe we should not increase production (which isn't the same as saying halt production, you'll notice) until we find out if that is the case and if we can do something about it.

          Because if you think the price of oil is going to rise, wait to see what happens to the price of water in a few centuries! Or not, but wouldn't it be good to keep our options open?

          • alfanerd

            You make some good points, and these choices belong to the people of Alberta, who own this resource.

            Maybe in 60-70 years technology will render oil obsolete.

          • Emily

            Oh it'll be a great deal sooner than that.

          • Jenn_

            Yes. The people own the resource. I'm just concerned that they're being fed misinformation, either by misdirection like this ethical oil stuff, or by outright lies, like the government environmental protection agency that is in the pocket of the oil companies.

            Or maybe Albertans are extremely short sighted as a group. Or maybe they haven't actually been asked? Normally, the results of an election will give the answer, but under what remarkable circumstances would Alberta NOT elect a conservative government (either provincially, which would include Wild Rose, or federally.). They could, I imagine, want a conservative government and yet still want to protect their waters and their children's birthright.

        • TJCook

          I'm predicting this will be a waste of my time, but here goes:

          "environmentalists… think that CO2… is a pollutant."

          Yup. And all they have to back them up is the consensus opinion of the world's environmental scientists.

          "So to compare oil sources for their degree of "ethicalness" is perfectly legitimate and reasonable."

          Agreed. And the people we export to are concerned about the ethicalness of our oil, considering its disproportionately large carbon footprint. And the point of this article is that our government is resorting to a bait-and-switch strategy rather than addressing those concerns. What's your point?

          "there is no reason to consider our standards in isolation."

          Nobody made that claim. What I actually said was that you can always find somebody worse than yourself if you're looking to justify your own decisions. I believe that's known as moral relativism.

          For example: "Sure, I cheat on my wife but I always use a condom when I do. Bob over there doesn't, so you gotta ask yourself who is truly wrong here."

          • alfanerd

            We can have the whole CO2 discussion if you want. Let me know. I'll start by repeating that without CO2, there would be no green on this planet, because CO2 is the main ingredient in photosynthesis, and photosynthesis also uses chlorophyll, which is the actual source of the green colour of plants.

            I will also note that a scientitsts' consensus is not an argument in favour of anything, and that scientists have been wrong, even in consensus, many times over. So if you insist on using argument by authority, good luck with that, but know that it doesnt actually prove anything.

            Also, in your previous post you said "The question that matters is what standards we set for ourselves. "

            That is the same thing as suggesting our standards should be considered in isolation. So when you now say "Nobody made that claim" in relation to my point that there is no reason to consider our standards in isolation, you are contradicting yourself.

            You are also wrong in your definition of moral relativism. Moral relativism means that morality depends on the subjective circumstances of someone. Its most often used when lefties try to excuse the barbarity of 3d world practices, such as female genital mutilation, honour killings, terrorist attacks…

            Anyhow, the point of this "article" (that's a generous assessment) is that Steven Chase attacks our PM for making a completely reasonable point: that our oil is more ethical then OPEC's. What Steven Chase really wants is tighter standards on the oil sands (or I suspect, shutting down the oil sands). But he's too chicken to make the case for that directly – he just attacks our PM for making a completely legitimate point.

          • Holly Stick

            Stupid alfanerd does not understand the problem with having CO2 in the atmosphere way above our heads where there are no plants. The problem is that the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere way up there, the more that atmsphere absorbs solar heat and allows less heat to escape again. Earth is getting more heat from the sun than it is losing, and therefore Earth is getting warmer.

            Plus more CO2 absorbed by the oceans makes the water more acidic and apt to kill fish.

            But silly alfanerd just wants to spout about how CO2 is plant food, as if that were relevant.

          • TJCook

            Yup, complete waste of my time.

            Let's put it another way. You said: "there is no reason to consider our standards in isolation. That is until businessmen start refusing to buy oil which is not produced according to some pie-in-the-sky standard… "

            There's real risk that US federal or state governments will enact legislation that will impair their purchase of our oil because of its carbon footprint. Now can you talk about it, or do you have some additional bullsh*t reason not to?

            And you know perfectly well that you're misrepresenting Chase's article.

          • alfanerd

            Well, normally I would respond that no US administration is dumb enough to cut off oil supply from Canada when they would need to replace Canadian oil with oil from Venezuela, Saudia Arabia or Iran, but in this case I agree that this argument has a major flaw.

            I dont think Im misrepresenting Chase at all.

            Anyhow, Canadian oil is hard to get at, and requires energy-intensive methods in order for it to be retrieved. Short of inventing new extraction techniques, that's that. So what should Harper do? Shut down the oil sands? Right. Buy carbon credits? Oh right, the Chicago Carbon Exchange is bankrupt.

            It doesnt matter anyhow, if the US is dumb enough not to want our oil, we can sell it to China.

          • TJCook

            So what was your point again? It's so difficult to keep track when you drag the goalposts around like that. It does sound like you concede that, at the very least, we have a problem because our biggest oil customer is uncomfortable with our product's carbon footprint.

            Chase's key point is in the paragraph quoted above. You have yet to address that point, yet you claim to have fairly represented his article.

            "So what should Harper do? Shut down the oil sands? Right. Buy carbon credits?"

            I'll leave it to you to figure out the weakness in logic with that statement.

          • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

            If I were a plant, I wouldn't be at all concerned.

            As to consensus, our friend Albert said, of a book published called "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein", he replied, 'Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.'

            There isn't even one able to disprove the science .

          • alfanerd

            You're quite right about Einstein. Someone who mentions 'consensus' in a scientific discussion has no clue what he's talking about.

            As for disproving the "science" of the IPCC, that's easy enough. Let's apply the scientific method together:
            -hypothesis: doubling of CO2 will lead to 3-6 degrees of warming
            -prediction from hypothesis: hotspot in the tropical troposhere
            -observations: no hotspot
            -conclusion: hypothesis rejected.

            QED. You're right, only one guy is enough.

          • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

            Well, something didn't post

            What I said was, 'Doesnt disprove that atmospheric CO2 leads to warming.'

          • lenny

            Ahhh, wingnuts grappling with science and logic is always good for a larf.

            hypothesis: smoking causes lung cancer
            prediction from hypothesis: mechanism by which smoke in lungs alters cell function
            observation: no mechanism observed
            conclusion: smoke 'em if you got 'em!

            But seriously, you're repeating crap that has already been demonstrated to you to be such.
            The hotspot is an artifact of warming not specifically co2-driven warming, and as you acknowledged, it has indeed warmed. So, you're contradicting yourself.
            Furthermore, your unqualified claim that there is "no hotspot" is itself garbage.

            Lastly, on an earlier thread you claimed that the "hotspot" is evidence of positive feedbacks, and stopped responding when I asked for a reference.
            What is the source for your claim?

          • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

            Doesn't disprove that atmospheric CO2 leads to warming.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

      I prefer environmental policy in Canada to be set in Canada; not in Nigeria.

      By such flawed logic, we should lower your income by 19/20 to bring it more in line with the standards of other countries.

  • r sampling

    the pembina institute is not objective and as such their musings carry no weight

    • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

      Ezra Levant is not objective and as such his musings carry no weight.

  • NorthernPoV

    No surprise here … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

    "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
    (quickly followed by the destruction of the Canadian environmental balance)

  • http://twitter.com/MichaelTripper @MichaelTripper

    the Canadian media and indeed the entire CanCon establishment – anyone who takes their cash eg – have been using this tactic for as long as I've been alive, ie telling Canadians to shut up because other people elsewhere have it worse. Definitely not quite so starkly but the message has been clear to anyone paying to attention.

    • Holly Stick

      "Eat your oil. Children in Africa would love to have such nice ethical oil to eat."

  • Jan

    But if we're arguing for the use of 'ethical' oil for the U.S. ,shouldn't we be working towards not using imported oil ourselves?

    • tedbetts

      Stop right there, Jan. That is dangerous silly talk you are undertaking.

      Taken to its logical conclusion, you might end up daring to ask the current government to be consistent and to put action to its own words.

      And we both know that that is completely sacrilege to this government. So put a sock in it. Or some oily sand.

    • YYZ

      I buy that.

  • danby

    When you use the worst offenders as your base measuring point, you are hardly leading the charge.

    Stephane Dion Stephen Harper: Not a leader

  • Emily

    No, then they'll consider it 'their' oil….and we know what happens when Americans consider a foreign resource their own.

  • Dot

    It's not surprising to me that pro-oil sands people have come up with this rhetoric. It's a notion put forward by some of the more radical environmental groups in the past ("immoral, unethical etc.")

    Personally, I believe this resource should be sold as a secure and reliable commodity to the US. And therefore would warrant a premium over other less secure sources – enough of a premium to effectively clean up its operations (water, air, emissions) and offset other hidden costs. Win-win.

    • Holly Stick

      I think Ezra or some backroom boy came up with the idea of "ethical oil" that they could market like diamonds that are not blood diamonds.

      • Dot

        The real political battle on this issue is in the U.S.

        I doubt they know who Ezra is, or really care. He is getting far more attention on this issue than is really warranted.

  • Holly Stick

    Whoever's passing out the rightwing talking points today.

  • John D

    When you set your moral baseline as Saudi Arbia…

    • TJCook

      Exactly. If you compare yourself to somebody bad enough, you can "justify" anything.

      Look at the Americans, who had to defend Abu Ghraib by saying "well, our torture wasn't as bad as Saddam's."

  • tedbetts

    You are swallowing the whole bait and switch strategy of the Conservatives.

    Of course we have better environmental standards than Nigeria. Is that really what this should even be about? Beating the environmental standards of Nigeria?

    We have very high environmental standards because we have a very low threshhold for the harm that can be done to humans, animals and the environment from man-made pollutants.

    Oilsands, as much as it may be more ethical than anyone else, still produces pollutants. Those pollutants cause harm. Plain and simple.

    The Conservative response to addressing that harm is not simply to look away but to bless it, give exemptions from existing laws and spend money on promoting doing nothing for clean up. We'll end up with Nova Scotia style tar ponds that no one deals with as people and animals get very sick.

    Very few Canadians and even few environmentalists are saying no to the oil sands. What we are saying is that we have two separate issues: extraction of oil from the oilsands, and dealing with the environmental consequences.

    • alfanerd

      Oilsands, as much as it may be more ethical than anyone else, still produces pollutants. Those pollutants cause harm. Plain and simple.

      Agreed.

      The Conservative response to addressing that harm is not simply to look away but to bless it, give exemptions from existing laws and spend money on promoting doing nothing for clean up..

      Its not so much that I disagree with that statement but that it seems to come straight out of a Greenpeace/ Liberal party talking point, that I strongly suspect it's vastly exaggerated or complete bunk. Im pretty sure Harper would love to point to a good environmental record for the oil sands. But he's not willing to sacrifice what is the economic engine of his own province for it.

      few environmentalists are saying no to the oil sands

      Really? they sure arent being very vocal about it. Every environmentalist I hear from seems to think the oil sands are the worst thing ever to happen to humanity. Which, incidentally, is why I dont attach much value to anything that comes out of the mouth of a self-styled 'environmentalist' (in fact I puke a little every time I see the word).

      • tedbetts

        It is no one's talking point. In fact, I wish that it was. The Liberals are fully behind the oilsands development and are taking no strong position on the related environment disaster.

        The Conservatives meanwhile campaigned on a "made in Canada" environmental plan, then once in government they talked only about holding off on environmental plans in order to align with the US. Then, the moment the US actually brought in some regulations, they are saying:

        "Mr. Kent said the Harper government will not impose any greenhouse-gas reductions on the oil patch that would discourage investment across the sector.

        Canada, which has committed to roughly matching U.S. efforts on fighting climate change, is watching carefully as the Obama administration rolls out new emission rules for power plants and refineries. Mr. Kent said Canada will draw up its own emission standards for petroleum refineries – including oil-sands facilities – but added there’s no schedule yet.

        • alfanerd

          Sure, but you're going off on a tangent here, and conflating pollutants with GHGs.

          People buy oil from various sources. Some buy from OPEC countries, others from Canada. Canada is better than OPEC countries. That's the point of what Harper was saying, and that's what Steven Chase was attacking. I disagree with Steven Chase for attacking Harper on this. What Harper said was right, and he was right to say it.

          Mr. Chase is just upset that Harper is commenting on an issue which is separate from his pet cause.

          Now, if Mr. Chase wants to attack Harper for his environmental record, it's all well and good. But this is not a case of 'bait and switch' – Mr Harper made a valid and relevant point, and its valid and relevant regardless of how you view Harper's environmental record.

          You seem to be doing the same thing as Mr. Chase: you're upset that Harper is commenting on the fact that Canadian oil is extracted using relatively good environmental standards because in your view those standards are not objectively good.

          These are too different things. If you want to buy oil today, you can either get it from a relatively good source like Canada, or from a relatively bad source, like Nigeria or Venezuela.

          Unfortunately there is no source of oil which has no down-side.

          • tedbetts

            On the contrary.

            Chase talks about the environmental impact. Greenhouse gases is just one. The worst charge against oilsands is the good old fashion pollutants in the eco-system complaint. Specifically the tailings ponds. There is also the exceptions that Harper is granting to oilsands on emissions.

            Look, I have family who work in the oilsands. I personally and nearly directly work for and benefit from the oilsands (in addition to the general benefit we all get). I am a proponent of extraction but that doesn't mean I am blind to the real harm.

            In order to not address the very large environmental issues involved, the very real harm being caused, Harper and Kent want to change the subject and focus.

            They want us to think it's all OK because somewhere someone else is worse. It's classic Harper: our deficit is OK and not a problem because Greece/Portugal/Ireland/etc. are bankrupt; our ethical bankruptcy and corruption is OK because 15 years ago, 3 PMs ago and 5 Liberal leaders ago, Chretien did something worse; our democratic deficit is OK because, well, we don't like the Liberals.

      • tedbetts

        It is no one's talking point. In fact, I wish that it was. The Liberals are fully behind the oilsands development and are taking no strong position on the related environment disaster.

        The Conservatives meanwhile campaigned on a "made in Canada" environmental plan, then once in government they talked only about holding off on environmental plans in order to align with the US. Then, the moment the US actually brought in some regulations, they are saying:

        "Mr. Kent said the Harper government will not impose any greenhouse-gas reductions on the oil patch that would discourage investment across the sector.
        Canada, which has committed to roughly matching U.S. efforts on fighting climate change, is watching carefully as the Obama administration rolls out new emission rules for power plants and refineries. Mr. Kent said Canada will draw up its own emission standards for petroleum refineries – including oil-sands facilities – but added there’s no schedule yet.

        “It is not our intention to discourage development of one of our great natural resources. We know it can be developed responsibly.”

      • tedbetts

        As for environmentalists asking for cleanup and not shut down of the oilsands…

        "Every environmentalist I hear from seems to think the oil sands are the worst thing ever to happen to humanity."

        Really? Now who's exaggerating?

        Just look at what James Cameron and Elizabeth May and even Suzuki have been saying. There are definitely some who want it completely shut down, but relatively very few. Environmentalists are very concerned about the real harm that is being done. Certainly, they are indifferent to the results that flow from maintaining ordinary environmental standards, and a clean word trumps corporate profits for most.

        But most of them would be fine with oilsands if existing environmental rules were enforced.

        • alfanerd

          I hope you're right. But, until these standards are improved, the point remains: there is less environmental damage from Alberta's oil then there is from OPEC oil. So enviros should logically promote better standards for the oil sands, but also they should promote the oil sands over OPEC oil.

          • tedbetts

            Of course we should be promoting Canadian oil over OPEC oil. But that is not the issue being avoided here.

            In fact, the point is that by making that the issue you and Harper and Kent are trying to change the channel. Even Harper and Levant and Kent are not talking about Nigerian environmental standards. They call it "ethical oil" because of what happens to the profits (eg. Kent saying the profits make Canada better and don't go into terrorism).

            Because it is a point of fact that there is far more environmental damage in Canada from Alberta's oil then there is from OPEC oil.

            Personally, call me selfish, but I care far more about permanent damage to Canadians and Canadian wildlife and the Canadian ecosystems than I do about Nigeria.

            And Harper et al are highly hypocritical in this bait and switch tactic: if unethical oil was really a problem, why have they not spent any time campaigning to stop us from importing it? We produce enough oil to serve our own needs, so why import at all?

  • Holly Stick

    No, they are stupid and dishonest. Par for the course for him.

  • TimesArrow

    'In a CBC interview last week, Kent also seemed to step back from his predecessor Jim Prentice’s concerns about pollution in the Athabasca River…

    Prentice set up a federal panel to look into water quality monitoring in the region after Alberta scientist David Schindler found toxic pollutants downstream from oilsands developments, including mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium…

    But in the CBC interview, Kent said there’s no evidence the oilsands are polluting the river. He went as far as to say Schindler is wrong (despite his research having been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal).

    Does this mark a shift for the government? Is Kent stepping back from some of Prentice’s work on the file?'

    Yeah, that's sure going to help when you're trying to brand yourself as the ethical and environmentally default choice for America's instiable thirst for oil.

    Where does Harper get these clowns?

    It's almost like the're proud of their ignorance – Obama.

  • Holly Stick

    Ethical cancer.
    Ethical fish deformities.
    Ethical toxic lakes.

  • JamesHalifax

    Holly Schtick wrote:
    “Stupid alfanerd does not understand the problem with having CO2 in the atmosphere way above our heads ”

    Frankly, Holly…..given your thought process and capacity for logic, it is clear that CO2 isn’t the only thing far above your head.

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    More importantly, it creates a false dilemma in which only two choices exist when in fact there are other choices that are simply discarded.

  • YYZ

    This is the important point; I agree about the broader 'ethical' oil point and actually think it's rather good policy to try and convince America that getting oil from us is better than getting it from the thugs of OPEC.

    However, that has absolutely zero to do with the environmental implications of the oil sands and petroleum more broadly, which in my opinion, must be addressed.

  • dave

    If the Conservatives truly believe in the relevance of “ethical oil", then surely they will lead by example and bar imports from "unethical" suppliers to apply pressure on them to improve their behaviour, no?

  • dave

    Follow-up questions for Peter Kent:

    When will the Government of Canada please supply a list of those oil providers it deems 'unethical'?
    When will legislation be passed requiring Gas Stations to provide the source of their crude so consumers can constructively choose not to support said suppliers?

  • Jan

    Exactly. It begs a National energy strategy which I haven't heard the government suggest.

  • Jan

    This government doesn't take follow-up questions.

  • TJCook

    I think they should get moving on that. They should call it the National Energy Program. Their base will love it :)

  • Holly Stick

    And they will surely start a national campaign to conserve energy and to make the change to cleaner alternative energy and a low-carbon economy. Any day now…

  • tedbetts

    That would require vision, long-term thinking, making hard decisions, being consistent and not being hypocritical.

    In other words, it ain't going to happen.

  • http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

    Psst… Canada is a overwhelmingly an *exporter* of oil, not an importer. Any such import ban would be meaningless.

  • tedbetts

    Psst… Canada exports about $400 billion worth of crude oil, and imports about $356 billion. That's about 1.192 million barrels imported every day, buddy, which makes us the 13th/14th largest importer of oil in the world.

    Nice try, but I'm not so sure a 9% differential counts as "overwhelming".

    We purchase around 55 per cent of our oil from countries such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. We are also turning increasingly toward new sources including Russian and African producers.

    (But in fairness to you, I'm guessing you are a Conservative so numbers (especially financial numbers), statistics and facts are probably not your strong suit. So we'll give a break. When all you know is spin, lies and myths, is it really your fault reality is a difficult concept?)

  • Jan

    Hey, when you've got ethics on your side, who needs facts? It's the Bush approach.

  • Cytotoxic

    We do that because it's more efficient. If we didn't import, we would just burn our own, not export it….and then our non-exports will be made up for by imports from the nations we don't import from anymore! Everybody loses so it must be left-wing idea bona fide.

  • http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

    Wrong again, genius. If Canada were to start banning imports from certain countries, we'd have to make up the difference by reducing the oil we export to other countries by the same amount. (Unless you're a fan of the "let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark" plan…) With less Canadian oil sold on international markets, the other importing countries would need to look elsewhere to meet their oil needs. And of course, their obvious solution would be to buy the Saudi/Venezuelan/etc. oil that Canada just rejected.

    Put simply (so even a financially/statistically/factually illiterate liberal like yourself can understand): Canada banning oil imports from bad countries would be completely useless at changing their behaviour.

    The only way to hurt their oil-based power is to either reduce global demand for oil, or to produce more Canadian oil… and the oil sands are the best way to do the latter.

    Furthermore, your entire line of attack is blatantly dishonest: create a straw man version of your opponent's argument ("All oil from bad countries should be banned!") and then claim they're being hypocritical for not following it!

  • tedbetts

    Of course. Duh. (Although we import and export not merely because it is "efficient" but because the cost of transporting oil south and refining it there is so much vastly cheaper than transporting it east or refining it in Canada; saying we do it because it is merely "efficient" seems like oversimplification to the point I'm not even sure you know what you are talking about.)

    But what's your point? And what does this have to do with the discussion (bait and switch of "ethical oil" claims, and Invisible Hand's lack of understanding or ignorance of how are oil exports/imports work)?

  • tedbetts

    Classic bait and switch. Get caught out in a complete moronic fabrication of data so… change the subject. Poorly played. Next time, when you are trying to change the channel from your screw up, don't be so obvious about it.

    You claimed Canada is "overwhelmingly" an exporter of oil. That's such a stupidly false claim that I thought pointing out your misdirection would not have been controversial, let alone inspire such a gasbag rant of further self-congratulatory pap and further falsehoods.

    I guess that is the lengths you need to go to, the pretzel logic necessary, to support such rank hypocrisy.

    Look it's simple: the Cons are saying buy our "ethical oil" to the US so you don't have to buy the kind of "unethical oil" that we buy in almost equal amounts to what we export ('cause it makes economic sense). It's like the Italian mafia trying to run a legit business and claiming good citizenship because they pay taxes while they critize the Russian mafia for their crimes.

    It's even simpler than that: the Cons are trying to get you to stop thinking that there could be any environmental harm from oil sands so they don't have do anything about it.

Previous

Next

From Macleans