27 June 2008

Canada supports your wars, so you support our oil

This has got to be the dumbest argument yet in support of the Alberta oil sands.
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach says Canada has "protected the backs" of Americans in several wars and U.S. politicians should consider this before rejecting what some are calling "dirty" oil from the oilsands.

In other words, we support your dirty wars, so you support our dirty oil.

That this policy ultimately destroys life and the environment is apparently irrelevant.

Update: This related commentary from Saturday's Globe is just too funny.

When Barack Obama threatens to break America's addiction to “dirty, dwindling and expensive oil” and endorses a proposed “low-carbon fuel standard,” he is harming America's own national interests. Canada is the largest exporter of crude oil to the United States.... The Americans would be hard-pressed to find as reliable or as conscientious a supplier.

Unfortunately, ... the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 contains a controversial section 526, which bans federal agencies from buying alternative fuels that produce more greenhouse gases than conventional oil. Efforts to amend the legislation, to specify that this section does not include Canadian heavy oil, have stalled. Worse, many view the section as a precedent for broader action.

Meanwhile, California has a sweeping plan to reduce greenhouse gases, which would require a 10-per-cent cut to the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2020. If Mr. Obama embraces this provision, as seems likely, U.S. refiners would hesitate to accept Canadian oil – because oil-sands production generates as much as three times more greenhouse gas than conventional oil; ... it is the American consumer who will pay the price, not Canada.

But isn't that the point, that all of us must take responsibility for our gluttony?

Recommend this post