Like it or not, oilsands projects vital

Sun Media via Toronto Sun ^ | 2009-09-17 | Lorrie Goldstein

[Clive]

In symbolically occupying Shell's oilsands operations yesterday in northern Alberta, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama were meeting in Washington, Greenpeace said it was sending a message that "real climate leaders don't buy tar sands."

But to which "climate leaders" is Greenpeace referring?

To Obama, whose State Department recently issued a presidential permit granting Enbridge the right to proceed with its $3.3-billion Alberta Clipper pipeline to deliver crude oil from the oilsands to the U.S.?

To Norway, held up to Canadians as a model of environmental responsibility for its carbon tax, whose state-owned power company, StatoilHydro ASA, moved into Alberta oil sands development in 2007 when it invested $2.2 billion in North American Oil Sands Corp.?

To BP, which despite its latest slogan "Beyond Petroleum" -- replacing "British Petroleum" -- announced a joint, $3-billion deal with Husky Energy two years ago to develop the oilsands, despite its frequently and publicly professed concern for the environment?

To China, often used as an example of forward-thinking on the environment by greens (despite the fact it's building one new coal plant a week), which last month announced a $2-billion stake in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.?

To France? To Japan? To the many other nations helping to fund the $200 billion (and growing) investment in Canada's oilsands?

What can accurately be said about Alberta's oilsands is that they're the place where the pious environmental pronouncements of nations go to die in the desperate race to secure new sources of reliable, domestic oil supply.

It's also important to note the oilsands currently account for about 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, under one-tenth of one per cent of global emissions and that Canada is responsible for 2% of global emissions.

This lest we be fooled into thinking in today's climate of hysteria that (a) Canada is the main culprit in global warming and (b) the costs of reducing our emissions can simply be laid at the feet of all those environmentally reckless, oil-rich cowboys in Alberta.

Another myth

Actually, that's another myth. Polls show Albertans are deeply concerned about the potential negative environmental impact of oilsands development -- an opinion shared by Alberta's iconic former Conservative premier, Peter Lougheed, who has urged taking advantage of the current dip in world oil prices to slow things down and get it right.

However, Albertans do get their backs up when environmentalists call for shutting down the oilsands, just as Ontarians would by calls to scrap the province's auto sector in the name of fighting global warming, which Stephen Harper's Conservative federal government and Dalton McGuinty's Liberal Ontario government have just spent billions of tax dollars trying to save.

So far, Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff -- the only two leaders with a shot of becoming prime minister in the next election -- have indicated they understand that while Canadians have legitimate concerns about the negative environmental impact of the oilsands, they also consider them a key engine of our economy, to be managed responsibly, but not to be undermined for the sake of any Kyoto-inspired madness other nations will piously applaud, even as they slurp up our so-called "dirty" oil.

Let's hope it will take more than a few Greenpeace publicity stunts to knock them off that sensible position.

[Clive]

-

[VaRepublican]

Oil sand ping

[fanfan]

Thanks for the ping, Clive.