U.S. environmentalists have declared another victory in their efforts to protect legislation that threatens Canada's booming oil sands, but oil sands advocates say there is no triumph to celebrate.
The legislation in question bans the U.S. government and its agencies from buying alternative fuels that produce more greenhouse gases than conventional fuels.
Environmentalists have argued vociferously that this includes fuel refined from oil from the oil sands, or tar sands, as they call them.
Just another quicky post while my brain gets unfried from sitting in a smelly room for three days with alot of smelly jurors. In the end I was not chosen to serve, so wound up reading every object in the vicinity with print on it. Eventually, I got down to the women's magazines with their (unillustrated) stories about breast care. These were totally non-arousing.
Anyway, while Ottawa is afraid of Alberta, the Washington is not, and frankly our best hopes for getting a handle on tar-sands' emissions lies there. Pity we have to get the Yanks to do our work for us.
8 comments:
Pity we have to get the Yanks to do our work for us.
Well, they are the ones who are buying most of it. In any case, Albertans have never considered it anything but their oil (which they worked damned hard to put into the ground) so they're on their own.
The US is going to stop buying oil from the oil sands?
I'll believe it when I see it.
"In any case, Albertans have never considered it anything but their oil . . ."
The question is, why would Albertans think otherwise? It is their oil.
Any Canadian who wants to partake in Alberta's prosperity simply need move to Alberta.
With today's modern and affordable modes of transportation, this is not a difficult thing to do.
Paul S, you must disabuse yourself of the illusion that I'm as insensate as you are.
Hey, I don't begrudge the Albertans their oil. But they're going to have to take ownership of the greenhouse gases as well. Maybe we can build a huge, airtight (and soundproof) dome over the province? Put them Toronto welfare bums to work. Yeah, that's the ticket.
The US is going to stop buying oil from the oil sands?
I'll believe it when I see it.
And with that, Paul S. Puttgrass headed for the tub.
I just LOVE the "our oil" comment. I lived in Alberta - and have to say with conviction, that I receive a lot more now (infrastructure/services) than I ever did as an Alberta system. BC doesn't have "all that oil" here. I guess it's our water...
Oh yeah... when water is the priced commodity that it is fast becoming (future wars will be over water - not oil), we'll be shutting the tap off to Alberta. It's our water. Those Alberta oil companies can stay home too - we have BC companies in PG and on the coast who can handle our little "oil boom" too... We also propose a $10 "our salmon" tariff to Alberta, AND a tariff on fresh Okanagan fruit - as well as Canada's biggest supply of vegetables from right here in the Fraser Valley... Obviously, I'm talking like a right-wing Albertan right now (firewall in hand), and not a thoughtful, sensible Canadian.
"But they're going to have to take ownership of the greenhouse gases as well." -ti-buy
No province in Canada has taken "ownership" of their C02, why would Alberta?
It's just more of the same old same old about AGW, someone else has to do something about AGW.
No province in Canada has taken "ownership" of their C02, why would Alberta?
Well, because it produces something like 40% of Canada's emissions, for one thing.
But we all have to take ownership of it, this is true. And you will too, Paulie, once you grow up and move out of mommy's house.
Great zinger ti-guy. Do you use the same three ad infinitum?
Quote from the article:
"What makes this so important is that the U.S. military is by far the largest consumer of transportation fuel in the U.S. from whatever source."
That doesn't sound plausible. More, likely, it should read the US military is the largest individual consumer.
Post a Comment