Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Conservatives going ‘bananas’ over non-use of tarsand oil

Apparently, some Conservative ministers are either bored in Ottawa as Christmas approaches, or they’re trying to seek out new “enemies of Canada” to demonize. The new foe of Canada is now apparently Chiquita and bananas; all because they don’t want to use tarsand-based oil. Kenny and Rona Ambrose are urging all red-blooded patriotic Canadians to boycott Chiquita bananas to support our biggest carbon producing oilfields in the tarsands.

Chiquita is no corporate patron saint, but if Rona Ambrose and Jason Kenny are urging a banana boycott of them, I’m turning around and making an effort to buy a few extra bananas from Chiquita this year – to reward them for good environmental stewardship in this instance – and to show Ambrose and Kenny that I do not support Canadian environmental policy under the Conservatives as it comes to cutting down carbon emissions  – in the tarsands in particular.

8 comments to Conservatives going ‘bananas’ over non-use of tarsand oil

  • Stan

    Any of you dummies figure out how boycotting the cleaner source of oil will be good for the environment?
    California’s heavy oil has a bigger carbon footprint than oil sands oil…

  • Stig

    Robert, there is more to consider here about the tarsands, besides Jim’s ignorant, panglossian delusions, and it concerns every Albertan and all Canadians; that is the problem of future large scale erosion in the Athabaskan watershed.

    The lands in Alberta, where the vast bitumen fields lay, are ancient as you well know, and there is a reason for that, which is directly related to what constitutes those very same gooey sands. You see the land up there is preserved by its naturally water-proofed geology, and has resisted heavy hydrologic erosion, in an extraordinarily wet climate, because of that very reason. But once the hydrocarbons are removed, the glue or tar, which held this unique geology together, for millions of years, will also disappear.

    Reclamation of the land is an out and out lie and that self-serving buffoon in the commercials you see on television, hyping this fairy tale, is a dangerous fraud. The level of damage, by erosion to one of the worlds great fresh water reservoirs, will be tremendous in scope, with unprecedented amounts of reunited loose sand and in situ disturbed soil, polluted beyond belief, being washed uncontrollably away, into a very different Athabasca River system and out into the Arctic Ocean.

    And don’t forget, this project will cover hundreds of sq. miles of land, both on and below its surface and both prone to huge hydrologic forces, which no one will ever be able to control. I don’t know if Jim boy will be thanking god, once this epic disaster beginnings to unfold, but certainly he should damn himself and others like him, for their blind, acquiescent foolishness and absurd faith in people who lie for the sake of money.

    • Stan

      Extrordinarily wet climate?
      Uh..no…

      Go see a psychiatrist or something, you seem delusional.

  • Jim, that has to be the dumbest claim I’ve ever seen. Wow, we should be thanking the oil companies! We had it all wrong–they’re not after money, they’re just there out of the kindness of their hearts; what we thought all this time was unparalleled ecological destruction is really a huge remediation project these brave, misunderstood philanthropists are undertaking. How could we be so blind?

  • jim

    Scott;
    The real enemies of Canada are the Canadians who don’t understand the importance of this great natural resource and the reality of it’s importance, not only at home, but to the world. These tar sands have been bubbling up crude for millions of years (and contributing noxious and/or carbon dioxide)and at last we’ve figured a way to scrub the sand and extract the (at present) valuable fuels needed to keep billions of our brothers and sister fed and alive. The tailings (sand) is returned to the earth in a much safer condition than when we removed it. The land can be reclaimed and used as arable land given time and the will of all people to protect and rejuvenate the short term wound to our earth.

    The global statistics indicate that Canada emits less than 2% of all global co2 and that Alberta emits less than Ontario or Quebec. Of the g20 countries Canada is at the bottom as an emitter.

    I am born Albertan and older than I like to think about. The one thing I’ve always had was a heartfelt thanks to God that I was privileged to be blessed with a life in the greatest freedom possible on this earth, in a country that values life, freedom, and security of the individual as sacrosanct.

    Canada is a geographically huge, diverse, safe and secure, country. The rest of the world can attack us politically as we are a very easy target (33 million and needing more babies) but they should know that every single Canadian has an unbounded love for the environment and the great natural beauty they were born into and will protect this land with their lives and their childrens lives.

    I guess to finish my comments I will turn my thoughts to those who suffer under governments who repress, torture and murder. Canada is the garden, and if you’re not one of the supressors and want the world to be a better place then bring your yearning for change with you but do not come if you cannot leave the evil that destroyed your homeland.

    Jim

    • Robert

      I, too, am a “born Albertan” and older than I like to think about, however I have the ability to check facts, and although some of your “facts” are correct, they are presented in tandem with opinions and either lies or mistakes.

      Your first paragraph makes it sound like we magically remove tar from sand then put clean sand back where we found it, and there are real benefits to the environment. I’m not one for magical thinking, and rather than present any links to info I’ll just appeal to the obvious. Digging up the earth is environmentally destructive, it is in no sense neutral. Digging up the earth requires the burning of fossil fuels for all the equipment plus the manufacture of the facilities needed process the dug up earth. In order to extract the tar from the sand requires huge amounts of water, and this doesn’t leave the water in the same condition it was in when they took it to use it nor does it account for all the damage to communities that use, and rely on, that water. The energy required to separate the tar from the sand is also huge, to the point that our provincial government openly muses about using nuclear power to supply it. Producing this energy creates huge amounts of environmental damage.

      Once it’s done you don’t have nice, clean sand to return to where you got it so that all the forest animals can dance on it. It has been processed to the point where it is likely sterile, and will need to be repopulated with beneficial bacteria and microscopic life before it’s able to contribute to the environment again. Your statement that “The tailings (sand) is returned to the earth in a much safer condition than when we removed it” makes no sense. Safer is subjective in this sense, safer for the environment or safer for crickets or safer for politicians or safer for children? It couldn’t be safer for everything since it wasn’t that volatile to begin with, the environment had developed with it and the removal of the tar greatly affects the entire ecosystem. It may be safer for something that doesn’t like the tar, but the sterilization of the soil is hardly safer for the environment, and things that didn’t like the tar weren’t likely to be found in the tar sands.

      Statistics indicate that Canada does emit less than 2% of all global CO2, but being in 7th place among the G20 is only near the bottom if you redefine the word “bottom”. We are among the highest producers of CO2 in the G20, not among the lowest. Your assertion is simply not true. It’s especially not true if you actually examine the evidence. China has approximately 20% of the world’s population and produces approximately 24% of the world’s CO2 emissions. Canada has approximately 0.5% of the world’s population but produces 1.8% of the world’s CO2 emissions. We produce almost 4 times as much CO2 emissions per person as does China. It is unreasonable to assume that a country that has 20% of the world’s people to not produce CO2 emissions on a major scale, but if they were as profligate as we are with energy use then they would produce nearly 80% of the world’s emissions of CO2. Your initial statement about CO2 emissions, and the percentage that we produce, was accurate but completely misleading.

      Your assertion that Canada makes an easy target because we don’t have a large population for the size of our country is, at the very least, odd. Just what is the relationship between population and ease of criticism? If it’s populations, then there are 199 countries that it’s even easier to criticize. If it’s population density then there’s 7 countries that it’s even easier to criticize. However, I’m certain that Canada is not being criticized for “needing more babies” or not having a high enough population density. How our population connects to criticism of Canada he doesn’t specify, and I’m unable to determine. I assume that “jim” has not valid criticism of China since they have the highest population in the world, and somehow that means they don’t do anything to be criticized.

      Strangely enough, his “defense” of Canada results in “we love the land we destroy to sell to you”. You obviously have no “unbounded love for the environment” or you would have been familiar with the faults in your position long ago, so your own comment belies your assertion that “every single Canadian” is the way you claim them to be – you aren’t even that way!

      I guess to finish MY comments I will turn my thoughts to those who were arrested during the G20 summit in Toronto. Arrested under phony laws that didn’t exist, arrested doing nothing dangerous. Maybe I’ll think a bit about the Afghan’s we delivered for torture, or Maher Arar, Ahmad El Maati, Abdullah Almalki and Muayyed Nureddin who we sent to the Syrians (our great ally) so they could torture for us. As we know, if I hire someone to kill someone I am completely innocent of murder since I never pulled the trigger, and since Canada only hires people to torture then we too are innocent. It’s true, we are a garden, and we get to brag about it because if something starts to grow in our garden that government doesn’t like, well there’s a field around here somewhere where we can dump the bodies… If you redefine “repress, torture and murder” to be prefixed by “the same acts committed in the country Canada are not considered to be repression, torture or murder” then your last paragraph may make sense.

      Ezra Levant may be an opinion-maker, but he is only interested in manipulating your thoughts to support him, not in presenting any type of considered argument. When he makes his “ethical oil” comments he ignores that deaths and diseases caused to native people and land, the repression of Canadians and the fact that most all of the countries he cites as being “unethical” oil are countries whose governments we support, particularly Saudi Arabia. He doesn’t argue that we should be dealing with Saudi Arabia as an unethical country that represses it’s women and should take all steps to change this, he argues only for the sale of bitumen from Alberta. He tries to wrap an economic goal as an ethical position. When Ezra writes a book called “Ethical Government” then I might pay attention, but when he’s just a bitumen sales associate using “righteous indignation” as his sales pitch then he betrays the poverty of his position.

      • Stan

        Deaths and diseases of natives?
        Sorry, O’Connor has been proved to be a liar.
        Read the report from the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons for yourself.
        O’Connor claims it cleared him, it does nothing of the sort, as you will see if you read the report yourself.

        Huge amounts of water?
        No, 1% of the river’s flow isn’t a ‘huge amount of water’.

        The sand is sterile and needs to be repopulated with bacteria?
        Yeah, which is why the topsoil is stripped and stockpiled, then put back in place after the sand has been replaced.
        See the pictures and movies of the reclaimed land for yourself instead of speculating…

        “He (Ezra) doesn’t argue that we should be dealing with Saudi Arabia as an unethical country that represses it’s women and should take all steps to change this,..”

        Actually he does just that….

        I’ll let others correct your other lies.

        You put a lot of effort into writing your little screed, why not go the extra mile and do some basic fact checking?
        It would make you look less unprofessional and stupid.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.