Bright Spark
Posts: 314 
September 20th, 2004, 06:35 PM
Our natural gas production peaked in 2001 and we export 50% to the U.S. market.
Julian Darley, author of High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis, comments that North America is on the verge of "a full-blown natural-gas crisis", and that the looming energy shortfall could be even worse in Canada than in the U.S. because 80 percent of homes here are heated with natural gas.
Further, Darley predicts that Vancouver's relatively mild climate will attract a huge wave of migrants from other parts of Canada. He said that every politician should regard energy--by that he also means food--as the most important issue. "We'll be in an energy crisis beyond belief by 2010."
When Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, we gave up our right to cut back the amount of oil we export to the U.S. (unless we cut our own consumption the same amount). Interestingly, Mexico, also a party to NAFTA, refused to agree to this section, and was granted an exemption.
A U.S. report points out that, under NAFTA, Canada is not allowed to reduce its exports of oil (or other energy) to the U.S. in order to redirect them to Canadian consumers. Redirecting Canadian oil to Canadians isn't permitted — regardless of how great the Canadian need may be. Some outside observers, like Colin Campbell (of Peak Oil fame), finds the situation striking. "You poor Canadians are going to be left freezing in the dark while they're running hair dryers in the U.S.," says Campbell.
Water
Water is perhaps the final frontier. In 1996, Vice President of the World Bank Ismail Seregaldin predicted the wars of this century would be over water. It is the oil of the 21st Century. Canada & Alaska have the world's largest fresh water reserves.
In 1998 Sun Belt Water Inc. sued the Canadian government under Chapter 11 of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), because the corporation lost a contract to export water from British Columbia when the province banned the export of bulk water in 1991. Chapter 11 allows a corporation to sue the government of a nation when it feels the laws of that nation present a barrier to trade. Chapter 11 only applies to foreign-based companies. Domestic companies have to follow the law of the land.
Sun Belt CEO Jack Lindsay was quoted as saying, "Because of NAFTA, we are now stakeholders in the national water policy of Canada."
How quaint.
In 1998, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment approved a plan by Nova Group to export millions of gallons of water, in giant tankers, to Asia. This issue is vital to Canadian Environmentalists. Under NAFTA, once bulk water exports start to flow, they can never be shut off. The Province later rescinded the grant, temporarily avoiding mass export of Canada's water resources.
However, if we do exit from this disgraceful agreement, would Canada become an occupied territory?
Our natural gas production peaked in 2001 and we export 50% to the U.S. market.
Julian Darley, author of High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis, comments that North America is on the verge of "a full-blown natural-gas crisis", and that the looming energy shortfall could be even worse in Canada than in the U.S. because 80 percent of homes here are heated with natural gas.
Further, Darley predicts that Vancouver's relatively mild climate will attract a huge wave of migrants from other parts of Canada. He said that every politician should regard energy--by that he also means food--as the most important issue. "We'll be in an energy crisis beyond belief by 2010."
When Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, we gave up our right to cut back the amount of oil we export to the U.S. (unless we cut our own consumption the same amount). Interestingly, Mexico, also a party to NAFTA, refused to agree to this section, and was granted an exemption.
A U.S. report points out that, under NAFTA, Canada is not allowed to reduce its exports of oil (or other energy) to the U.S. in order to redirect them to Canadian consumers. Redirecting Canadian oil to Canadians isn't permitted — regardless of how great the Canadian need may be. Some outside observers, like Colin Campbell (of Peak Oil fame), finds the situation striking. "You poor Canadians are going to be left freezing in the dark while they're running hair dryers in the U.S.," says Campbell.
Water
Water is perhaps the final frontier. In 1996, Vice President of the World Bank Ismail Seregaldin predicted the wars of this century would be over water. It is the oil of the 21st Century. Canada & Alaska have the world's largest fresh water reserves.
In 1998 Sun Belt Water Inc. sued the Canadian government under Chapter 11 of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), because the corporation lost a contract to export water from British Columbia when the province banned the export of bulk water in 1991. Chapter 11 allows a corporation to sue the government of a nation when it feels the laws of that nation present a barrier to trade. Chapter 11 only applies to foreign-based companies. Domestic companies have to follow the law of the land.
Sun Belt CEO Jack Lindsay was quoted as saying, "Because of NAFTA, we are now stakeholders in the national water policy of Canada."
How quaint.
In 1998, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment approved a plan by Nova Group to export millions of gallons of water, in giant tankers, to Asia. This issue is vital to Canadian Environmentalists. Under NAFTA, once bulk water exports start to flow, they can never be shut off. The Province later rescinded the grant, temporarily avoiding mass export of Canada's water resources.
However, if we do exit from this disgraceful agreement, would Canada become an occupied territory?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
September 20th, 2004, 07:11 PM
I doubt the US will invade us in the near future, Vista. That isn't because they are such a great neighbour or good friend or anything, just that the rest of the world is also eyeing our resources and, since we belong to multi-lateral institutions like the Commonwealth and Le Francophonie and trade with everybody, invading us would be inviting a world war against some pretty powerful nations.
I do suspect Canada is going to be playing a much larger role in world affairs before long though. We are incredibly resource rich. We have, until very recently, traded with all nations with very little favour given.
The US is becoming more and more protectionist though. If John Kerry gets into power, it will be them coming to the table to renegotiate NAFTA. If George Bush wins again he may very likely have to do the same...they are losing white collar jobs now and the US electorate will not stand for that. At that point we'll have an opening. Either they can negotiate a mutually beneficial deal, or they sit in the dark and be thirsty, hungry, and have no fuel for their manufacturing or their war machines.
I'm all for an FTAA. Not the Georgie Bush and Bobbly Zoellick have in mind though, one that is quite different, in fact.
No favoured nation status, no meddling with long-standing national institutions, human rights abuses and environmental problems (as determined by the UN) lead to an immediate suspension of trade until the problems are addressed. A working plan to bring wages and technology in Central and South America up to our standards. No agricultural subsidies except to small (2000 acres or less) farmers.
The US can deal with those things. Hell, a lot of the politicians in the US have been looking for a reason to deal with those things. They haven't been able to because the big corporations support the ones who will not even discuss changing them.
I doubt the US will invade us in the near future, Vista. That isn't because they are such a great neighbour or good friend or anything, just that the rest of the world is also eyeing our resources and, since we belong to multi-lateral institutions like the Commonwealth and Le Francophonie and trade with everybody, invading us would be inviting a world war against some pretty powerful nations.
I do suspect Canada is going to be playing a much larger role in world affairs before long though. We are incredibly resource rich. We have, until very recently, traded with all nations with very little favour given.
The US is becoming more and more protectionist though. If John Kerry gets into power, it will be them coming to the table to renegotiate NAFTA. If George Bush wins again he may very likely have to do the same...they are losing white collar jobs now and the US electorate will not stand for that. At that point we'll have an opening. Either they can negotiate a mutually beneficial deal, or they sit in the dark and be thirsty, hungry, and have no fuel for their manufacturing or their war machines.
I'm all for an FTAA. Not the Georgie Bush and Bobbly Zoellick have in mind though, one that is quite different, in fact.
No favoured nation status, no meddling with long-standing national institutions, human rights abuses and environmental problems (as determined by the UN) lead to an immediate suspension of trade until the problems are addressed. A working plan to bring wages and technology in Central and South America up to our standards. No agricultural subsidies except to small (2000 acres or less) farmers.
The US can deal with those things. Hell, a lot of the politicians in the US have been looking for a reason to deal with those things. They haven't been able to because the big corporations support the ones who will not even discuss changing them.
Bright Spark
Posts: 314
September 21st, 2004, 07:07 AM
Reverend, the question of occupied territory was rhetorical.
But considering that we are the largest energy provider to the US it would be foolish to think that we really have a choice and can make our own decisions.
However, two decades out... currencies will have gone to hell, central governmens will be in peril... it will be a whole new ballgame.
Remember, the oil shortages start in earnest before the end of the decade. As Matther Simmons comments, "A production decline doesn't mean you're out of oil, but it means that by 2010, maybe you are producing 75 million barrels a day, and the world demand is maybe 90 to 100 million. It's that gap that creates chaos." *
By 2020 oil demand is projected at 120 mpd, up from 81 mpd right now, yet the planet has reached the peak in production.
I am with Simon Upton, former New Zealand minister for the environment and now chairman of the OECD roundtable for sustainable development*, we are indeed on a trajectory to the dark ages.
Reverend, the question of occupied territory was rhetorical.
But considering that we are the largest energy provider to the US it would be foolish to think that we really have a choice and can make our own decisions.
However, two decades out... currencies will have gone to hell, central governmens will be in peril... it will be a whole new ballgame.
Remember, the oil shortages start in earnest before the end of the decade. As Matther Simmons comments, "A production decline doesn't mean you're out of oil, but it means that by 2010, maybe you are producing 75 million barrels a day, and the world demand is maybe 90 to 100 million. It's that gap that creates chaos." *
By 2020 oil demand is projected at 120 mpd, up from 81 mpd right now, yet the planet has reached the peak in production.
I am with Simon Upton, former New Zealand minister for the environment and now chairman of the OECD roundtable for sustainable development*, we are indeed on a trajectory to the dark ages.
Member
Posts: 104
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
September 21st, 2004, 07:34 PM
Quote:
I think this is, unfortunately, very true. We don't realize it here, but water all over the world is being commodified without a single thought for the future. Has anyone here seen The Corporation? The story of the South American town who sold their water was shocking and a real eye opener to me.
Water is perhaps the final frontier. In 1996, Vice President of the World Bank Ismail Seregaldin predicted the wars of this century would be over water.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
September 21st, 2004, 08:27 PM
The US has also demonstrated a very real willingess to go to war over oil. The big joke is that with their technologocal power they likely could have developed alternative energy sources by now if they would have taken the energy crisis of the early seventies as a warning. That, more than economic power, is why US participation in Kyoto was so important.
I don't think that a 20 million barrel a day gap is required to create chaos either. Let US residents have to suddenly pay European prices for a day or two and chaos will ensue. That doesn't require a huge gap, just competitive bidding from China and India. The economic growth in those countries points to that being a possibility within a couple of years. It's a worst case scenario, but with instability in the Middle East and South America it is a very real possibility.
That's why it's so important that we deal with these things now instead of later. It will bring things to a head quicker and force us all (not just the US) to face reality before things go irretrievably bad.
To do that Canada needs out of NAFTA and we need an FTAA that promotes fair trade among all of the countries of the Americas. Africa (also incredibly resource-rich) will most likely follow.
Quote:
I don't see it as rhetorical at all. The New York Times and one of the guys in the BC water export/NAFTA suit both mentioned the "military option." Both claimed to be joking later, but I sure as hell wasn't laughing when they mentioned it. Wars have been fought over water before, including the range wars in the US.
Reverend, the question of occupied territory was rhetorical.
The US has also demonstrated a very real willingess to go to war over oil. The big joke is that with their technologocal power they likely could have developed alternative energy sources by now if they would have taken the energy crisis of the early seventies as a warning. That, more than economic power, is why US participation in Kyoto was so important.
I don't think that a 20 million barrel a day gap is required to create chaos either. Let US residents have to suddenly pay European prices for a day or two and chaos will ensue. That doesn't require a huge gap, just competitive bidding from China and India. The economic growth in those countries points to that being a possibility within a couple of years. It's a worst case scenario, but with instability in the Middle East and South America it is a very real possibility.
That's why it's so important that we deal with these things now instead of later. It will bring things to a head quicker and force us all (not just the US) to face reality before things go irretrievably bad.
To do that Canada needs out of NAFTA and we need an FTAA that promotes fair trade among all of the countries of the Americas. Africa (also incredibly resource-rich) will most likely follow.
Newbie
Posts: 1
Location: The Great White North
Location: The Great White North
September 22nd, 2004, 07:10 AM
According to the republican sheep over
HERE,
Canada won't be too far behind Iraq.
That is, once Dubya figures out that his country is in need of a fresh water supply.
I've long been supportive of diminshing our trade with the U.S and increasing it in other markets.
Too many eggs in one basket allows them to hold us hostage.
According to the republican sheep over
HERE,
Canada won't be too far behind Iraq.
That is, once Dubya figures out that his country is in need of a fresh water supply.
I've long been supportive of diminshing our trade with the U.S and increasing it in other markets.
Too many eggs in one basket allows them to hold us hostage.
Bright Spark
Posts: 314
September 22nd, 2004, 07:48 AM
The US has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to train Azerbaijani and Georgian soldiers to protect oil pipelines. Then there are the U.S. troops sent to guard oil pipelines in Colombia at a cost of nearly $100 million a year.
As well, the US has announced that its Navy will protect oil installations in the Gulf of Guinea, and unnamed officials have told the Wall Street Journal that the United States hopes to "secure" Nigeria's oil fields.
The Clinton administration spent roughly $50 billion a year on military involvement in the Persian Gulf during what most Americans perceived as peacetime. (During 1994, by comparison, the United States spent $45 billion on imported oil -- from all sources.)
The are also is spending $150 billion this year in oil-related military excursions after we shelling out $132 billion on imported oil last year. And the oil industry is subsidied to the tune of billions every year.
Just imagine for a moment if that enormous expenditure was spent through the years on solving the problem, not just stealing the world's oil.
In the end, the US is barking up the wrong tree - it going to run out. All this for naught!
Venezuela oil expert: "Have you seen 'Mad Max'?" "That's the world without oil."
The US has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to train Azerbaijani and Georgian soldiers to protect oil pipelines. Then there are the U.S. troops sent to guard oil pipelines in Colombia at a cost of nearly $100 million a year.
As well, the US has announced that its Navy will protect oil installations in the Gulf of Guinea, and unnamed officials have told the Wall Street Journal that the United States hopes to "secure" Nigeria's oil fields.
The Clinton administration spent roughly $50 billion a year on military involvement in the Persian Gulf during what most Americans perceived as peacetime. (During 1994, by comparison, the United States spent $45 billion on imported oil -- from all sources.)
The are also is spending $150 billion this year in oil-related military excursions after we shelling out $132 billion on imported oil last year. And the oil industry is subsidied to the tune of billions every year.
Just imagine for a moment if that enormous expenditure was spent through the years on solving the problem, not just stealing the world's oil.
In the end, the US is barking up the wrong tree - it going to run out. All this for naught!
Venezuela oil expert: "Have you seen 'Mad Max'?" "That's the world without oil."
