In the news last week were reports of the Canadian military conducting an excerise in the arctic to demonstrate that we can control and defend our northern border.
Well...
A couple of soldiers were left stranded overnight. Our frigate wasn't appropriate for the cold climate. The military planes were grounded while commercial aircraft flew. Some soldiers had to hitch a ride with recreational civilian water craft.
I was in my hotel room as I watched the story on the CBC. I wanted to bow my head in shame.
After this, I didn't think twice about it. Until I read this New York Times article...
Canada Reinforces Its Disputed Claims in the Resource Rich Arctic
The show of force, coupled with efforts to win over local people, showed how far the Canadian military was willing to go to familiarize itself with an increasingly valued region where it seldom operated while strengthening Canada's claim to it.
The $4 million exercise is the most prominent sign to date of Canada's intensifying effort to reinforce disputed claims over tens of thousands of miles of Arctic channels and tundra.
Once nearly permanently frozen, forbidding and forgotten, the region is today seen by officials from Canada and competing nations as a potential source of both wealth and trouble.
Not all of Canada's vast claims to the Arctic are recognized internationally. The United States, the European Union and Denmark either contend that the region's waterways are open to all or have placed their own claims on parts where climate change is expected to increase access to the region's bountiful resources in coming years.
Diamond finds have already inspired a new mining rush, making Canada the world's third largest producer. Canada wants someday to tap natural gas in the Beaufort Sea in a frigid zone, bordering Alaska and Yukon Territory, which the United States tried to auction off to oil companies last year. The companies balked, preferring not to get mixed up in an international squabble. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/i...a.html?ex=1094730800&ei=1&en=3d8fb83b6ea69be7
Hmmm...
Richard Heinberg mentions Canada when discussing resource wars in his book Powerdown. At this stage there is nothing to fear but at some point in the future, Heinberg warns Canada that the world will be very different and the U.S. desparate.
If not offered would the U.S. come and take any remaining oil and gas?
Frankly it may not be necessary to take it. Afterall, Canada has ceded control over our NG resources. There is no legal way for Canada to ensure that we will have adequate supplies of NG in the future. Yet, the US still retains the right to store vast supplies of hyrodcarbons for emergencies.
Trade agreements have established a system of "proportional sharing" which guarantees US imports from Canada in perpetuity, hence by law, we are required to replenish the US reserve supply.
Were we hoodwinked? Are we a puppet regime?
The third resource I have been following is Fresh Water. The depletion of this will spell disaster for many countries in the coming decades - including the U.S. where aquifiers are not being replenshed at the rate of extraction.
So. In an effort to safeguard these resources for our fellow citizens, would it be wise to be pro-active and join the U.S. as 12 new states (provinces plus the territories - or whatever they are called now).
Would it be advantageous to be part of the immediate family than a cousin one has to put up with every so often?
Could a strong Ontario or Alberta state government work within the system to ensure the best deal for it's citizens?
Right now the attitude is "every province for themselves." Cooperation between provinces for the betterment of Canada is nil.
So in that respect, we really are not working to build a Canada of the strong and free anyway, so let's fold our cards now and negotiate for the best deal.
Considering the embarrassment of last week in the far north, we have no hope of defending our country yet we have resources the big bear wants.
On one hand, I think these thoughts have merit... I bow my head in shame.
Well...
A couple of soldiers were left stranded overnight. Our frigate wasn't appropriate for the cold climate. The military planes were grounded while commercial aircraft flew. Some soldiers had to hitch a ride with recreational civilian water craft.
I was in my hotel room as I watched the story on the CBC. I wanted to bow my head in shame.
After this, I didn't think twice about it. Until I read this New York Times article...
Canada Reinforces Its Disputed Claims in the Resource Rich Arctic
The show of force, coupled with efforts to win over local people, showed how far the Canadian military was willing to go to familiarize itself with an increasingly valued region where it seldom operated while strengthening Canada's claim to it.
The $4 million exercise is the most prominent sign to date of Canada's intensifying effort to reinforce disputed claims over tens of thousands of miles of Arctic channels and tundra.
Once nearly permanently frozen, forbidding and forgotten, the region is today seen by officials from Canada and competing nations as a potential source of both wealth and trouble.
Not all of Canada's vast claims to the Arctic are recognized internationally. The United States, the European Union and Denmark either contend that the region's waterways are open to all or have placed their own claims on parts where climate change is expected to increase access to the region's bountiful resources in coming years.
Diamond finds have already inspired a new mining rush, making Canada the world's third largest producer. Canada wants someday to tap natural gas in the Beaufort Sea in a frigid zone, bordering Alaska and Yukon Territory, which the United States tried to auction off to oil companies last year. The companies balked, preferring not to get mixed up in an international squabble. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/i...a.html?ex=1094730800&ei=1&en=3d8fb83b6ea69be7
Hmmm...
Richard Heinberg mentions Canada when discussing resource wars in his book Powerdown. At this stage there is nothing to fear but at some point in the future, Heinberg warns Canada that the world will be very different and the U.S. desparate.
If not offered would the U.S. come and take any remaining oil and gas?
Frankly it may not be necessary to take it. Afterall, Canada has ceded control over our NG resources. There is no legal way for Canada to ensure that we will have adequate supplies of NG in the future. Yet, the US still retains the right to store vast supplies of hyrodcarbons for emergencies.
Trade agreements have established a system of "proportional sharing" which guarantees US imports from Canada in perpetuity, hence by law, we are required to replenish the US reserve supply.
Were we hoodwinked? Are we a puppet regime?
The third resource I have been following is Fresh Water. The depletion of this will spell disaster for many countries in the coming decades - including the U.S. where aquifiers are not being replenshed at the rate of extraction.
So. In an effort to safeguard these resources for our fellow citizens, would it be wise to be pro-active and join the U.S. as 12 new states (provinces plus the territories - or whatever they are called now).
Would it be advantageous to be part of the immediate family than a cousin one has to put up with every so often?
Could a strong Ontario or Alberta state government work within the system to ensure the best deal for it's citizens?
Right now the attitude is "every province for themselves." Cooperation between provinces for the betterment of Canada is nil.
So in that respect, we really are not working to build a Canada of the strong and free anyway, so let's fold our cards now and negotiate for the best deal.
Considering the embarrassment of last week in the far north, we have no hope of defending our country yet we have resources the big bear wants.
On one hand, I think these thoughts have merit... I bow my head in shame.
