Ethical Tar Sands, Give Me A Break
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Ya, the place just hasn't been the same without him. I'm glad some people have stepped up to take his place.
Any suggestions?
... And the bitumen that has been at surface for thousands of years was an ecological dream? An outstanding example of a natural ecosystem that society ought to replicate?
Picking and choosing your perspective from the global reality is not exactly representative now, is it?
The same reason that you allow the mining, forestry and fisheries to do the same.
Don't like the fact that gvt gets the money, then do something about the gvt.
A question:
Do the mining companies in Ontario send you cheques? Not as a shareholder you understand, just as a citizen whose resource they are selling on your behalf. How about the forestry companies in BC? The fishing industry?... Hell, your home sits on top of Canada's land; that is my resource too.. Where's my cheque?
Escaped from Ft Crack SPCA? Or is it an Arab cat?
You tell me... Could be a Venezuelan cat that is a poor wee victim of unethical oil.
You're not understanding me correctly. Of course there is value to ethical shopping. He makes the comparison to fair trade coffee, and fair trade coffee is definitely a good idea if you think producers should be able to make a decent wage producing goods, or from ecological principles, etc. I don't even have any problems with the categories of indicators he uses to differentiate Canadian oil from Nigerian oil. If anyone has read the book, or the excerpts, he starts from a false premise to begin with. He takes as a 'liberal' starting point for his methodology whether we should use more oil sands oil, or some perfect fantasy fuel. Since that perfect fuel doesn't exist, he says we should use more ethical oil until this perfect replacement is found.That's pure nonsense. That's the red herring, stemming from a false premise.
The typical progressive policy choices I see advanced by wonks and activists are things like improving fuel efficiency, improving carbon footprints, or carbon pricing. There is not one single serious and well thought out set of policies anywhere that includes cutting oil consumption to zero in one step. None.
I'll reserve judgment on whether or not I even agree with Ezra if Canada's oil is even the most ethical of the bunch, until there are firm epidemiological findings of the high cancer rates in nearby Fort Chipewyan. Or if they actually address the heavy metal contaminants that independent analysis has confirmed is entering the watersheds of the region. I don't see anything ethical at all about allowing multinational corporations to use and benefit from a resource, and to release known toxins into the environment.
The red herring is that we should use 'more ethical' oil until a better choice is found?
I'm definitely not following you.
I believe it is a given that our society requires significant amounts of oil to run as is.
Does it not make sense to aim for 'more ethical' oil to be used?
I truly don't follow, but that could be the beer. It's ethical beer, made by unionized workers.
Cap'n, I agree with a lot of your points/persepctive but this was off. There are quite a number of formations that produce mostly natural gas (methane... both sweet and sour) without much for heavier hydrocarbons, whereas the all oil formations that do produce gas in some measure, although it has not always been economical to recover and sell this gas. Oil formations that don't produce any gas are longer producing ones that have had the pressure decline to the point where the light ends have all flashed off and been lost years ago, and usually formations that are almost depleted or may not ever have a significant portion of their reserves produced because of this pressure loss.
Last edited:
I wasn't paraphrasing. Page 13, he says until a perfect replacement is found, we should base decisions on whether we use oil from the oil sands or from other places in the world that pump it. Yes I would call that a red herring. I'm not saying we shouldn't consider ethics at all. In fact I've already listed two issues of ethics that he doesn't touch on (in fairness owing to the recent publishing of the data) and in the other case he misrepresents the findings completely.
He has also publicly called for more oil to be produced, which has ethical questions on multiple fronts. Oil is a valuable resource that needs to be conserved. We shouldn`t empty the seas of fish at a faster rate because we`re more ethical than Japanese fishing fleets either.
We require energy, no doubt about that. To be clear, once more, I'm not saying that ethics shouldn't be considered, I just disagree with the starting point for his entire book.
If we know better than to cause mass destruction of environment and do nothing we are
unethical. If we destroy other peoples habitat and the livelihoods of others just to make
a buck that is both unethical and immoral. Should we have more ethical oil? Absolutely,
we should and the reason is we know better. I am willing to bet, that there are other
methods out there, that are more expensive, but required. Any effort to be made that is
not operating at the best level we can perform at, is unethical.
unethical. If we destroy other peoples habitat and the livelihoods of others just to make
a buck that is both unethical and immoral. Should we have more ethical oil? Absolutely,
we should and the reason is we know better. I am willing to bet, that there are other
methods out there, that are more expensive, but required. Any effort to be made that is
not operating at the best level we can perform at, is unethical.
That's a very good explanation. By in large, you'll find that most formations will be described as 'gassy-oil' or oily-gas' although that relative amounts can exist at either extreme (ie predominately oil with trace gas and primarily gas with liquids).
Last edited:
We'll get to see over the next few months how a large financier views the ethics of synthetic crude oil produced in the Athabasca region.
Royal Bank of Canada Steps Away from Tar Sands With Support for First Nation Rights
Royal Bank of Canada Steps Away from Tar Sands With Support for First Nation Rights
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 22 /CNW/ - The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) today made public its new environmental and social standards, which will govern financing of clients in high-impact sectors including Canada's tar sands. The announcement marks a significant about face on tar sands by one of the sectors biggest financiers. The policy is the first by a major international bank to document whether bank clients have received consent from Indigenous communities. This follows nearly two years of campaigning by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) alongside First Nations concerned about the negative impacts of tar sands development.
Just week's after Canada signed on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), RBC's policy breaks significant new ground among international banks with its handling of Indigenous rights. For bank clients in high-impact sectors, including the tar sands, the policy guides bankers to document where client activities impact Indigenous communities and the status of consultation with those communities. Bankers will have to examine whether clients have "policies and processes consistent with the standard of Free, Prior and Informed Consent."
"With RBC's new policy, the banking giant has made a promise to take responsibility for its financing in the tar sands and to uphold the rights of First Nations. We commend the bank for its new commitment, and look forward to seeing policy put into practice," said Brant Olson, campaign director for the Rainforest Action Network. "RBC is raising the bar for the financial sector and signaling to oil and gas corporations that it is time to take environmental and human rights seriously."
RBC's new policy will impact a range of companies operating in the oil and gas industry. The policy will instruct bankers to prepare an Environmental and Social Risk Review Report on all clients, and review whether clients are complying with new environmental and human rights standards. Senior bank executives will review these reports and decide how the bank should respond to any possible deficiencies.
Just week's after Canada signed on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), RBC's policy breaks significant new ground among international banks with its handling of Indigenous rights. For bank clients in high-impact sectors, including the tar sands, the policy guides bankers to document where client activities impact Indigenous communities and the status of consultation with those communities. Bankers will have to examine whether clients have "policies and processes consistent with the standard of Free, Prior and Informed Consent."
"With RBC's new policy, the banking giant has made a promise to take responsibility for its financing in the tar sands and to uphold the rights of First Nations. We commend the bank for its new commitment, and look forward to seeing policy put into practice," said Brant Olson, campaign director for the Rainforest Action Network. "RBC is raising the bar for the financial sector and signaling to oil and gas corporations that it is time to take environmental and human rights seriously."
RBC's new policy will impact a range of companies operating in the oil and gas industry. The policy will instruct bankers to prepare an Environmental and Social Risk Review Report on all clients, and review whether clients are complying with new environmental and human rights standards. Senior bank executives will review these reports and decide how the bank should respond to any possible deficiencies.
Now there is a product that most people truly don't require unless they are in the business of cutting very hard material.
This issue has presented some good arguments on all sides of the sod as it were. The question,
do you use the oil that is currently being produced from the Tar Sands? We all are, and the real
issue is not that we use it, the real question is do we speak up and demand that the process is in
fact done with the least amount of damage. I am not against getting oil out of the tar sands but
there are other ways to do it. I saw one where there is a junior company in Canada that is now doing
test that separate it underground and it can be pumped to the surface without turning over the sod.
When I can get a hold of a friend that originally told me about it, I will post it, but at this moment I can't
remember the name of it. All I know is, some of those involved in the Bakken Project, that is the one
just south of Saskatchewan, and in fact the underground lake of oil goes under the Province of
Saskatchewan as well. The Bakken Project deals with some Tar Sand and a lot of shale it is mixed
into. Regardless of what we are doing we should be looking at new and better ways to do it and the
present groups are not doing that because they already have spent money to do it the present way
and they don't want to change technology because of cost.
Tenpenny, at one point you mentioned producing food organically using manual labour. actually that
would be unethical, as it costs more to farm organically with horses and manual labour as it is more
damaging to the environment. A diesel tractor is more productive, both in the quantity of food produced
and the energy of producing food. If we used horses, feeding the horses would take nearly half the
land out of food production to feed the horses. The amount of work to produce one acre of food by
manual labour is worse than using a tractor.
If you want more information on the entire picture of how that works give the book Is It Organic?
Its written by an Organic Food Inspector, who will quickly open your eyes about a lot of things, and just
how short of ethics the organic industry is, it is every bit as bad as the Tar Sands oil mess.
do you use the oil that is currently being produced from the Tar Sands? We all are, and the real
issue is not that we use it, the real question is do we speak up and demand that the process is in
fact done with the least amount of damage. I am not against getting oil out of the tar sands but
there are other ways to do it. I saw one where there is a junior company in Canada that is now doing
test that separate it underground and it can be pumped to the surface without turning over the sod.
When I can get a hold of a friend that originally told me about it, I will post it, but at this moment I can't
remember the name of it. All I know is, some of those involved in the Bakken Project, that is the one
just south of Saskatchewan, and in fact the underground lake of oil goes under the Province of
Saskatchewan as well. The Bakken Project deals with some Tar Sand and a lot of shale it is mixed
into. Regardless of what we are doing we should be looking at new and better ways to do it and the
present groups are not doing that because they already have spent money to do it the present way
and they don't want to change technology because of cost.
Tenpenny, at one point you mentioned producing food organically using manual labour. actually that
would be unethical, as it costs more to farm organically with horses and manual labour as it is more
damaging to the environment. A diesel tractor is more productive, both in the quantity of food produced
and the energy of producing food. If we used horses, feeding the horses would take nearly half the
land out of food production to feed the horses. The amount of work to produce one acre of food by
manual labour is worse than using a tractor.
If you want more information on the entire picture of how that works give the book Is It Organic?
Its written by an Organic Food Inspector, who will quickly open your eyes about a lot of things, and just
how short of ethics the organic industry is, it is every bit as bad as the Tar Sands oil mess.
RBC is a Canadian Company is it not a division of the Royal Bank Family? Used to be
RBC Dominion Securities years ago.
RBC Dominion Securities years ago.
Eastern Canada already buys oil from Algeria and other undemocratic regimes. Where are the ethics there when they can buy it from Alberta? If the fed Tories wanted Alberta to be really ethical, they would get Alberta to sell their ethical oil to eastern Canada instead of letting easterners buy unethical oil from Algeria, Venezuela etc. Those awful unsavoury regimes. But the fed Tories won't, they'll just talk. Alberta and the fed Tories have far more trust in the USA that they do other Canadians. A national energy grid? Don't make me laugh.