It's not superficial when hard facts show that we will guzzle the same from the Middle East regardless if this project goes ahead or not. One might say.. it's not ethical.
Where is Ezra when you need him...
U.S. to re-route Keystone XL due to environmental concerns
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It's not superficial when hard facts show that we will guzzle the same from the Middle East regardless if this project goes ahead or not. One might say.. it's not ethical.
Where is Ezra when you need him...
Really?... You still rely on this uber-thin and intangible focus on ethics?.. Tell ya what, if you are really that dead set on the ethical position, why not do something about it? Vote with your dollars or eliminate your consumption all together - that'll do more than constantly bitching about what 'ought' to be.
As for consumption; Canada only supplies a small % of the crude used by the USA. The US will still rely on the ME, Venezuela, North Sea, Canada and domestic sources to fuel their economy... But if you believe it's wise to potentially put yourself into a position where you can be held hostage by OPEC, then fill yer boots bud - but don't say I never told ya so.
Does he mean he is a Professional Engineer? If so, he has failed in his Obligation: 'I will not henceforward suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before men as an Engineer'
He is stating boldly in the newspaper that he failed in his job, and signed off on things that should not have been signed off on.
Quite the statement.
No, I'm just pointing out that government hypocrisy and grand lies to the public do us no good. Thank you for finally admitting that the ethical oil argument is a ruse.
Why don't you take a look at the projected consumption patterns predicted for the USA.... Things will start to make a little more sense for ya.
An argument that was spawned from the even bigger ruse of AGW.
Now yer talking MF.
Seeing how you and I are at odds on the oil pipeline issue, how about this: Can you get behind a beer pipeline for the Nation?
I would be like a giant set of draft beer taps that would be plumbed into all homes throughout the nation.. I'm thinking that this would bring a whole lotta national unity together.
Seeing how you and I are at odds on the oil pipeline issue, how about this: Can you get behind a beer pipeline for the Nation?
I would be like a giant set of draft beer taps that would be plumbed into all homes throughout the nation.. I'm thinking that this would bring a whole lotta national unity together.
'Secret' Environment Canada presentation warns of oilsands' impact on habitat
Contamination of a major western Canadian river basin from oilsands operations is a "high-profile concern" for downstream communities and wildlife, says a newly-released "secret" presentation prepared last spring by Environment Canada that highlighted numerous warnings about the industry's growing footprint on land, air, water and the climate.
The warnings from the department contrast with recent claims made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Peter Kent that the industry is being unfairly targeted by environmentalists who exaggerate its impacts on nature and people.
It warned that Alberta and other parts of Western Canada are facing a steep economic and ecological price tag for failing to crack down on the industry's collateral damage.
"Contamination of the Athabasca River is a high-profile concern," said the presentation, marked secret, but released to Postmedia News through access to information legislation.
"Recent studies suggest elevated levels of pollutants near mining sites including hydrocarbons and heavy metals . . . (It) raises questions about possible effects on health of wildlife and downstream communities."
The presentation was produced in May as a governmentwide oilsands task force continued to develop a new science-based monitoring program to get specifics on the impacts of oil extraction from the bitumen deposits in Western Canada that are also known as tarsands because of their tar-like appearance and odour. The deposits are considered to hold one of the largest reserves of oil in the world, but existing technology forces producers to use large quantities of water and energy, while disrupting natural ecosystems to extract the fuel from the ground.
"Bitumen extraction uses between one (in situ) and three to four (mining) barrels of fresh (i.e. Not recycled) water per barrel of oil recovered," said the document. "Industry demand for water is expected to increase."
A related Environment Canada document, also produced in May and released earlier this month to Postmedia News, warned the government that the industry's economic future was in jeopardy because of a lack of "credible scientific information" required to counter campaigns and foreign regulations or legislation that crack down on products and industries with poor environmental performance.
In recent years, Harper's government has repeatedly pledged to deliver new regulations for the sector, but has subsequently delayed those plans.
The latest document singles out the oilsands sector as the main obstacle in Canada's efforts to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere and cause climate change.
"The oilsands are Canada's fastest growing source of GHGs," said the document.
It estimated that the industry's annual greenhouse gas emissions would rise by nearly 900 per cent from 1990 to 2020. By the end of that period, the oilsands — with an estimated annual footprint of 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gases in 2020 — would exceed the carbon footprint of all cars and SUVs on Canadian roads from 2008, according to the Environment Canada document.
The document also warns of other rising air pollutants that could cause acid rain or other forms of acidification to damage lakes in Saskatchewan and Alberta, along with particulate matter that could be toxic to rivers, the landscape and wildlife.
"Oilsands development will continue to put pressure on vulnerable species (e.g. Woodland Caribou)," said the document. "Removal of landscape features for mining reduces available habitat."
It also said that changes to existing habitat prompted by industrial activity would also threaten forest species, as well as water-dwelling species that are already seeing major changes to their own habitat.
"Low flow conditions could damage fish habitat, especially during winter," said the document. "River flow has decreased over (the) past thirty years (and the) trend is expected to continue."
Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network, a coalition of environmental, faith-based and labour groups, said the warnings from Environment Canada suggest that Harper and Kent should stop trying to defend the environmental record of the oil and gas industry, making claims that the oilsands represent a "responsibly and sustainably developed resource."
"It's clear that there's nothing ethical about this level of environmental destruction and greenhouse gas pollution," said Saul. "The government seems to know the level of destruction associated with the tarsands and yet they're presenting a very different face to the public and in reality, there seems to be a massive gap between what they know to be an extremely destructive project and a policy agenda that is essentially seeking to promote the rapid expansion of the tarsands."
Contamination of a major western Canadian river basin from oilsands operations is a "high-profile concern" for downstream communities and wildlife, says a newly-released "secret" presentation prepared last spring by Environment Canada that highlighted numerous warnings about the industry's growing footprint on land, air, water and the climate.
The warnings from the department contrast with recent claims made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Peter Kent that the industry is being unfairly targeted by environmentalists who exaggerate its impacts on nature and people.
It warned that Alberta and other parts of Western Canada are facing a steep economic and ecological price tag for failing to crack down on the industry's collateral damage.
"Contamination of the Athabasca River is a high-profile concern," said the presentation, marked secret, but released to Postmedia News through access to information legislation.
"Recent studies suggest elevated levels of pollutants near mining sites including hydrocarbons and heavy metals . . . (It) raises questions about possible effects on health of wildlife and downstream communities."
The presentation was produced in May as a governmentwide oilsands task force continued to develop a new science-based monitoring program to get specifics on the impacts of oil extraction from the bitumen deposits in Western Canada that are also known as tarsands because of their tar-like appearance and odour. The deposits are considered to hold one of the largest reserves of oil in the world, but existing technology forces producers to use large quantities of water and energy, while disrupting natural ecosystems to extract the fuel from the ground.
"Bitumen extraction uses between one (in situ) and three to four (mining) barrels of fresh (i.e. Not recycled) water per barrel of oil recovered," said the document. "Industry demand for water is expected to increase."
A related Environment Canada document, also produced in May and released earlier this month to Postmedia News, warned the government that the industry's economic future was in jeopardy because of a lack of "credible scientific information" required to counter campaigns and foreign regulations or legislation that crack down on products and industries with poor environmental performance.
In recent years, Harper's government has repeatedly pledged to deliver new regulations for the sector, but has subsequently delayed those plans.
The latest document singles out the oilsands sector as the main obstacle in Canada's efforts to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere and cause climate change.
"The oilsands are Canada's fastest growing source of GHGs," said the document.
It estimated that the industry's annual greenhouse gas emissions would rise by nearly 900 per cent from 1990 to 2020. By the end of that period, the oilsands — with an estimated annual footprint of 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gases in 2020 — would exceed the carbon footprint of all cars and SUVs on Canadian roads from 2008, according to the Environment Canada document.
The document also warns of other rising air pollutants that could cause acid rain or other forms of acidification to damage lakes in Saskatchewan and Alberta, along with particulate matter that could be toxic to rivers, the landscape and wildlife.
"Oilsands development will continue to put pressure on vulnerable species (e.g. Woodland Caribou)," said the document. "Removal of landscape features for mining reduces available habitat."
It also said that changes to existing habitat prompted by industrial activity would also threaten forest species, as well as water-dwelling species that are already seeing major changes to their own habitat.
"Low flow conditions could damage fish habitat, especially during winter," said the document. "River flow has decreased over (the) past thirty years (and the) trend is expected to continue."
Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network, a coalition of environmental, faith-based and labour groups, said the warnings from Environment Canada suggest that Harper and Kent should stop trying to defend the environmental record of the oil and gas industry, making claims that the oilsands represent a "responsibly and sustainably developed resource."
"It's clear that there's nothing ethical about this level of environmental destruction and greenhouse gas pollution," said Saul. "The government seems to know the level of destruction associated with the tarsands and yet they're presenting a very different face to the public and in reality, there seems to be a massive gap between what they know to be an extremely destructive project and a policy agenda that is essentially seeking to promote the rapid expansion of the tarsands."
Clearly because a high profile concern means it should have been dead ages ago from uranium mining and therefore it is not really a high profile concern.
Yes.
Indeed. *bubble bubble*
Does the term "high profile" mean uranium is getting a free pass here or is bull**** out of context quote response a bull**** out of context quote response from you as usual?
Oil is more high profile than uranium? Do you realize this drama over rivers and forest is identical to what went on during the uranium developement 30 years ago?
Considering that the oil sands have been at surface for thousands of years, leaching into the rivers and volatilizing into the air, you'd think that these areas would have been a wasteland long before man had hit the scene.
Interesting, non?
The eco-lobbies weren't so interested back then