More than a carbon-tax…
Not only are Liberals trying to tax everything that pollutes, we now have American Mayors asking to boycott Alberta sand-oil because it’s “dirty” and helping Global Warming.
Mayors of Alberta cities thriving on the energy industry shot back at their U.S. counterparts Tuesday, one day after the Americans took steps to limit fuel from the “dirty tarsands” near Fort McMurray.
“I don’t believe they had all of the facts,” said Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier.
Fort McMurray Mayor Melissa Blake said the oilsands “inadvertently have become an easy target.”
(…)
“America will need Alberta’s oil, there is no question about it,” Bronconnier told reporters Tuesday at City Hall. “When you look at the future growth and the requirements for oil around the globe, the oilsands production will be there to play a critical role.
“Many people in America may not realize that and, certainly, a number of U.S. mayors may not realize that.”
Finance Minister Iris Evans said 13 per cent of the United States’ crude oil imports come from Alberta.
The superpower’s dependence on the province’s natural gas is slightly higher, making up 17 per cent of its natural gas imports, Evans added.
She said she believes the anti-oilsands position adopted by U.S. mayors is flawed and wishes she could remind them one on one how reliant the United States is on Alberta’s oil.
(Source: Calgary Herald)
Keep reading, there’s more…
Kelly McParland, in his National Post comment, has something to say about the Miami Mayors, Carbon taxes and Obama’s goals:
Stéphane Dion is probably convinced he’s telling God’s truth when he says a carbon tax would leave us all better off AND reduce emissions, even though he hasn’t got a clue whether his plan will work or not. Nobody does, even its strongest supporters.
(…)
It’s a bit different for Barack Obama, who also indicated he wants to do something about shifting the U.S. away from dependence on foreign oil. The Democratic presidential candidate didn’t mention the oilsands; that was done by an advisor, Jason Grumet, who said it was an “open question” whether Alberta would be targeted, followed by an array of “ifs”, leaving lots of wriggle room for Obama to get out of it later. But it’s an indication of how political America has found a new villain in its regular search for foreigners to blame for domestic problems.
“New vilain”? I think it’s been around for a while, but let’s move on.
That being the case, it’s worth pointing out some obvious weaknesses in the campaign against the oilsands.
1. Canada doesn’t sell oil to the U.S. because it needs to, it sells it because the U.S. wants it.
2. There are lots of other markets willing to buy the oil. So if the campaign to cut imports from Alberta succeeds, the only damage will be to the U.S., which will have to find the supplies somewhere else, or go without.
3. If Canada sells the oil elsewhere, the emissions will still go into the atmosphere, so the effort involved in the U.S. campaign will be pointless. It might even make things worse: China or India won’t do anything to lessen the impact, unlike U.S. buyers.
4. If the U.S. looks elsewhere to replace the oil, the alternatives are bleak. Canada is a friend, a democracy, a neigbour and a reliable supplier. The biggest alternative sources are Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Algeria, Angola and Russia. Can any of those make even two of the same claims? Maybe Mexico, though reliability is an issue, as its oil is running out.
5. Cutting off the flow from Alberta would damage U.S. security concerns. Washington insisted on the inclusion of energy access in the North American Free Trade Agreement for just that reason. Chapter 6 of NAFTA imposes severe limitations on Canada’s ability to restrict exports to the U.S., a clause that has always annoyed some Canadians. Even as the U.S. mayors were pontificating in Miami, NDP leader Jack Layton was suggesting Canada should cancel their preferential treatment:
NAFTA “locks us into an engagement of our energy to meet American needs, essentially putting in the back seat our own national needs,” Layton said in Ottawa. “No other country has allowed itself to be handcuffed that way.”Message to Americans: Layton is a crazy Canadian socialist. Even Canadians think he’s a bit unrealistic, and we’re the ones with high taxes and government-financed medicine. Do you really want to base your energy and environmental policies on idealistic, left-wing Canadian ideology?
6. U.S. refiners are investing an estimated $53 billion expressly so they can handle Alberta’s oil. What happens if that supply is cut off?
7. As Mr. Obama noted: “We’ve heard promises about it in every State of the Union [speech] for the last three decades. But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil — a 19th-century fossil fuel that is dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive.” There’s a reason for that, sir. It’s not that all those presidents were making it up, or were in the pocket of Big Oil. Some were Democrats, after all, and had other pockets to shelter in. It’s that reality intrudes. It’s not as easy to act when the economy becomes your responsibility and you’re faced with the prospect of lost jobs and angry voters.
(emphasis added by me)
(Source: National Post)
ROFL!!! He even took a shot at my favorite punching bag, Taliban Jack! Woot! This is why I quote writers and newspapers on this blog: Writing is their job and they do it better than I do. Well done Mr. McParland, you nailed it on the head.
You may also want to read what Denny (GOC) has to say about this on the American side of the boarder.