By Paul Driessen
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The duplicity and hypocrisy of environmental pressure
groups seem to be matched only by their consummate skill at manipulating public
opinion, amassing political power, securing taxpayer-funded government grants,
and persuading people to send them money and invest in “ethical” stock funds.
In the annals of “green” campaigns, those against
biotechnology, DDT and Alar are especially prominent. To those we should now
add the well-orchestrated campaigns against Canadian oil sands and the Keystone
XL Pipeline.
Oil has been seeping out of Northern Alberta soils and
river banks for millennia. Native Americans used the bitumen to waterproof
canoes, early explorers smelled and wrote about it, and “entrepreneurs” used it
in “mineral waters” and “medicinal elixirs.”
Today, increasingly high-tech operations are extracting
the precious hydrocarbons to fuel modern living standards in Canada and the
United States. Enormous excavator/loading shovels and trucks used in open pits
during the early years are giving way to drilling rigs, steam injection,
electric heaters, pipes and other technologies to penetrate, liquefy and
extract the petroleum.
The new techniques impact far less land surface, use and
recycle brackish water, and emit fewer air pollutants and (plant-fertilizing)
carbon dioxide every year. Water use for Alberta oil extraction is a tiny
fraction of what’s needed to grow corn and convert it into ethanol that gets a
third less mileage per gallon than gasoline. Affected lands are returned to
forest and native grasslands at a surprising pace. And the operations are
removing oil that would otherwise end up in local air and water.
Instead of requiring perpetual subsidies, á la the
“renewable” technologies that President Obama intends to redouble if he is
reelected, the oil sands generate vast sums in royalties and taxes: an
anticipated $690 billion into federal and provincial coffers all across Canada
over the life of the project. That’s on top of tens of thousands of jobs of
every description, including nearly 2,000 Native Canadians (Aboriginals), whose
communities have enjoyed soaring living standards since the operations were
launched. In fact, the oil sands project will ultimately generate 11,219,000
person-years of high-paying employment from Alberta to British Columbia,
Ontario and the Maritime Provinces, say government sources.
This North American oil is displacing millions of barrels
of annual US oil imports from some of the least savory countries on Earth,
while adding billions of barrels a year to planetary petroleum production, and
thereby keeping world oil prices lower than they would otherwise be.
These are huge benefits. The oil sands project is hardly
perfect. It causes environmental impacts, just as all human enterprises do,
especially those that provide energy. Indeed, even fantasy fuel projects –
wind, solar and biofuel boondoggles that provide comparatively minuscule
amounts of energy, but require billions in taxpayer subsidies – have enormous
ecological impacts. Here’s the most important point:
Canada’s oil sands (and the Keystone Pipeline that will
bring their petroleum to the United States) must be evaluated on environmental
and ethical grounds that compare them to real world alternatives to them – not
to some utopian energy resource that exists only in the minds of idealists,
ideologues and special interest environmental pressure groups.
These critics viciously attack Alberta and the oil sands
industry – accusing them of “blood oil,” environmental devastation and
unethical practices. In reality, oil sands petroleum is among the most ethical
and ecological on Earth, especially when compared to real-world alternatives
like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan, Russia, Ecuador and Venezuela, whose
human rights violations, terrorism sponsorship and reckless environmental
records are legendary. And yet oil sands critics give them a free pass, while
heaping opprobrium on Canada.
Whole Foods says oil sands fuel “does not fit our
values.” Perhaps the grocer and its “ethical” colleagues prefer values espoused
in alternative oil-supplying nations on rights of women, children, gays and
foreign housekeepers; stoning, lashing and lopping off hands and heads;
treatment of civilians during wars in Chechnya and Darfur; massacres and
environmental degradation in the Nigerian delta region; rigged elections and
Swiss bank accounts for oil proceeds; or treatment of aboriginals, minorities
and Christians.
Perhaps Whole Foods, Sierra Club, NRDC, Obama’s EPA and
allied critics prefer to look toward China, which provides 95% of the rare
earth metals that are essential for wind turbines and solar panels. Those
operations have brought unprecedented air and water pollution, cropland and
wildlife habitat wastelands, widespread radiation contamination, and cancer and
lung disease in workers and local residents.
28% of Canadian oil industry jobs held by women is “not
enough,” intones Kairos, a left-leaning coalition of churches. Compared to
what? Women’s jobs in Saudi Arabia or Iran? The 3.5 million more American women
who have ended up on poverty rolls since President Obama took office?
Some 1,600 ducks died after landing in an oil sands waste
pit several years ago. A repeat of this isolated incident is increasingly
unlikely as open pit mining and oil-water separation pits are replaced by in
situ drilling and steam. Nevertheless, using analytical methods that only IPCC
climate alarmists would appreciate, the “respected” Pembina Institute conjured
up the fantastical “calculation” that “more than 160 million birds would die
from oil sands development” over the coming decades.
The claim is not merely wild fear-mongering. It ignores
the growing impact of wind turbines on raptors, and attempts by industrial wind
developers to get US Fish & Wildlife Service “programmatic take” permits:
007 Licenses to Kill thousands of eagles, hawks, whooping cranes and other
protected birds every year without fear of prosecution.
Greenpeace routinely pillories oil sands companies as
“climate criminals,” while the US Environmental Protection Agency uses their
oil sands CO2 emissions to justify denying Keystone Pipeline permits.
(Greenpeace lost its Canadian tax-exempt status, but still manages to con
contributors out of vast sums, to retain its status as a $340-million-per-year
pressure group. EPA conducts illegal experiments on humans, to justify regulations
that are killing thousands of coal mining and utility jobs.)
These positions reflect adherence to the shaky hypothesis
of catastrophic manmade global warming and unsupportable claims that the oil
sands contribute disproportionately to a looming climate Armageddon. However,
Alberta environment office show that “greenhouse gas” emissions from oil sands
plummeted 38% between 1990 and 2009, and are now 5% of Canada’s total GHG
emissions – and equal to or lower than CO2/GHG emissions from petroleum operations
in Nigeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
So-called “ethical funds” likewise excoriate oil sands
developers like Total, Syncrude and Imperial Oil, while promising investors
that their money will purchase shares in “responsible” companies that don’t
produce fossil fuels, do nuclear power or contribute to climate change.
Co-operative Bank’s is one of those modern day snake oil “entrepreneurs.” Its
über-ethical Sustainable Leaders Trust (don’t you love that name?) makes that
pitch – and then invests client cash in Third World coal mines … and oil sands!
The rogues’ gallery of oil sands critics and their shady
dealings is so vast that someone could write a book about them. In fact, Ezra
Levant did exactly that. His Ethical Oil is an eye-opening companion to my own
Eco-Imperialism, which chronicles the often lethal misdeeds of other
self-righteous pressure groups.
Their misrepresentations, double standards and
questionable practices would get them brought up on fraud charges, if they were
oil companies or non-“ethical” investment “trusts.” It’s time to apply the same
legal and ethical standards to these “socially responsible” outfits that they
insist on applying to the corporations they denounce.
Perhaps a few state attorneys general or Eric Holder’s
replacement will do exactly that.
No comments:
Post a Comment