Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Govt Threatens Tar Sands Activists with Anti-Terror Laws
VANCOUVER - The provincial government in Alberta, Canada is threatening to unleash its counterterrorism plan if activists continue using civil disobedience to protest the tar sands, Canada's fastest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
On July 25th, 2008 eleven Greenpeace activists entered Syncrude’s Aurora tar sands operation and hung this banner to protest the development of this toxic practice. he provincial government in Alberta, Canada is threatening to unleash its counterterrorism plan if activists continue using civil disobedience to protest the tar sands, Canada's fastest source of greenhouse gas emissions. (Image: Courtesy Greenpeace) In recent weeks,
Greenpeace has staged three daring protests inside tar sands mines,
temporarily shutting down parts of the world's largest energy project.
On Oct. 3 and 4, activists blocked construction of an upgrader needed
to refine heavy tar sands oil, belonging to Shell in Ft. Saskatchewan,
Alberta.
Civil disobedience from Greenpeace, leading to 37 arrests, has enraged Alberta's conservative government. "We're coddling people who are breaking the law," complained Premier Ed Stelmach during a media scrum in early October.
"Premier Stelmach's public suggestion that he will use the 'force of the law to deal with these people' confirms his lack of knowledge of the limits of his authority and the clear rule that our system of justice cannot be interfered with or manipulated for political reasons," responded Brian Beresh, the defence lawyer representing arrested activists, at a news conference in Edmonton.
Legal scholars, including University of Alberta law professor Sanjiv Anand and Tom Engel of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, have criticized the provincial government for attempting to politicize legal proceedings.
"We're going to be working very closely with industry and our solicitor general will be reviewing all of the guidelines we have in place," said a visibly irritated Premier Stelmach in early October.
Fred Lindsay, the solicitor general, went a step further, suggesting the province might use its counterterrorism plan against future protests.
"I think there is an agenda in linking Greenpeace to concerns about terrorism," Bruce Cox, the executive director of Greenpeace Canada, told IPS. Cox is being charged with mischief and faces a fine of more than 5,000 dollars for his participation in the civil disobedience.
The recent campaign began on Sep. 15, when 25 Greenpeace activists snuck into Shell's Albian sands mine in northern Alberta, chaining themselves to a three-story high dump truck and hanging huge banners to coincide with meetings between Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington.
Shell officials temporarily shut down the site. Shell was targeted again in early October at its Ft. Saskatchewan upgrader.
On Sep. 30, activists canoed down the Athabasca River into a tar sands facility operated by Suncor. They blocked a conveyor belt which moves heavy oil, causing a temporary shutdown of Canada's second largest oil sands mine. Suncor didn't respond to repeated requests for comment from IPS.
Canada's tar sands will singlehandedly produce more greenhouse gas emissions than Denmark, Ireland, Austria or Portugal by 2020 if the development continues expanding at its current rate, according to a recent report written by award-winning business reporter Andrew Nikiforuk. The tar sands already spew more greenhouse gas emissions than Estonia or Lithuania.
"Companies in the tar sands are secondary to our goal. Our message was aimed at international leaders, along with the prime minister in Canada," Cox told IPS.
"We are going to continue to get our message out to an international audience, with a focus now on [climate change negotiations in] Copenhagen in mid-December," he said.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made headlines across Canada in September when he stated that the tar sands should be shut down.
While recent civil disobedience raises the stakes in Alberta itself, the main battles surrounding the tar sands will be fought during international forums like Copenhagen and in Washington, as U.S. consumers receive the lion's share of tar sands imports.
California and Oregon have already passed low carbon fuel standard laws, which effectively prohibit the importation of tar sands oil. That worries some energy lobbyists in the U.S.
"Our economy is completely dependent on fossil fuels," said Michael Whatley from the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a pro-tar sands lobby group representing the transportation industry and oil producers based in Houston, Texas.
"If you start taking oil based products off the table before alternatives are ready for prime time, then you are going to have catastrophic impacts for the economy," Whately told IPS.
The CEA has been meeting with U.S. politicians, lobbying against low carbon fuel standards and writing op-eds in support of the tar sands.
"Does Canadian oil have more carbon in it than oil from the Middle East? No. Does gasoline derived from Canadian oil emit more carbon dioxide than gasoline from Middle East oil? Nope." wrote David Holt, the executive director of CEA, in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner.
These numbers contradict the standard scientific consensus and they are at odds with what tar sands companies themselves are saying. Shell, for example, says burning tar sands oil creates five to 15 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude.
Michael Whatley couldn't directly comment on how CEA came to such conclusions or why their numbers vastly differ from basic scientific norms for calibrating emissions. The pro-tar sands lobbyist believes the environmental movement has had "a tremendous head-start" in the battle for hearts and minds but he is feeling "very upbeat" from talking to U.S. consumers and politicians about the alleged benefits of tar sands crude.
Back in Alberta, the provincial government's approach to recent civil disobedience has rattled legal scholars, but Greenpeace's David Cox isn't particularly surprised. "They [Alberta's government] are unflinching boosters for dirty tar sands oil, they invest tax dollars in selling it worldwide," said Cox.
54 Comments so far
Show AllThe alberta government has yet to meet a corporation they don't like. The have no plans to diversify the economy from drilling for oil, they have no intention to believe that the oil would ever run out. Of course they'll treat environmentalists as if they're terrorists, they also cut funding to theatre groups if the theatre puts on a play that criticizes the tories. They've decided that the mentally ill who need to be hospitalized can live on the streets after they've shut down the hospital in Edmonton. The alberta tories make the Republicans look like a bunch of liberals...
If I could afford to leave this province, I'd be gone.
Come to Winnipeg. Much cheaper, and the Green Party of MB could use you.
I live in America and see this kind of thing happen all the time. We have oil companies here spreading their propaganda against renewable resources. And the car industry is worse. "Oh, Obama, you want higher MPG...okay! Here, the brand new '09 Toyota Prius, only 30,000$ Oh, Obama, you never said it had to be affordable." We have the technology to do so much to help save this planet and it just amazes me how corporations are allowed to intervene. I applaud the Yes Men and the Tar Sands Activists.
Yeah, and it looks like the ever crazier "Wild Rose Party" will maybe take power away from the idiot provincial conservatives.
Listen, do you Americans want the damn place? If so, we'll sell it to you for 1,000 Euros, eh. But be warned Albertans are even more Neanderthal like than ever the most dysfunctional drooling Texans or any of the the clowns from your Oklahoma thingy.
Well, here in America, Texans are threatening to split off from the US, so. Maybe they'd want a trade so they don't have to go through the painstaking process of realigning the stars on their flag.
Not funny, not funny at all. Just because the tories have gerrymandered all the ridings in alberta doesn't mean that there are no progressive people in this province. We're still too liberal to be yankees. (grin)
lol. I think the largest suicide on Earth would occur if Texas joined up with Canada. If Texans are going bonkers over Obama imagine what they'd do if ::gasp:: the government offered health care, or worse...if people were put before corporate profits???
Well, ya know... We just had a little hostage taking here in Edmonton. Someone who wasn't satisfied with the Workers Compensation Board took the office hostage. Ended without anyone dying, but we don't really put people before corporate profits. Hence the article that has the gov't threatening anti-terror laws being used against people who protest the corporations.
That being said. Yah, Texas would go bonkers if they ever joined up with Canada. The health care would be bad enough, but the gun control issue would send them even further round the bend than they are now. Then there is the fact that Canada has two official languages.
Well, yeah. Obviously this article was antithetic to my comment. I mean, in comparison to the US. lol. But, I guess when you say "in comparison to the US" many things can be said. Lolz. SO, I rescind that part of my comment.
Not in Canada. Now where do we defect to?
Lol. I was actually thinking the exact same thing. The progressive oasis that I'm planning to move to (Since Palin is putting "running" and "for president" in the same sentence) is still a little bit on the conservative side. But, compared to American conservatives they're like centrists. So I hear.
Rather amazing she was actually able to put those words INTO a sentence.
I'm wondering if she's a sleeper cell of Nazi ideas and complete mania and maybe in 2012 she'll bust out of her naive 'soccer mom' act and takeover everything. That would mean I'd be used to set witches on fire...that would hurt....
If there is one province in Canada that is bad reflection of red state America, it is Alberta.
NateW: Do you live in Canada? If so, is the rest of Canada more progressive like I was led to believe?
Canada, especially Western Canada has moved quite far right. Saskatchewan, next door to Alberta and 'home' of medicare, now has a 'conservative' government. George Bush is appearing in Saskatoon tomorrow. Manitoba has a (basically neoliberal Blairist) NDP provincial government that may also move further right now that their premier has thrown in with the Harper government as a UN ambasador. A resource boom has brought back Saskatchewan expats from Alberta who support a free market ideology. Basically, we seem to be having our delayed neo-con/lib revolution. From what I see, it's a massive corporate coup supported by our local 'compador elites' and compliant working class. So if you're looking for safe haven in Canada, be sure to check out prospective locations.
That sounds like the stark contrast between our "New England" and "The South". Southern states are very very far right with laws banning adoption between unmarried couples, and even a Loiusianna justice of the peace refusing to marry an interracial couple (for just a few very recent examples). Then you have the Northeast with inclusive values and a statistically better quality of life. Interesting to see the same kind of split mirrored in Canada. Disheartening but interesting at the same time.
It important to remember the underlying reason the Western provinces trend Conservative.
It is NOT because they are opposed to health care or Social programs. It is not because they want to see a ban on Homosexual marriage or feel the Enviroment does not need protecting. It is not because they would like more Military interventions the World over.
It is FISCAL Conservatism. They want to see balanced budgets . They feel that he Corporations being allowed in to exploit resources is the way to do this.
It also important to recognize the very real difference in the histories east/west when compared to the US North/south.
Canadas west has no history of or legacy of Slavery. The split is not there due to a Civil war or arguements over Jim crow laws. Nor is there a particularly strong bible belt in Western Canada. (There are certainly pockets of such). Western canada was built almost exclusively by the Immigrant.
The split was due to the old Federal Policies out of Ottawa wherein the west was to be seen as a source of cheap raw materials for the Eastern factories and a perpetual colony of the Eastern industiral base. This was exemplified by the freight rates where shipping product in one direction was cheaper then shipping it in the other so as to favor eastern Business.
It was also exemplified by the Government subsidizing Eastern Businesses while refusing to do the same in the West. My fathers comment on this was telling. He pointed out that in the 1950s he was making 50 cents an hour while at the same time Auto Factories in the East were paying workers 10 and 20 times the wage.
Western Canada kept pushing the East to invest in her as they were investing in the east and this was refused. The West then looked South for that same investment and the big US Corporations were more then happy to comply.
Now just as example look at the direction of the pipelines. Quebec is not linked by any major pieplines to the West. They get their oil from the Middle East and venezaula to a great extent. The pipelines run north/south.
The National Energy Program that Trudeau tried to push was the culmination of this and something no one in the West is willing to forget.
The East/west divide is very much due to that. The depression was another kick in the teeth wherein the various Socialist Governments in the West that formed were stomped on heavily under Ottawas instruction. Remember that West Canada was the birthplace of Socialism in Canada.
Now commodities are now a greater Source of wealth then is manufacturing and the West has the commodities that are in demand. They want their "Place in the Sun" so tp speak so the Western provinces have a big chip on their shoulders. The attitude is "The East kept us DOWN all those years and now they want to do it again..."
I do not AGREE with Corporatism or what happens in the Tarsands and Saskatchewan. I was born in the West however and understand where the sentiment comes from. Trying to compare it to the Southern US is simply wrong .
Corporatism is just as strong in Ontario as it is in Canadas west. The difference is in the West it revolves around resources and in the East it revolves around Manufacturing and the banking sector.
I would also point out that GW Bush attended a sold out dinner in Ontario a few months back. There are plenty of "Conservatives" In Ontario. See Mike Harris and his legacy there.
There are not judges in West Canada refusing to marry people because of skin color. There was never a "Blacks sit at the back of the bus law". So it important that people UNDERSTAND that when they try to claim that the West is like the deep south you are giving a VERY wrong impression to the peoples in the US.
It nothing LIKE that.
Thanks for adding some clarity. I made no mention of the any identity bewteen the Southern US and Western Canada so I don't understand your inference. When you speak (historically) of the West being conservative, I think it's important to distinguish between the older tory traditions (manifest in Progressive Conservatives or Red Tories) who supported social programs and the new (neo)Conservatives. Hard Fiscal Conservatism is often used to undermine support for social programs. Harper, and his provincial counterparts would love to privatise Medicare strictly on principle (good old pirate enterprise). Social assistance? there are no 'deserving' poor (being poor in itself means you don't deserve it).
I agree that the resource boom is being seen by many as finally 'getting our place in the sun'. But as many of us know, boom benefits are extremely uneven. For many it just means higher prices, rents, crowding, and crime. Not that you are entirely wrong but NEP is a complex subject and I suggest your reading is pretty incomplete. The Alberta Conservatives made a lot of political hay on that situation. I certainly agree that while we are not as bad as the US we are moving more in that direction. Our major University in Saskatchewan in almost completely corporatised, (as I understand it) simliar to the general pattern in the US and elsewhere. My point is that the image of Canada as 'progessive haven' has changed as we've moved from British colony to a country with some independence and back to US (and now corporate) colony (cribbed from Harold Innis). For progressive, I think it's generally better but 'betterer' in some regions than others.
I am NOT in disagreement with much of what you say. The Current crop of Conervatives in Alberta are very different from Peter Lougheeds Conservatives of the NEP days.
The point is this. There strong support for the Corporations because the people in that region felt it the Corporations that brought them wealth and NOT the Government in Ottawa.
Just consider this.
In the 1930' 40s and right up through to NAFTA the Canadian Government slapped huge tarrifs on the import of farm machinery in order to protect Eastern Industry.
Well and good . At the same time they were forcing the West to sell its products at World prices competing with the rest of the world. So imagine being a farmer, going to Montana and seeing the same tractor selling for 15,000$$ less yet you are not making any more then the Farmer in the USA.
Then you go to Canada and realize that due to freight rates and other such programs any Company that tried to build tractors in the west would be unable to compete with the Manufacturers in the East.
THAT Hurts and that built up a lot of resentment to the "Liberals in Ottawa".
That resentment will linger for Generations. Harper FEEDS off that to push his own agenda being VERY careful not to appear TOO Conservative. He is the Old Style Burkesian conservative who as you mentioned would like nothing better then to see ALL Social programs ended.
In this respect Harper is a lot more like Obama then he is like Bush. Bush was quite open as to what he wanted to do. Harper exploits the same fears, pretends moderation and simply a concern for Canadas deficit while slowly and insidously trying to wreck those social programs from within.
As to the NDP , they were first and foremost a Western Party. Thats where they had their roots. They then expanded to the East and were all but taken over by that same Eastern wing of the party. That Eastern wing tended to favor the Auto Workers and the Unions in Eastern Canada. They all but abandoned the people in the West.
The Liberal party of Canada just never understood the West. They don't GET it.
Thus as far as the Voter in the west is concerned...The Conservatives are all they got .
Now I had hopes for Reform but NOT because they were a religous "right wing party" but because they would be a Western based Party that would represent the real concerns of the West. They failed utterly in that regard and were taken over by the wingnuts who then took over the old PCS.
Of all the Parties In Canada the most progressive that I can see and the ones most representaive of the electorate that sends them to Ottawa are the Bloc Quebecois.
I really think Canada needs more regional based parties.
Myself. I vote green and have done since about the time they started.
No major disagreement with you on most of your points. Long-standing Western alienation explains but does not mitigate the effects of fully embracing the business/corporatist growth model. We are selling off the West to strip mine and strip mall it to get even with the 'eastern bastards', become like the 'big boys' down south and finally get our place in the sun. My point is that conservative values are increasingly smuggled into public discourse. This crowds out criticism and inures people to accept pure market relations as 'natural'. In fact, conservatives define 'progress' simply as whatever gets them more money. All I know is I see a helluva lot of yellow ribbons on a helluva a lot of SUVs and hear little to counter an expanded control of civil society by business.
Being an American with all due plans to move to Canada in search of a more progressive/socialist government, this is simply fascinating. Just the same, I stand corrected on my assumption that the East/West 'divide' in Canada is equitable to the North/South divide in America. However, when I stated this I didn't really mean they were comparable in any exact way. I was merely stating how interesting it is that there is a split in both nations. Nonetheless, I am enjoying learning a little more about Canadian politics and am disheartened to hear that Canada may be trending towards American corporate tendencies.
Can anyone go into more detail about the question Is Socialism/progressiveness diminishing in Canada?
*I, personally, see socialism as a progressive movement as it goes away from the older American "Pull Yourself Up By Your Bootstraps" idea of self-reliance and death or failure of the 'weak'. Weak, here, is defined as those who do not have enough money to support themselves. Using the term weak means just that and does not take into account HOW they came to be in that situation. Fiscal Conservatives in America believe that the private enterprise and the 'free market' along with the 'profit motive' and 'competition' is the only way to have a fair society. Many do not approve of social programs to help those less fortunate because they believe that if you are less fortunate, it is of your own doing.
Progressive ideas that say "People should come before profits" and "Maybe we need to abandon the free market if it does not aid in the welfare of society" are juxtaposed to the Conservative party here in America and are demonized as Socialism. Here, in America 'socialism' is a dirty word (it is starting to gain acceptance but, at a snails pace.)
We also have the phenomenon that fiscal conservatism is married to "social conservatism." I put that in quotations because I still do not understand the term "social conservatism." I do not understand it, in that society changes and shifts. Even the ideas that our social conservative parties adhere to have been changed from their previous state. (We no longer keep slaves or own women, etc.) So, it makes me question what does a 'traditional' or 'conservative' social society look like? Who determines what it is?
I also see socialism as a progressive system because it removes ideas like "does it increase my bottom line?" "Will my company profit from this?" "We need to remove the personal impact out of business and just focus on business and what increases our gains." and instead replaces them with a more abstract view of "Do people benefit from this?" "Will this help those less fortunate in society?" "What can we do to make sure people are clothed, fed, and housed?"
I see socialism as a system that cares about the unfortunate (un-fortune-ate) even the very word says it 'without fortune'. Whereas, capitalism and thus, fiscal conservatism (at least in America) worry only about the fortunate and those who have made it. I also welcome the destruction of any private industry who only cares about how much profits it can make. Why we worry about a number before the welfare of people is beyond me.
Having said this, I am asking again, under my current definition of progressive ideals, is Canada moving away from progressiveness/socialism and more towards American tendencies of 'dog-eat-dog' private enterprise and corporate-only wealth?
Andy,
That's what I was trying to point out in my discussion with GWN. Here's my take on some of the general trajectory of the situation from my perch. FTA and NAFTA signaled a business/corporatist coup in both the US and Canada. In 1993 the Liberals under Chrétien decimated Mulroney's PCs, at least in part on a promise to reconsider/renegotiate the FTA. Their 'Red Book' contained promises to support social programs and critically review the FTA, however the Liberals basically pulled off an Obama and once they were in power, rubber stamped the agreement. The neo-liberal model has been actively adhered to by the mainstream parties since then. Indeed, governments, which had allowed at least some counterweight to untrammeled business power, have become little more than cheerleaders. Over the last 15 years, corporations have increasingly gained greater power. Corporate capitalism was more advanced in the US, but in the last few years is really flexing its muscles in Canada. As GNW points out, a resource boom in conjunction with 'long standing Western alienation' has propelled Conservatives into a solid power base in the West. An 'oilygopoly' of oozing southern interests combined with regional compradors has a powerful grip on the political/media machinery in the region. In the West the boom is blinding a lot of people. We hear little in the way of criticism or alternatives to the neoliberal model. It is simply accepted as economic reality. Many of the middle class seem enthralled with the growth is wonderful model. There is strong support for the lower taxes carrot and much awe of the mere word 'entrepreneur'.
I do not wish to discourage you, merely point out that the vaunted progressivism of Canadians is very uneven and (depending on the region) something of a shadow. Although, as in the US, there are many progressive Canadians, the myth of a peace keeping, tolerant Canada shouldn't be taken too literally. I for one, welcome progressive Americans - we need all the help we can get. If you parachute into Saskatoon, expect a smaller city with a big boom mentality. We're not yet there, but we are moving in the general direction of American development patterns of suburbanisation, resource exraction and so on. Canada is NOT the US, but is clearly influenced by power dynamics (especially corporate colonisation) south of the 49th.
Thanks for adding some clarity. I made no mention of the any identity bewteen the Southern US and Western Canada so I don't understand your inference. When you speak (historically) of the West being conservative, I think it's important to distinguish between the older tory traditions (manifest in Progressive Conservatives or Red Tories) who supported social programs and the new (neo)Conservatives. Hard Fiscal Conservatism is often used to undermine support for social programs. Harper, and his provincial counterparts would love to privatise Medicare strictly on principle (good old pirate enterprise). Social assistance? there are no 'deserving' poor (being poor in itself means you don't deserve it).
I agree that the resource boom is being seen by many as finally 'getting our place in the sun'. But as many of us know, boom benefits are extremely uneven. For many it just means higher prices, rents, crowding, and crime. Not that you are entirely wrong but NEP is a complex subject and I suggest your reading is pretty incomplete. The Alberta Conservatives made a lot of political hay on that situation. I certainly agree that while we are not as bad as the US we are moving more in that direction. Our major University in Saskatchewan in almost completely corporatised, (as I understand it) simliar to the general pattern in the US and elsewhere. My point is that the image of Canada as 'progessive haven' has changed as we've moved from British colony to a country with some independence and back to US (and now corporate) colony (cribbed from Harold Innis). For progressive, I think it's generally better but 'betterer' in some regions than others.
Yes, it is!
But there are pockets of American wannabees at every level of govt and business. Alberta is the worst...and parts of rural BC. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have longstanding socialist traditions (universal health care originated in this part of the country). The east is a mix, but with strong progressive strains. The divides are not the same as in the US. For instance, in Manitoba we have a strong Mennonite presence. These folks are quite religious and socially conservative, but extremely dedicated to world peace, aiding the poor, and human rights. They put their time, money and lives on the line all over the world. If all Christians followed their example, no one would diss them on this site.
Manitoba has public auto insurance as well as health care. Winnipeg (capital) had North America's first elected openly gay mayor. Gay marriage has been recognized throughout the country for several years.
It's not paradise; we still have the annoying and embarrassing Conservative Stephen Harper leading a minority govt, but our Conservatives are more progressive than your Democrats, and his success is due mainly to the disarray of the Liberal party (slightly more to the left, but not as far as the New Democrats who are avowedly socialist and will probably never win power). The Green party polls at around 10% nationwide.
What Kloztopuken says is also true; there are worrisome encroachments, but it's not comparable to the US. It's a much smaller country and much easier to gain access to power and to organize and have influence. I'm an expat American and nothing could make me trade places.
Oh okay. Thank you for the great info, bonepeople! How did you expatriate? I'm only 21 and am trying to set myself up so my boyfriend and I can move and then wait the 4 years and gain residency. Right now it's kinda tough to get in because you have to have so many points and having a degree helps BIG time, so does knowing French. Do you have any advice you'd like to offer? If not on the post then in a message?
I wish I could be more helpful, but I married into it. That's the easy way; I know how hard it is to qualify on skills and language. Yes, French is extremely helpful. I don't know what your career direction is, but the second best way is to get a job offer -- especially in the favoured NAFTA fields (education, for instance) where the process is streamlined. So if you have any connections you can cultivate, that's something to try. You've probably checked out the govt website; it's pretty informative and should give you an idea of the labour market and what they're looking for, and it is possible to get someone helpful on the phone (when I went through the process, I was constantly astounded that I could reach real humans by telephone and that they actually wanted to help me :)
Good luck. I hope you find a way.
Oh okay. Yeah, I heard getting married is the easiest way. My field will most likely be in education (some sort of Political Science secondary education, High School). I just hope by the time I get to applying for all the paperwork that the market isn't saturated. But, I will remember that I can get help from actual people if/when I need it.
Thank you for the encouragement and the help!
Another poorly researched article.
Not only does Michael Whatley from CEA seem unable to explain why tar sands gasoline and Middle East gasoline emit the same amount of carbon dioxide; the author, Chris Arsenault, seems unable to penetrate this subterfuge.
Middle East oil reaches the refinery with carbon costs due to the energy required for pumping and shipping whereas tar sands oil typically uses energy to produce hot water for extraction and additional natural gas for hydrogenation of the tar.
Thus tar sands oil is far less efficient in terms of energy output per unit of energy input, besides being a blight on the landscape.
Here's an oildrum.com Oil Sands EROI analysis, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839
The article is just one of six that examines energy EROIs and why they matter, which ought to be fundamental reading for everyperson on the planet.
the tar sands is turning alberta into a stricken moonscape
they are befouling the fresh water and storing it in poison lakes visible from space
they destroy the top ten feet, the living layer of the land, to scoop out the tarsand beneath
they use vast amounts of natural gas to steam out the precious precious oil
it takes more energy than it makes and they persist, drunk on false prosperity
we are the USA's number one oil supplier now
Arabs in hockey sweaters.
if we destroy all of alberta we can keep the lights on at Disneyland for another two years!
Meanwhile, across the Rockies in British Columbia, the pine beetle is taking advantage of warmer winters to eat all of the forest. All of it. Next it burns. Then we have our own moonscape.
if I were King, everything would be different
The Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture lists energy balance estimates for gasoline, petro-diesel, ethanol and biodiesel here:
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/
renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm
It indicates that gasoline and petro-diesel production both consume one unit of energy to make only about 0.8 units of usable energy in those forms. It indicates that ethanol production consumes one unit of energy to make 1.34 units of ethanol energy, and bidiesel production consumes one unit of energy to make 3.2 units of biodiesel energy. These numebrs are called energy yield.
The energy yields depend on the sources. The petro-yields are likely averages taken from a mix of the easily extracted/refined grades (.e.g from Saudi Arabia) and the more expensive varieties (e.g. from Venezuela). The bio-fuel yields are likely to be quite low, given that plant sources vary widely in yield per acre and that some quote sugar cane as having an energy yield of 8 to 10.
For tar sands there seems to be an additional scale factor of 0.3 bringing the energy yield of tar sands gasoline/diesel to .24, or perhaps as much as 40 times lower than that of sugar cane ethanol, and probably palm oil biodiesel as well. So the total carbon spewed per unit of tar sands fuel energy is probably around 3 times that of conventional petrofuels. Biofuels are carbon-neutral of course. Whatever are the total costs of production/consumption of tar sand and biofuels per unit energy (biofuels are known to be significantly lower), tar sands are probably five times higher and maybe much higher than that.
Thanks for number crunching for those of us who suck at math :-)
How do the Nigerians get Big Oil to MEND it's ways?
What makes you think they did?
I'd say it's nice to see another country besides mine threatening peaceful protesters with terrorism charges, but it's really not.
rtdrury, I think your numbers are bogus. According to Richard heinberg, oil once had an EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of 100 to 1--it's a lot less now but still averages something like 10 to 1, Corn ethanol averages around 1.2 to 1, with some studies making it look worse. Yes, sugarcane is better, but when you take into account the need for agriculture to provide food, and the need for land to have organic matter returned to it, it's clear that biomass is not a significant part of the solution (with the possible exception of algae).
It is incumbent on the people in Alberta to continue these protests, as miserable a job as it is, just like it's incumbent on us here in West Virginia to keep fighting coal. The Army Corps of Engineers announced that it's thinking of no longer using NW21 permits (one-size-fits-all rubber stamps intended for minor projects with "minimal impacts") for the mountaintop removal coal "mines" that blast the tops off mountains, thousands of acres at a site, and then dump this "overburden" into the creeks. So they had hearings this past week in several states. Usually mainly environmentalists show up at these hearings, which are largely a waste of time. But this time industry brought their workers and their workers' families in and they packed the hall and set up a protest right outside the doors of the hearing in WV, where they intimidated many and were so aggressive, backing an 80 year old woman up to a wall and screaming at her, knocking another woman down, that police made many late arrivals leave without even trying to speak "for their own safety." Meanwhile, those of us already inside were drowned out by the pro-coal crowd, with only tepid requests by the Army Corps of Engineers people running the coal rally, I mean "public hearing," to let people speak. These miners make something like $70,000 a year in a poor state without a college education--no surprise they'll fight to defend these jobs, and persuade themselves that blowing up the oldest mountains in the world and laying the rubble into the creeks is "improving them." Or no doubt, that climate change is a hoax.
I read with horror about the Alberta tar sands, and wondered if there are activists fighting it there--just as you Albertans probably read about the horrors of mountaintop removal mining. We are working separated by thousands of miles but we are working together, to defend the planet our ancestors gave us, so that we may convey it in decent shape to our descendants. Thank you, Alberta activists!
Would any of the tar sand workers want to live in the wastelands they've created?
Perhaps serious proposals limiting the freedom of movement for those who choose to enrich themselves by polluting and destroying the province that they reside in should be considered. At least it would limit the high-wage incentives that draw so many people to that line of work. Eliminate the labour that fuels the work being done, and no work can continue on the tar sand projects.
Too extreme?
Of course they don't want to live there, after their contracts are up they return home to other cdn provinces or to the cities. Mind you, they're the best paying jobs in the province (the cost of living up there is also the highest, so they're not taking home that much after rent and food are accounted for)
But why would the tories tax those who have money? That is totally against their governmental philosophy; only the little people pay taxes in alberta. The tax breaks given to the oil companies are incredible, we're not taxing them at all really. In the end they dodge out of paying much in royalties and nothing at all for the eventual cleanup of their operations in Athabasca.
It's CO2 emissions that Terrorize, not the activists trying to get them to become less Terrorizing. This line of argument sees the provincial government of Alberta and the energy extractors as the Terorists--Properly, IMO.
Profit over People and Planet MUST be seen as terrorism, which means that the Class War is a war of terror. That's the true meaning of BushCo's and now ObamaInc's Global War OF Terror. It's perfectly Orwellian.
Ok Folks, time to pony up -- I am a long time Greenpeace supporter and they're willing to do the dirty work the rest of us Canadians can't (or won't) do. There's no way the government can be allowed to get away with the 'terrorism' ploy. (If the precedent is set, who will be next?) I'm sending more cash to Greenpeace to fight this. And about Alberta, they're not ALL bad -- the hubby's an Alberta 'boy'-- but then again, maybe there's a reason why he's living in Ontario.
corporo-fascist police state
In this country "terrorist" is so broadly defined it is often used to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them. Such is the case with eco and animal activists being defined as "terrorists" and the extended prison sentences being applied to these individuals who conduct such ... Read Moreoffenses such as private property destruction. Even a non violent/non destructive "sit in" will stop the Means of Production and large amounts of $ can be removed from the bottom line of the wealthy. It seems in the USA if you take issue with the powers that be (corporations) and you want to get your plight noticed you have to either destroy private property OR reduce profit and when either happens the label of "terrorist" will be placed unfairly and without remorse upon you so a sentence will be properly brought onto the only true property you own, your body and mind. But this is not what they value, unless they owned you as well. Make sure they never do.
The effects of tar-sands mining and processing are indeed horrifying. See:
Marsden, William. Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn't Seem to Care). Toronto : Knopf, 2007. ISBN: 9780676979138
These are the people who at one point were seriously thinking about extracting the tar by setting off nuclear bombs deep underground to liquefy it. Marsden reproduces a page from the technical drawings for the project.
Alberta is not an energy/oil power. It is an energy colony.
The corporate kingpins, and their political lackeys, are CRIMINALLY INSANE.
Omnicide.
The use of "anti-terror" laws in these cases is rediculous. These protestors are not terrorists.
Misuse of these types of laws is one of the biggest reasons to question having them on the books at all.
Conservatives have a hole in their soul. They seem hell bent on destruction in a cold reptilian way. Increasingly I find them to be a kind of human throwback to the Stone Age. They seem driven by hatred, contempt, and insecurity. They have not evolved. They are hostile to community and choose separateness. They do not see themselves as a part of the whole. If not reigned in and rendered into less of a threat they have the potential to kill all of us. They choose to treat Greenpeace as terrorists in this conflict over tar sands oil. But what about the true owners of most of the tar sands lands, the Indigenous Six Nations Peoples. The Six Nations Peoples protest loudly against the theft of their land and resources and the suppression of their Peoples. Is this not real terrorism? Yes it is and it is also continuing genocide. Christianity teaches dominion over all things, so genocidal Christians have the blessing of the Church. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? Hardly! Christianity continues to be a twisted belief system and enabler of genocide. Go in peace they say, but subdue non-christian peoples, steal their resources, and destroy the Earth in the process. But hey don't forget Christians support life! What a hoax.
Animosity and disrespect have always been forthcoming out of Alberta towards the rest of the nation, so threatening to label and arrest anyone who is critical or dares to protest the massive destruction of the environment occurring there, as a terrorist, is only par for the course. In truth, it has become a whore of a province and questionable as a democracy, with an entrenched right-wing oil based government that maintains its power through bribes and largess that it itself receives through the rape and plunder of the land. If they had remained cowboys and ranchers, the true grit of the earth, well then even I would accept their claim as rugged individualists and their place on the land. But instead, the character of its people has been transformed into that of a den of harlots who are happy to look the other way while bending over a landscape, that would move even the most stoic cowpoke to tears.
Haven't read all your comments,yet... just have time to bring up Chris Hedges's article from A few days ago, "A Reality Check From the Brink of Extinction" I'm sure some of you read it, I believe STone made some comments.
Anyway, I couldn't help myself... I had to pass it out. At this point I've handed out about 40 or more copies,(I use front ang back). Most of them have been in the little town next to me, full of old time republicans. But some of the younger people I'm not sure where they stand. But... when these people read this article, some, who really donot have a clue as to how serious this really is, I can only imagine how they must react. I do think that my continuing this act of spreading "the news" could be in jeopardy with the handing out of this article. As Chris stated, we need to "use any means necessary" to stop the Corporate state fron destroying our planet. Of course this is scary and I myself am not really into violence. But actions as are in this article are so important and I believe will work in bringing the truth out to people. I'll tell them to read and stay educated on the issues. When I can I give out books titles and authors they can get more info from.
The key is to help people understand that it is CORPORATIONS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM ( AND IT SEEMS THE RUN AWAY CAPITALIST SYSTEM). Like the Teabaggers who confuse the government as being the evil culprit, many people hear think the same way. But I have made statements that it is CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT THAT IS THE PROBLEM... In other words FACISM...
I am not qualified to say that we have total facism at this point, but you can see it coming down the long dark tunnel...