

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Yes, let's punish the official who leaked the Canadian memo that created heat for Barack Obama, future president of the United States.
But let's not waste much time examining the mouth of this particular gift horse.
Let's just consider ourselves lucky that the heated U.S. Democratic presidential race may result in NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) being put back on the table.
NAFTA is deeply flawed from Canada's point of view. We failed to get the promised "guaranteed access" to the U.S. market (as the softwood lumber case amply showed), while giving up important levers over our economy -- most crucially, control over our energy.
Ottawa's failure to protect Canadian energy sovereignty has always been curious. But, with oil prices leaping wildly, it takes on a whole new level of curiosity.
Here's the problem: NAFTA contains a clause that effectively prevents us from cutting back exports of our energy to the United States -- even if it means there will be energy shortages in Canada.
This "proportionality clause" is highly unusual. Indeed, according to a new report by the Alberta-based Parkland Institute, it is "unique in all the world's treaties."
The oddity of this clause and Canada's willingness to accept it -- Mexico refused to and was granted an exception in the treaty -- has never been much of an issue in Canada. That's because anything smacking of energy nationalism has been virtually banished from this country since Pierre Trudeau put forward his National Energy Program in 1980, creating deep suspicions in Alberta of federal intrusion.
But the escalating world energy crunch should finally shake Canada out of its near 30-year slumber.
High world oil prices are at least partly a reflection of the fact that global oil supplies are dwindling; that is, we're using up oil faster than we're finding new sources of it.
This is the flip side of the global warming dilemma. While our overconsumption of oil risks frying the planet, we also risk running out of the fuel that runs the modern world -- the only world we know how to live in.
Canadians are vulnerable. We have roughly a 13-year supply of conventional oil, and a 9.3-year supply of natural gas. Yes, the oil sands are massive but, with the extremely high levels of greenhouse gas emissions released in processing, they're far more problematic than we've acknowledged.
Canada already imports about 49 per cent of its oil needs (particularly in Eastern Canada), with about half coming from unreliable OPEC sources. Unlike the United States, Canada has no stockpile of oil for an emergency. It's also very cold here; energy shortages would impact us in a particularly cruel way.
NAFTA supporters insist Canadians are well served by the proportionality clause, since we get to sell our energy to the U.S. and make lots of money.
But without the clause, we could still sell our energy to the U.S. and make lots of money. The only difference would be that we'd also have the option to sell it elsewhere -- including to Canadians who might badly want it. The price, which is set by world oil markets, would be the same.
So reopening NAFTA might not be such a bad thing. Of course, the Americans would be tough negotiators, and control over Canadian energy is not something they'd give up easily.
But we could hope that, a second time around, Canadian negotiators might at least be as tough as their Mexican counterparts.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Yes, let's punish the official who leaked the Canadian memo that created heat for Barack Obama, future president of the United States.
But let's not waste much time examining the mouth of this particular gift horse.
Let's just consider ourselves lucky that the heated U.S. Democratic presidential race may result in NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) being put back on the table.
NAFTA is deeply flawed from Canada's point of view. We failed to get the promised "guaranteed access" to the U.S. market (as the softwood lumber case amply showed), while giving up important levers over our economy -- most crucially, control over our energy.
Ottawa's failure to protect Canadian energy sovereignty has always been curious. But, with oil prices leaping wildly, it takes on a whole new level of curiosity.
Here's the problem: NAFTA contains a clause that effectively prevents us from cutting back exports of our energy to the United States -- even if it means there will be energy shortages in Canada.
This "proportionality clause" is highly unusual. Indeed, according to a new report by the Alberta-based Parkland Institute, it is "unique in all the world's treaties."
The oddity of this clause and Canada's willingness to accept it -- Mexico refused to and was granted an exception in the treaty -- has never been much of an issue in Canada. That's because anything smacking of energy nationalism has been virtually banished from this country since Pierre Trudeau put forward his National Energy Program in 1980, creating deep suspicions in Alberta of federal intrusion.
But the escalating world energy crunch should finally shake Canada out of its near 30-year slumber.
High world oil prices are at least partly a reflection of the fact that global oil supplies are dwindling; that is, we're using up oil faster than we're finding new sources of it.
This is the flip side of the global warming dilemma. While our overconsumption of oil risks frying the planet, we also risk running out of the fuel that runs the modern world -- the only world we know how to live in.
Canadians are vulnerable. We have roughly a 13-year supply of conventional oil, and a 9.3-year supply of natural gas. Yes, the oil sands are massive but, with the extremely high levels of greenhouse gas emissions released in processing, they're far more problematic than we've acknowledged.
Canada already imports about 49 per cent of its oil needs (particularly in Eastern Canada), with about half coming from unreliable OPEC sources. Unlike the United States, Canada has no stockpile of oil for an emergency. It's also very cold here; energy shortages would impact us in a particularly cruel way.
NAFTA supporters insist Canadians are well served by the proportionality clause, since we get to sell our energy to the U.S. and make lots of money.
But without the clause, we could still sell our energy to the U.S. and make lots of money. The only difference would be that we'd also have the option to sell it elsewhere -- including to Canadians who might badly want it. The price, which is set by world oil markets, would be the same.
So reopening NAFTA might not be such a bad thing. Of course, the Americans would be tough negotiators, and control over Canadian energy is not something they'd give up easily.
But we could hope that, a second time around, Canadian negotiators might at least be as tough as their Mexican counterparts.
Yes, let's punish the official who leaked the Canadian memo that created heat for Barack Obama, future president of the United States.
But let's not waste much time examining the mouth of this particular gift horse.
Let's just consider ourselves lucky that the heated U.S. Democratic presidential race may result in NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) being put back on the table.
NAFTA is deeply flawed from Canada's point of view. We failed to get the promised "guaranteed access" to the U.S. market (as the softwood lumber case amply showed), while giving up important levers over our economy -- most crucially, control over our energy.
Ottawa's failure to protect Canadian energy sovereignty has always been curious. But, with oil prices leaping wildly, it takes on a whole new level of curiosity.
Here's the problem: NAFTA contains a clause that effectively prevents us from cutting back exports of our energy to the United States -- even if it means there will be energy shortages in Canada.
This "proportionality clause" is highly unusual. Indeed, according to a new report by the Alberta-based Parkland Institute, it is "unique in all the world's treaties."
The oddity of this clause and Canada's willingness to accept it -- Mexico refused to and was granted an exception in the treaty -- has never been much of an issue in Canada. That's because anything smacking of energy nationalism has been virtually banished from this country since Pierre Trudeau put forward his National Energy Program in 1980, creating deep suspicions in Alberta of federal intrusion.
But the escalating world energy crunch should finally shake Canada out of its near 30-year slumber.
High world oil prices are at least partly a reflection of the fact that global oil supplies are dwindling; that is, we're using up oil faster than we're finding new sources of it.
This is the flip side of the global warming dilemma. While our overconsumption of oil risks frying the planet, we also risk running out of the fuel that runs the modern world -- the only world we know how to live in.
Canadians are vulnerable. We have roughly a 13-year supply of conventional oil, and a 9.3-year supply of natural gas. Yes, the oil sands are massive but, with the extremely high levels of greenhouse gas emissions released in processing, they're far more problematic than we've acknowledged.
Canada already imports about 49 per cent of its oil needs (particularly in Eastern Canada), with about half coming from unreliable OPEC sources. Unlike the United States, Canada has no stockpile of oil for an emergency. It's also very cold here; energy shortages would impact us in a particularly cruel way.
NAFTA supporters insist Canadians are well served by the proportionality clause, since we get to sell our energy to the U.S. and make lots of money.
But without the clause, we could still sell our energy to the U.S. and make lots of money. The only difference would be that we'd also have the option to sell it elsewhere -- including to Canadians who might badly want it. The price, which is set by world oil markets, would be the same.
So reopening NAFTA might not be such a bad thing. Of course, the Americans would be tough negotiators, and control over Canadian energy is not something they'd give up easily.
But we could hope that, a second time around, Canadian negotiators might at least be as tough as their Mexican counterparts.