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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.