Big Oil and the Canadian government are showing their true colors these days, and what an ugly spectacle it is. Not content to squeeze tar sands oil profits from Canada's boreal forest, the industry and the Harper regime are working overtime to squelch free speech in this once-vibrant democracy.
Their main target is nonprofit groups that oppose the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipeline projects. To silence these voices, the government has begun questioning whether the groups are following charitable tax codes and started proposing laws to limit their advocacy work. They've even equated environmental groups with terrorists and money launders.
This effort to stack the deck in favor of big oil companies doesn't just limit the rights of nonprofits. It endangers the rights of all people -- on both sides of the borders -- to breathe clean air, drink safe water, have a healthy climate and preserve forests and farmlands for our children.
The attacks began after President Obama rejected the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico. Now another pipeline designed to take tar sands oil westward to China is also stirring large public concern. Farmers, ranchers, business owners, religious leaders, members of First Nations, scientists, and many others have concluded that these pipelines will endanger their communities. They also know that strip mining tar sands is devouring Canada's boreal forest and that producing tar sands generates more than three times the greenhouse gas emissions as conventional oil.
People across Canada have made their opposition to tar sands known. The Canadian federal government responded by branding clean energy advocates as "radicals" and threatening to add environmental groups to the list of extremist organizations under anti-terrorism legislation. The attacks expanded when those who questioned tar sands were accused of treason and one Minister even accused environmental charities of "money laundering" for American donors.
But all of this was just the opening gambit. In April, the Canadian federal government's budget bill rolled back many of Canada's major environmental laws on clean water, wildlife, and climate change. Perhaps most significant, it drastically limited the public's right to participate and comment on environmental reviews. Instead it gave the Prime Minister ultimate authority over pipeline proposals such as the controversial tar sands projects.
The budget also cut funding for environmental protection while leaving the $1.3 billion in federal subsidies for the oil industry largely intact. And in a time of supposed belt tightening, it included an extra $8 million to audit environmental groups, specifically going after those opposed to new tar sands pipelines.
This attack on democracy and clean air and water starts in Canada, but Big Oil is pushing tar sands to markets in the United States and has already been attacking U.S. efforts to put clean fuels standards in place. What is next in the United States, if the oil industry succeeds in silencing Canadian voices asking for basic public health and safety protections? Already some lawmakers are angling for a fast-track approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in Congress. They are so eager to stifle public input that they have tried to include a green light for the pipeline in a completely unrelated transportation bill.
People in both countries are calling foul. On June 4, groups across the United States and Canada will black out their websites to protest this attempt to silence debate about our energy future and the need to fight climate change. Tar sands oil is sold by multinational companies to international markets. We must not let this industry believe it is above the law of any land. A united Canadian and American front will remind these companies that citizens will hold them accountable.
Freedom of speech is hardly a new value in our countries. As General Washington said in 1783 to his officers, "If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." This level of attack calls for a united front. Canadians are fighting back and the environmental community in the United States is standing by them. Nothing less than our democracy, health and prosperity are at stake.
Remember: Sustainability is not just about the environment -- It is also about society and the economy. In my opinion, the Green movement has overlooked the latter two.
I have studied energy economics, including GHG mitigation, and have in-depth understanding of the impacts upon the energy industry and the economy. From this analysis, I do not believe that the Sierra Club "Beyond Natural Gas" is itself a Sustainable Policy.
I continue to believe -- reinforced by your statement, "poison ourselves fully out of existence", that the Green movement is fear mongering.
Rooftop solar offshore wind and wast bio fuels can supply all our first world needs for the entire world, even with 16B people, forever, clean, and cheaper in the long run when you include the external costs to water and health from fracked gas.
Do check out their beyond gas campaign.
They got it right.
We haven't overlooked gas, we see it's shortcomings.
Bitumen flows in a pipe line similar to molasses ... if it spills, it doesn't sink in,but lays virtually on the surface and is easy to clean up. Its more like lava.
Presents no substantial threat to the environment, but liberals want to block anything that isn't wind or solar.
Your analogy is erroneous and misinformed.
Your comment is misinformed, callous and erroneous.
What's your plan, hotshot?
Why would these financial oligarchs play both sides?
...because it's a HEDGE like any other you see on Wall Street/City of London.
Everything is a derivative anymore and a credit-default swap betting against it.
If you're a SUCKER and buy into this zero-growth in power generation, then their hedging carbon credits works out and they can take losses to Big Oil and drown them in 'dark pools of finance'.
If you're smart and grow our capabilities to generate power, then trading carbon is a scam and the expropiation of Big Oil will happen automaticly because it will go bankrupt thanks to nuclear fission.
Which is why we can all stop wasting precious time and embrace the latest nuclear tecnologies which are far superior to windmills and solar collectors.
In Curucao they brag about the wonders of windmills when they fail to mention that their population is little more then 100 thousand and they still rely on imported oil from Venezuela.
Meanwhile, Venezuela has Margarita Island, similar in size but 400 thousand people and suffer black outs daily despite their failed attempt at windmills and all of the oil in the world.
Imagine if Margarita Island went with 100% "clean energy" windmills.
Power blackouts in the country are already being blamed for deaths in hospitals.
Nukes costs more than solar, twice wind, and wastes.
Your comparing the 5MW turbines of today with ancient history just shows your intellectual desperation.
I didn't know that.
Meanwhile 95% of the true "narco-laundered" haul (hundreds billions) settles in largest US/Canadian banks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/western-banks-colombian-cocaine-trade)
Hail to banksters - true patriotic Canadians who bring prosperity and jobs at home and broad, and to Mr. Harper's henchmen.
The fact that the process was abused to delay the hearing is not in question. That the government would allow their regulatory processes to consistently be delayed was optimistic. It seems clear the Harper administration will not allow this continue. Applicants deserve some fairness also, a process with an indeterminate end date and subject to procedural wrangling bent on delay is hardly fair. The more pressing issue for green lobbyists is the loss of the funding for intervening in these hearings. Also the loss of the all important photo op that goes with participation in the process.
More troubling are the changes to the fisheries act. I have asked my MP twice now for the governments resources relating to the proposed changes. So far his reply has not provided me with the means to look at these changes and make an informed decision. My initial take is why should we lower the bar on protection of water?