It is good to see yet another right wing fanatic has a crunchy crazy wing-nut history. Savor the irony when suddenly(?) they attempt to get all serious and try interacting with empirical reality. Ezra Levant has little traction with reality and seems to have more interest in keeping his oil friends happy and trying to convince you to do the same.
Lets take a look at how well EL-Douche’s latest work stand up to criticism from a writer in the U.K. –
“Apart from being based on a premise that is largely irrelevant to the concerns of tar sands critics (that the tar sands are by far the most energy intensive source of fuel around, that they are endangering the lives and livelihoods of first nations peoples, that the toxic waste is poisoning the water and local wildlife, that they are an incredibly inefficient use of Canada’s natural gas supply), Levant’s book is incredibly poorly researched. His references are from newspaper articles, blogs, press releases – hardly an academic journal in sight.” (emphasis mine)
You fail EL-douche… as usual. But, then lets see what someone who deals with reality has to say on the oilsands issue…
“Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant’s book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil.
The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the “ethical oil” argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.
To start, the logic is faulty. Just because a country or society is considered “ethical” does not mean everything it produces or exports is ethical. If we are going to delve into the ethics of the issue, we must look at the ethics of energy overall. That means considering the impacts of various energy systems on people and the environment.
Here, the science is troubling. It shows that the Alberta tar sands contribute to about five per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and are the country’s fastest growing source of emissions. To date, they have disturbed 600 square kilometres of boreal forest with little or no chance of true reclamation, use enormous amounts of water, and pollute the surrounding air and water.
This past summer, an independent, peer-reviewed scientific study showed that toxic byproducts from the tar sands extraction industry are poisoning the Athabasca River, putting downstream First Nations communities and the fish they eat at risk. Health studies show these First Nations communities already have elevated rare cancers associated with exposure to such toxins.
If this is the most “ethical” source of oil we can find, we need to ask other questions about the moral purity of our intensively processed bitumen. For example, if we sell the oil to countries with poor human-rights records, like China, does that affect the product’s “ethical” nature? And how “ethical” are the companies operating in the tar sands; for example, Exxon Mobil, well-known sponsor of climate-change disinformation campaigns; BP, responsible for last year’s massive oily disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; or PetroChina? There’s also the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on our children and grandchildren, which to me is an intergenerational crime.
In this light, wouldn’t energy from technologies or sources that limit the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and that have a minimal environmental and health impacts be far more ethical than fossil fuels? And, from an economic perspective, wouldn’t these more ethical technologies or fuel sources be doubly attractive to foreign buyers if they came from an “ethical” country like Canada?
As award-winning Alberta author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued, with proper development, the tar sands could help provide Canada with the oil and money we need to shift to a low-carbon economy. But major changes are needed. Environmental regulation and monitoring must be strengthened. Pollution and related health problems must be addressed. More of the revenue must go to Canadians rather than fossil fuel companies. And a national carbon tax would help us move from oil to less-polluting energy sources.
The problem is, no matter what Ezra Levant and his friends in government say, oil has never been about “ethics”. It has always been about money. Those who argue the case for “ethical oil” should work to ensure that our energy needs are met in a truly ethical way, now and into the future. In the end, the only truly ethical solution is to phase out oil. The black eye that tar sands oil is sporting can’t be remedied with meaningless phrases such as “ethical oil”.
To be seen as truly ethical when it comes to energy policy, Canada must slow down tar sands development, clean up the environmental problems, implement a national carbon tax, improve the regulatory and monitoring regime, and make sure that Canadians are reaping their fair share of the revenues. We must also start taking clean energy seriously. Rather than subsidizing the tar sands and all the fossil fuel industry through massive tax breaks, we should be investing in energy technologies that will benefit our health, economy, and climate.
It might also help if Canada’s environment minister spent more time protecting the environment rather than appeasing the oil industry and its apologists.”
Thanks Dr.Suzuki for providing a reasonable version of what is actually happening in the Tarsands and what must be done.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
4 comments
February 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Resources for Ezra 6:10 - 16
[…] 1Ethical Oil? – Ezra Levant Still a Douche « Dead Wild Roses SUBMIT […]
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Kevin
Well first off, deadwild roses, you sound like a young man whose hands fly across the keyboard driven only by emotion and opinion most likely derived from media influence. You are regurgitating the same arguments that have been spewn out time and time again (cancer, air water pollution, and fish poisoning). In his book Mr. Levant proposes science based arguments refuting the claims made by those who are opposed to the oil sands development. If you want to discredit his book, why not try proposing some convincing counter-points based on reliable science like those that were presented in the book. This piece above provides nothing more than vague opinion and is rather unconvincing. Furthermore everyone seems to be pinning on the oil sands operators, something that is more fairly pinned on the Canadian government. It’s not the operators that decide where the tax money is allocated or what restrictions are applied to carbon emmisions. As far as I am concerned they are living up to their responsibilities by paying the tax and royalties asked of them. How the government deals with it afterwards is up to them. The government could just as easily misuse tax money coming from “green” energy companies. Furthermore the agricultural industry puts out as much, if not more CO2 and no one seems to be coming down as hard on them. We would all like to see a clean alternative to oil and a cleaner, greener planet for our children, but ths does not happen over night and the technology and resources are not presently availible in economically viable forms. So in the mean time, how do you propose to get to work or to distribute groceries to millions of people. Oil is not going anywhere anytime soon and it seems to me that oil companies are the one spending the most money on way to make our enevitably dependance easier on the environment. Like Ezra says in his book, the oil sands are a convenient “whipping-boy” for the media and especially those with uneducated and unsupported opinions such as yours. Why not try and gain a bit of perspective and post things with a little more credibility.
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 11:01 pm
The Arbourist
Well first off, deadwild roses, […]
First off, Kevin, Deadwildroses is the name of the blog, not the author of the post. Looking for information and reading for comprehension does not seem to be a strong suit of yours.
In his book Mr. Levant proposes science based arguments refuting the claims made by those who are opposed to the oil sands development. If you want to discredit his book, why not try proposing some convincing counter-points based on reliable science like those that were presented in the book.
Which arguments are you talking about, specifically? Unreferenced arguments pretty much fall into the same category as the opinion piece reposted here. The difference being that there are links here to further reading and to the papers that they are based on if you don’t mind doing a little google-fu to find them. The rest of your comments speaks in partisan generalities.
To answer your specific question as to discrediting this particular shill’s book I would recommend you start here. There are several categories and many a link to follow. I’m guess that many of the articles, peer reviewed and otherwise, would say much against what Levant puts forward in his book. Given that I tend not to waste my resources on corporate propaganda, I do not own “Ethical Oil” so if you would like to go farther with this, you will need to provide the (most likely specious) arguments put forth.
So in the mean time, how do you propose to get to work or to distribute groceries to millions of people.
David Sanborn Scott has a great proposal that would indeed get people to work and deliver the groceries to millions of people. A prescient book, I suggest you read it with as much ardour as you did “Ethical Oil”.
especially those with uneducated and unsupported opinions such as yours. Why not try and gain a bit of perspective and post things with a little more credibility.
My god, you’re right!
After reading that one book by Mr.Levant things must be remarkably, effervescently clear for you (congratulations btw, you do indeed read which is head and shoulders above most conservative commentators that darken my door). One attribute that you do share with many of my trollishly conservative commentators is a remarkable case of projection.
Allow me to spell that out for you:
1. I, the Abourist, am the one who needs more perspective as you know that the views I hold, the education I possess and the credibility I have; all that based on your one source.
2. Since I did not refute the arguments you did not bring the table I, the Arbourist, am uneducated and am guilty of positing unsupported opinions.
C. Clearly, I need to pull up my socks and begin to argue properly, as narrowly read and prone to making unsupported statements as I evidently am. (Concomitantly, I need to understand the importance of formatting my thoughts into paragraphs to increase the clarity of my thoughts while I’m at it)
tl:dr —> Stop wasting my time with your fatuous claims and insulting demeanor.
LikeLike
October 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Michael Williams
Your approach seems to be that if you hurl enough insults at Mr. Levant, somehow his research and opinions will be discredited. As Kevin points out: at this point in our history, we need oil and we need to burn carbon based fuels. No matter how hard we try to stare through rose coloured glasses, this will not change in the immediate future. Recognizing this fact, Mr. Levant merely puts a question to us: Where do we want the oil we use to come from? When we compare the environmental impact of the oil sands to the production and transportation of oil from outside of North America, or when we compare the records on peace, good governence, democracy, human rights and the fair treatment of workers in any of the other major oil exporting nations, Canadian oil and our oil sands projects are the better alternative regardless of what side of the political spectrum you come from. CO2 emmissions from oil sands production are negligible compared to the 770 billion tons emmitted annually (naturally or man made) and make up less tham 0.25% of the 23 billion tons that man contributes. By consuming Canadian oil we defer the purchasing of oil from other areas of the world like Darfour and Saudi Arabia where you could be executed just for expressing your opinion and could care less about the carbon footprint they create.
LikeLike