Pollution Problems
On September 15, 2009, Greenpeace began a campaign against Canada’s (and the world’s) largest energy project, the major disaster known as tar sands. Regarding greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, Shell is the proud parent to this baby, leading the oil sands companies to compete, no doubt, with clean coal for a greener pasture.
But wait, there’s the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA). They’re coming to the rescue for tar sands production. Based in Houston, Texas, this pro-tar sands lobby group is busy making all the right moves. However, it’s not as if they’re giving us life inspiring quotes.
“Our economy is completely dependent on fossil fuels,” states Michael Whatley of the CEA. Truer words were never spoken. Continuing with his stunning revelations while entering the realm of genius, he states that “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.” He gave no indication as to which economy was currently feeling “catastrophic impacts.”
Environmental Plan
While Canada’s tax dollars help fund shipment of tar sands oil across the globe, the reality is that they don’t have to ship very far. The greediest of all the energy consuming pigs on the planet is their closest neighbor. Yep, still the world’s largest energy consumer, the U.S., slobbers and slathers all over itself for any energy it can get, from any carbon-based source. Militarily speaking, at any expense. Forget the sun. Forget the wind.
The Canadian government, with a limp wrist treatment to the oil industry, claims that environmental activists are using terrorist tactics against the industry and furthermore state that “We’re coddling people who are breaking the law,” a brilliant quote by Premier Ed Stelmach of Alberta. The referenced coddled people were those attempting to protect the environment, not the oil people.
Environmental Activists
In their mad dash to line up for padded pockets of cash, government officials fail to realize one simple thing. Throwing claims of terrorism at people whose wish is to stop environmental disaster will only encourage that which they claim. It makes little sense for someone accused of terrorism to stand and watch as a government institutes a “counterterrorism” program.
Blocking heavy oil conveyor belts, reached by canoe does not constitute an act of terrorism. Blocking access to refinement equipment does not constitute terrorism. Chaining oneself to three-story high dump trucks is not terrorism. Most of the terrorism we should be discussing is actually happening at much higher levels, and at the opposite end of the playing field.
Accusations of acts of terrorism should be allowed where ever the acts are occurring. One of the first places to start would be with the link of carbon and coal based energy monsters with any government entity that allows its citizens to become dependent on the product, at great cost to the environment.
As for Mr. Whatley, he might want to consider spending less time in his office and a bit more time out in the wind and sun. Our civilizations, along with our home, will never reach “prime time” until we become dependent on wind and solar.
No comments:
Post a Comment