David Suzuki, who last time I checked isn’t even qualified to expound on such issues, is off on one of his wild (and demented?) tangents about the Northern Gateway pipeline. “Screw the environment. The pipeline will hurt our economy,” he rants.
Of course, he brings up the usual “arguments”, such as that pipelines shouldn’t be built because they merely reinforce our reliance on – subsidized – fossil fuels and because Canadian jobs are exported overseas.
As Licia Corbella explains in her column today, lefties like Suzuki don’t have a clue. On the one hand, they say Alberta must upgrade its own bitumen at home before exporting it, but on the other hand, they’d scream bloody murder because such processes would drastically increase Alberta’s footprint of greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Corbella, lefties only want one thing: shut down all oil sands operations in Alberta even if it means putting an entire province in the poorhouse. But they’re only too happy to take the money generated from fossil fuels to pay for social(ist) programs, she adds.
It’s all propaganda: Canada’s emissions barely register on a global scale, and Alberta’s oil sands are an infinitesimally small fraction of that. In fact, even a single cow’s flatulence poses a greater danger to the planet’s health than anything Canada might do. Of course, this supposes that there is even a morsel of truth in the allegations about “greenhouse gases” and “global warming” (and allegations are all they are; real science doesn’t figure in any of this at all).
Suzuki also goes after the “ethical oil” movement in his latest rant:
“The ‘ethical oil’ argument is so absurd as to be hardly worth mentioning, but it’s one the government has latched onto. Oil can’t be ethical or unethical. People, and by extension the companies they own and operate or the governments they represent, can behave in ethical or unethical ways, but a product can’t.”
Maybe he just wants to be difficult, or he really is this dense. No one behind “Ethical Oil” ever claimed that the product, oil, was ethical or unethical. The term is merely shorthand for “oil from ethical and unethical sources or countries”.
But Suzuki obviously wants us to believe that this is the way he interprets the expression “ethical oil”, so that leaves the rest of us no other choice but to conclude that his IQ is in the single digits or has been destroyed by dementia.
If (non-sensical) linguistic nitpicking is the best argument he can put forward against Ethical Oil, Ethical Oil has nothing to fear from the likes of Suzuki.
Either way, common sense people will ignore the silly rants from Canada’s top “enviro clown”.