[Newsbot]

Title: U.S. businesses join anti-oilsands campaign
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2010-08-27 21:20:16
Canadian

[bootlegga]

Time to boycott The Gap, Levi Strauss and Timberland (to my knowledge Wal-Greens isn't in Canada yet).

[andyt]

Alberta should start a counter campaign about mid-east oil and terrorism/totalitarianism.

Time to build that pipeline to the coast, no more fucking about. We need other options than shipping crude to Texas. Time to build refineries here in Canada as well, and start supplying the home market before we export. Don't wait until the US has us over a barrel (aware of pun) and we enter into some version of the softwood lumber agreement. Canadians are such suckers.

[bootlegga]

They are working on it Andy, but building the pipeline not only costs big money (around $4 billion), but a helluva lot of negotiations with every town, hamlet and native reservation between Edmonton and the coast.

I agree that instead of only touting Alberta's environmental initiatives, we should also be talking about how much American money goes to supporting crazies like Chavez and funding terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

[herbie]

They're working on it and doing it all wrong. 75% of BC doesn't want tankers in pristine waters, so where's the terminal in this big plan? Kitimat - the worst possible place.
100% of the Indian bands are against the pipeline running across their lands.

So we better come up with alternative solutions, cuz most of us agree we need an outlet to sell Alberta oil to the world. We're all sick of putting all our eggs in the USA basket.

[EyeBrock]

Another good reason to never shop at the GAP.

It's time we Canadians took these political retailers on and returned the boycott favour.

[Lemmy]

herbie herbie:

So we better come up with alternative solutions, cuz most of us agree we need an outlet to sell Alberta oil to the world.

I hope that's not true. What we need is to find alternative energy sources and leave Alberta's oil right where it is.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

herbie herbie:

So we better come up with alternative solutions, cuz most of us agree we need an outlet to sell Alberta oil to the world.

I hope that's not true. What we need is to find alternative energy sources and leave Alberta's oil right where it is.

We need both. Unless we're willing to take a serious drop in standard of living, and have people die from lack of food, we're going to need all the oil we can pump, and we'd better be looking for alternative energy wherever we can.

@herbie - sure, build the terminal at the best spot on the coast. But also build pipelines going east, so eastern provinces don't have to import their oil as they do now. I believe we may actually be a net oil importer because the east imports so much. Does that make sense?

[herbie]

@Lemmy - we need the money from Alberta oil to develop the alternatives.
Besides if you're a good Albertan, we're actually cleaning nature's own oil spill...

@andyt - the pipeline east should have been built decades ago. But selling oil overseas and importing it in the east still benefits the economy. Possibly more than selling all of it within Canada.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

@Lemmy - we need the money from Alberta oil to develop the alternatives.
Besides if you're a good Albertan, we're actually cleaning nature's own oil spill...

@andyt - the pipeline east should have been built decades ago. But selling oil overseas and importing it in the east still benefits the economy. Possibly more than selling all of it within Canada.

We don't sell much overseas do we? It goes down south, doesn't it? To me it makes sense to be self-sufficient first - we can withstand price shocks better that way. If we sell abroad, it should be short term contracts, none of this "you sold it to us once, now you can never sell us less" NAFTA bullshit.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Headline should read: 4 US companies prefer to fund islamic jihad rather than buy safe, blood-free Alberta oil.

[EyeBrock]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Headline should read: 4 US companies prefer to fund islamic jihad rather than buy safe, blood-free Alberta oil.

I like it!

[Lemmy]

herbie herbie:

@Lemmy - we need the money from Alberta oil to develop the alternatives.
Besides if you're a good Albertan, we're actually cleaning nature's own oil spill...

It's not really "cleaning" anything when the environment is worsened by the "clean-up". But more importantly, "We need the money" is not a valid justification for using Alberta oil. If it were, then "We need the money" would justify maintaining ANY business (manufacturing child porn, crystal meth, etc) without regard for its external social costs.

[saturn_656]

$1:

If it were, then "We need the money" would justify maintaining ANY business (manufacturing child porn, crystal meth, etc) without regard for its external social costs.

I hope you don't consider the oil industry to be in the same league as "kiddy porn" and illegal drugs.

[EyeBrock]

I have mixed feelings on this.

I think that the Yanks are being very hypocritical on the oil sands. As PA9 pointed out, the alternates are buying oil from repressive Arab regimes linked to terrorist funding or good old Commy Hugo and corrupt African countries.

On the other hand big oil should be ensuring that the destruction to our ecology/environment is minimal. They have enough cash to do this and maybe our government should be legislating it so.