aliboy Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Fraser Inst. speaker says activists distort oil sands 2012-05-14 20:32 ET - Street Wire By Stockwatch Business Reporter "Oil sands developers sell much-needed fuel at a profit and leave the land cleaner than when they found it. That's good enough for me." This is hardly the viewpoint one might expect from the co-founder of Greenpeace. Dr. Patrick Moore, who spoke at a Fraser Institute luncheon in Vancouver on Monday, is an unlikely advocate for the expansion and legitimacy of the Alberta oil sands. Yet he firmly believes Greenpeace and other green groups are wrong to demonize the industry, and asserts their environmental campaigns are increasingly based on fear rather than fact. The "Greenpeace dropout" Dr. Moore helped found Greenpeace in 1971 and left it 15 years later, disillusioned with the members' radical anti-science agenda. Now he is an outspoken critic of the "dream fantasy agendas" that mark many a modern green group, and a staunch defender of pragmatic energy policies. The Alberta oil sands, in his view, represent one of Canada's most important and innovative industries. Not only is oil sands development essential, Dr. Moore argues, but developers often leave the production sites in better environmental shape than they were before oil was taken from the land. Companies are required by law to return their mine sites to thriving ecosystems. Dr. Moore recalls visiting one such reclamation site, where a herd of more than 300 wood bison roamed the land, managed by the Fort McKay First Nation. Trees, shrubs and lakes can return to a former mine site in a blink of Mother Nature's eye. Ask Greenpeace, though, and this temporary disturbance to the land is portrayed as nothing less than a mini-apocalypse. The group takes aerial pictures of oil sands mines in the middle of operations and falsely implies that this is how they will always look. This is one way such activists distort the debate on environmental issues. Other tactics include peddling unproven beliefs as fact and denouncing those who disagree as "environmental criminals." Much of this activism is simply misdirected, but there is also a certain hypocrisy among environmentalists who demonize oil companies while using oil to run their cars, heat and cool their homes, and otherwise enjoy a society that depends on oil for over one-third of its energy. Dr. Moore relates the story of the "Greenpeace diesel dilemma," in which Greenpeace members had strong words for a Swedish plant that used wind power when it could, but coal as a backup. Those same members' brand-new ship, which they so proudly touted as wind-powered, relied on regular diesel, not bio-diesel -- Greenpeace is against bio-fuels such as wood, which is scorned as a "Stone-Age fuel" despite being the most abundant renewable energy on the planet -- when the wind died down or blew them the wrong way. Getting a green grip Too few environmentalists propose sensible solutions to energy problems, says Dr. Moore. "Apparently it is reasonable to be 'just against' oil pipelines, or 'just against' oil tankers." Activists condemn pipelines and tankers without bothering to explain how Canada would function if Alberta oil could not get to market. This knee-jerk "No!" should not be a satisfactory response. Dr. Moore says that while Greenpeace's influence over public opinion remains strong, its influence on policy is thankfully waning. This is perhaps the result of the European debt crisis, which was caused in large part by "following Greenpeace's advice" on energy policy. Because wind power and solar power require massive subsidies to compete in the energy market, only countries with money to burn or citizens to tax can afford them -- and burn and tax they have. Two recent events have given Dr. Moore hope for the future: Canada's abandonment of the Kyoto protocol, "which was a stupid idea to begin with," and the European Parliament's decision not to attend the Rio+20 conference (also called Earth Summit 2012) in Brazil, the stated reason for which is "prohibitively high hotel costs." Dr. Moore believes the public is steadily becoming less enamoured with costly and unreliable alternative energy sources. This is a good thing. After years of fighting for fact-based environmentalism, Dr. Moore feels that "the chickens are finally coming home to roost." By emphasizing science over sensationalism, he believes the world can meet its energy needs both sustainably and economically. You can send comments to Karen Baxter: karenb@stockwatch.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Not a big fan of oilsands. Even less of a fan of getting oil from the middle east though. Canada really needs to look at expanding its nuclear power base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Not a big fan of oilsands. Even less of a fan of getting oil from the middle east though. Canada really needs to look at expanding its nuclear power base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Not a big fan of oilsands. Even less of a fan of getting oil from the middle east though. Canada really needs to look at expanding its nuclear power base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 yeah, i'm all for mini fusion reactor powered cars too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 yeah, i'm all for mini fusion reactor powered cars too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The Fraser Institute is a right wing "think tank". In other words they are right wing spin doctors who claim they are unbiased. But clearly they are. They alter the data or cherry pick it to support their so-called claims. If they had their way, we'd be a polluted, slave labour nation, with no healthcare, no benefits, and Canada would be raped by every other nation. They oppose environmental legislation and enforcement, they are against food or health inspectors. They think the Agricultural Land Commission, who's mandate is protect our farmland, should be abolished so developers, industrial parks can take over all our farmland, so that BC can't grow any crops, or make our own food, and make us vulnerable to importing food from outside of BC. I've stopped listening to their stupid rants over 20 years ago. Maybe ask them who funded the study. Probably the oil companies that are extracting the oil. Notice they are spending a lot of money on advertising to make it seem that they are doing this in a responsible way. Not. Watch this documentary and go to google earth and look at the region. See for yourself. H2Oil. http://moviesonlines...il-2009-online/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjE_dnGgDVU&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 What about rainbow rides on unicorns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 One can dream, but there are for too many simpletons in the "professional protester" camp. There was a proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Northern Alberta to supply energy needed to extract the oil from the tar sands, ans it is a very energy-intensive process. It would be even cleaner with regards to the amount of Greenhouse gasses that are released to extract the oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I thought all the fuss was about the shipping process of the oil from the sands, and not the oil sands themselves. With all the potential for leakages of the toxic substances on the ground surface from vulnerable pipelines, that was one reason why Northern Gateway was so highly debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The Fraser Institute is a right wing "think tank". In other words they are right wing spin doctors who claim they are unbiased. But clearly they are. They alter the data or cherry pick it to support their so-called claims. If they had their way, we'd be a polluted, slave labour nation, with no healthcare, no benefits, and Canada would be raped by every other nation. They oppose environmental legislation and enforcement, they are against food or health inspectors. They think the Agricultural Land Commission, who's mandate is protect our farmland, should be abolished so developers, industrial parks can take over all our farmland, so that BC can't grow any crops, or make our own food, and make us vulnerable to importing food from outside of BC. I've stopped listening to their stupid rants over 20 years ago. Maybe ask them who funded the study. Probably the oil companies that are extracting the oil. Notice they are spending a lot of money on advertising to make it seem that they are doing this in a responsible way. Not. Watch this documentary and go to google earth and look at the region. See for yourself. H2Oil. http://moviesonlines...il-2009-online/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjE_dnGgDVU&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 i'm all for that as well. unicorns are a great source of sustainable magical energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 But what about the emissions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 rainbows? they provide jobs for leprechauns and an influx of revenue (capital gains taxes on whole pots of gold) for the government. it's win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I was worried about the possible impact of a unicorn flying overhead. It's one thing to have a bird crap on my car, but if all that comes out of that end of a unicorn is rainbows, then it does sound like a viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 yeah, i'm all for mini fusion reactor powered cars too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The Fraser Institute is a right wing "think tank". In other words they are right wing spin doctors who claim they are unbiased. But clearly they are. They alter the data or cherry pick it to support their so-called claims. If they had their way, we'd be a polluted, slave labour nation, with no healthcare, no benefits, and Canada would be raped by every other nation. They oppose environmental legislation and enforcement, they are against food or health inspectors. They think the Agricultural Land Commission, who's mandate is protect our farmland, should be abolished so developers, industrial parks can take over all our farmland, so that BC can't grow any crops, or make our own food, and make us vulnerable to importing food from outside of BC. I've stopped listening to their stupid rants over 20 years ago. Maybe ask them who funded the study. Probably the oil companies that are extracting the oil. Notice they are spending a lot of money on advertising to make it seem that they are doing this in a responsible way. Not. Watch this documentary and go to google earth and look at the region. See for yourself. H2Oil. http://moviesonlines...il-2009-online/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjE_dnGgDVU&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 It would suck if there was a car crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 a mini meltdown shouldn't be too bad... just a couple blocks of damage... besides, it'll be driven by computers so it can avoid a crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I thought all the fuss was about the shipping process of the oil from the sands, and not the oil sands themselves. With all the potential for leakages of the toxic substances on the ground surface from vulnerable pipelines, that was one reason why Northern Gateway was so highly debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.