It's being called the Inconvenient Truth for the right wing, the tinfoil hat brigade who get wracked with spasms at the mere mention of "climate change." The film "Climate Nation" focuses on the right by telling them it doesn't matter at all if they don't believe in global warming, America stands to be the big loser if it doesn't begin looking ahead instead of backward.
3 comments:
The approach of this trailer/film and Obama's clean energy "innovation" campaign just might work. An appeal to the pocketbook, the "greedy bastards" who want cheap energy. One problem I see is that there is no mention of energy conservation or reducing consumption. Nonetheless, it's a step in the right direction, away from fossil fuels.
It seems there is going to be a fierce war between renewables and dirty oil for our energy dollars. Unfortunately, our government is fighting for the wrong side. We have an Environment Minister who is a spokesman for the oil companies. Our government is trying to undermine clean EPA legislation in the U.S., and trying to convince us that dirty oil is ethical and even environmentally friendly. Cenovus, a Canadian oil company, is currently running TV ads about a "different" kind of Tar Sands, showing SAGD processing facilities nestled peacefully amid the boreal forest. They naturally don't show draining rivers to supply the vast amounts of fresh water required for SAGD. What a waste! Our taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize dirty oil when they could be used to help us transition into the new economy and reduce emissions.
Have you watched the movie "GASLAND" ? Do some research on this please and I would love to hear your comments on that.
Thanks!
@ LMA. You're completely right. Our leaders see Athabasca as a source of great, untapped wealth - emphasis on "untapped." There's not much required of them to get at it. Foreign oil companies will take care of that. And these same companies will keep locals employed and pay royalties to governments to boot. That's manna from heaven, every oily buck of it unearned.
The problem with any resource is not just the loss of the resource but the consequential loss and damage incurred in creating it. Often this has serious environmental impacts that are overlooked. Think landslides caused by over-foresting or, of course, the myriad damage from the Tar Sands.
@ Anon. Yes, I have watched "Gasland." Gas fracking is troubling, especially as so much of it has gone on without proper assessment of its consequences to groundwater, etc. It deserves to be scrutinized and a moratorium put in place until the findings are known.
Still there's something in me that can't condemn fracking - not yet at least. Some of the complaints I've learned about seem questionable which is why I want thorough, independent scientific scrutiny. That said, the potential for harm is enormous, especially since the fracking companies use confidential "cocktails" of fracking liquids. I see little harm in a moratorium until they prove their products and methods are benign.
What I suspect terrifies the fracking industry is that these assessments might need to be done on a project by project basis. Rock structures do vary from place to place and some would be more vulnerable than others. The industry doesn't seem to want anyone considering that. Presumably they don't want the constant bureaucratic burdens and costs. Like any resource industry, they're driven by their bottom line which is usually where the resource extractors' interest and the public interest diverge.
The other concern I have is that, even if it is natural gas and not petroleum, it still is a fossil fuel that generates substantial carbon emissions. In its raw state it is much more intensive than ordinary CO2 and we never consider how much gas escapes into the atmosphere before burners are ignited or during extraction, shipping and processing.
Post a Comment