Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kathryn Marshall

GET UPDATES FROM Kathryn Marshall
 

EU Picking on Wrong Kid in (Oil) Sand Box

Posted: 02/21/2012 9:08 am

Europeans are learning the hard way the real cost of relying on conflict oil. Appalled, as we all are, at Iran's determination to threaten the world with war and nuclear weapons, they want to stop importing Iranian oil -- but they can't. Not for quite a while. An EU ban on Iranian imports will have to be phased in over the next several months, so dependent are Europeans on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's crude exports.

And so, last week, the Iranians turned the tables: Tehran warned it might just cut off exports to France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, and Spain, leaving them high and dry if those countries don't extend their long-term oil contracts. The threat alone was enough to send oil prices soaring.

Ahmadinejad has ignored all efforts to stop his illegal nuclear program for a long time. It was more than six years ago that he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and Tehran had been caught deceiving the International Atomic Energy Agency about its nuclear ambitions long before that. Yet, all along, Europe has kept buying Iranian oil (The EU says it imported about 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude oil in the third quarter of 2011), sending money to Ahmadinejad's regime, which helps him get to the dangerous place where he is today: Last week, the Iranian president claimed a new level of "achievement" in his illegal nuclear program, including tripling the country's ability to enrich uranium. "Our nuclear path will continue," he taunted. While Europe spends months trying to disentangle itself from its Iranian oil habit, Tehran will keep busily building its nukes.

Hopefully this mess will at least be on top of the mind of European Union delegates expected to gather this week to vote on a law aimed at discouraging Canadian oil imports. Now that the dangers of inadvertently propping up reckless and rogue dictatorships have become painfully clear, Europeans must wise up to the severe harm they'll do themselves, and the world, by leading the charge to punish secure, peaceful, and ethically produced Canadian crude.

The proposed law, which would slap punitive tariffs on any imports from the oil sands, is based on a false premise anyway. Looking to pose as eco-friendly, EU commissioners saw a way to score easy points by targeting environmentalists' favourite scapegoat: Canada. The fact that Europe doesn't actually import any Canadian oil made it a painless decision. At least for them. It would, however, hurt us.

The implication that our oil is especially objectionable would tarnish Canada's reputation worldwide and potentially lead other markets to follow Europe's lead in penalizing our exports. Our federal Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver has rightly pinpointed the proposal as "grandstanding."

It is, Oliver said last week, "an attempt to single out and discriminate against our oil sands, which don't have any economic relevance to them at this point."

The Europeans would, however, continue importing oil from Venezuela, Iraq, and Nigeria: oil with a carbon footprint that is the same, if not worse, than that of oil from Canada's oil sands, and from countries with far worse environmental records and protections generally.

When they first drafted the directive last year, the Europeans seemed willing to sacrifice the ethics of peace and human rights to strike a fashionable anti-oil sands posture. They showed the world that they seemed to care more about their popularity with certain eco-activists than about the fact that they were underwriting brutal, belligerent, rights-abusing regimes from Tehran to Caracas.

Even now, as a way to wean themselves off of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conflict oil, the Europeans are turning to Saudi Arabia to fill the gap, one of the worst countries when it comes to human rights, particularly for women, gays, and minorities.

Having made the mistake of linking itself to Iran, you would hope that Europe would be smarter than to just trade its dependency on one OPEC conflict oil supplier for an increased reliance on another. There is, simply, no such thing as secure and predictable oil from the Persian Gulf: The Iranians have already responded to economic sanctions with threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, through which Saudi Arabia's oil exports travel, too. It takes fleets of heavily armed, ready-for-battle warships from North America and Europe to keep Saudi crude flowing.

The last thing that Europe, or any market, should be doing -- especially right now -- is working to harm Canada's oil sands. Our country, with the third largest deposit of proven reserves on the planet, finally offers countries a secure and responsible alternative to volatile OPEC oil imports that fund misery, strife, and bloodshed.

Rather than voting on whether to punish Canadian oil, they should be doing their best to figure out how they can start finally moving off OPEC's conflict oil and switching to Canada's ethical oil instead.

 

Follow Kathryn Marshall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KVMarshall

 
 
  • Comments
  • 43
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
12:15 AM on 02/29/2012
After that CBC showdown with Evan Solomon I am surprised that Ethical Oil is still a booster for Enbridge and the Athabasca tar sands when the organization undermined its own credibility as well as that of Enbridge and its communist Chinese backer, Sinopec. China, a police state, now controls most of Canada's tar sands, vetos sanctions against Iran, and backs Russia over Syria. To buy bituminous crude from Canada is tantamount to buying Chinese oil in support of Iran and Syria. What is ethical about that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
09:09 AM on 02/24/2012
What is ethical about selling out the resources of Canada to the Communist Chinese? Take a close look at their history; torture, "reeducation camps" and murder.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BabylonDon
My macro-bio is full
10:44 AM on 02/22/2012
"EthicalOil" has learned it's FOX News lessons well. If you hire some pretty-ish blonde girl to say them for you, lies and bullying go down much easier.
04:34 AM on 02/22/2012
EthicalOil.org's propaganda deliberately keeps leaving out an ingredient ... but of course then it wouldn't be ethical 'kool-aid'. The fact that oil sands projects are being bought up by state-owned Chinese companies, such as CNOOC, PetroChina and Sinopec. Oil from these projects would therefore be purchased from and funds paid, to the producer ... China ... not Canada.

See CBC.ca January 3, 2012 "PetroChina buys entire oil sands project
"Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has exercised its option to sell its remaining 40 per cent interest in the MacKay River oilsands project to a unit of Chinese oil giant PetroChina for about $680 million. The deal, announced Tuesday, gives PetroChina full ownership of MacKay River project, one of the newest of northern Alberta's oilsands developments. It continues a trend that has seen Chinese companies acquire miners, energy producers and other resources companies in Canada and around the world to secure future supplies of minerals, steel, oil and gas and other raw materials for its rapidly growing economy. Athabasca had sold PetroChina a 60 per cent stake in the project last year."
07:55 PM on 02/21/2012
I've been critical of so called Ethical oil. It is all about the profits regardless where thay sell it. However, this does not distract from the label conflict oil. On the other hand you have those that would literary put a stop to all type of extraction of polluting energy but there is no cold fusion in the near or far future folks. Alternative energy sources will not meet the demands of industry for the foreseable future. Scientifically, we have pass the point of no return for weather changes over twenty years ago, Whats different is the rapidity in changes in 100's of years due to release of carbon from fossil fuels where these weather changes took 100s of thousands of years before in natural occuring cycles. Canada, EU, and the U.S. are better serve by becoming energy independent from the likes of Middle Eastern, Russian, and Venezuelan energy source. China will continue to build 100's of coal plants per year and burn fossil fuels as the rest of the developing world. It is stupid to cut back on exploration and production of our own resources.Weather change is here to stay and scientific truth is that stopping all use of fossil fuels in the world today if it was possible will not slow or change the weather changes occuring. We need to prepare for what is already occurring and coming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Creox
Life is too important to take seriously.
10:30 PM on 02/21/2012
Has it ever occurred to you and many others that since we cannot meet demands of industry/ day to day life with alternate sources of energy now or in the foreseeable future that we will soon collapse? Conventional oil peaked a couple of years ago btw. Hard to get and very expensive (not to mention very damaging) sources are now propping up our addiction to fossil fuels.

Those hard to get sources such as tar sands, shale gas, deep sea beds etc are not even close to meeting global demand.

Either we get on the green energy train and start conserving (meaning living more simply and with less materialism, not necessarily a less fulfilling life) or we are going to hit the wall....hard.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Brent Millar
When the going gets weird, the weird turn Pro
02:15 PM on 02/22/2012
"Conventional oil peaked a couple of years ago"

That's if you believe that oil is a non-renewable resource. "Fossil Fuel" is more than likely a fallacy. If you look into it just a little bit with a little critical thinking you'll realize a few things.

Then, when you're done with that, look into abiogenic oil. It's been here since the earth was formed. Oil is carbon. Carbon is the product of what? How hot is the earths core? What's that stuff that forms in your chimeny? Why does it do that? Now, think bigger, way bigger...

Now you're sure we've hit the peak? Really? I'm not. I think we've been sold a bill of goods.
BTW, when was the term fossil fuel coined? And they had the know-how then to know it was finite?
Again, Really?
05:33 PM on 02/21/2012
Why is this women allowed to give free advertising for the tar sands?
11:20 PM on 02/21/2012
I wondered about that too. For at least eighty years. oil has been extracted and sold regardless of the place where it originates. When Iran elected a president (Mossdegh) who wanted to nationalize oil, he was assassinated by America. The shah took over as a puppet of the west. America sold him endless war materiel. Iraq was sold American war materiel when Saddam was president and nobody objected to what he did asong the oil flowed. The Emirates are a construction of the West. Kuwait was "saved" from an invasion by Iraq and we were told Kuwait would become a democacy. Hasn't happened yet. Oil from the Niger delta is a moral outrage and environmental disaster. Oil extracted by destroying the Amazon jungle was okay. Very ethical. Ditto the oil in the Gulf. Not paid for is the environmental disaster caused by a drunken captain sailing from Alaska to the lower forty eight. We now find the unethical oil which is the dirtiest oil in the world and is destroying one of Canada's mightiest river and its very precious boreal forest is termed ethical. Why? Canadians subsidize the oil companies which extract the oil by creating the biggest pit mine in the world. Now we are told it is cleaner than coal. Duh. In the fifties hundreds and hundreds of people living in London died because of coal burning. The tar sands must be equated with coal. Mining the tar sands is the most unethical thing Canada has ever done.
04:19 PM on 02/21/2012
The issue of relying on “conflict oil” is not new. The world has been doing it for much of the last century. It is also not unique to the EU – much of eastern Canada’s supplies are from the same parts of the world. In 2009 44% (120M barrels) of oil imported into Canada was from Algeria, Angola, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (source: Statistics Canada - Energy Statistics Handbook – Second Quarter 2011, pg 53). There isn’t much heard from the oil industry or the Canadian federal government about this as an ethical problem.

Moving off of oil is an eventuality – even use of the Alberta tar sands won’t do much to change this fact. The challenge is to avoid the progress trap of exploiting poorer and poorer resources to the bitter end instead of working to develop societies and infrastructures that don’t use them. The EU is right to start classifying oil based on its environmental impact so that decisions can be made based on this factor. It is a first step to avoiding really bad options such as coal-to-oil conversion. Oil from the Alberta tar sands have an impact that is somewhere in between conventional forms and such bad options. That fact should not be ignored. It is the ethical thing to do for future generations.

David Mulrooney
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Brent Millar
When the going gets weird, the weird turn Pro
03:39 PM on 02/21/2012
I notice Ms Marshall neglects to point out where the vast majority of Canadas consumed oil comes from: That's right, the Harper Government is in bed with the Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

55% of our oil is imported from these countries with China and Russia rounding it out.
Yep, China, the last bastion of ethical countries...

Now if you think we can just cut all these countries out and start using our own oil, think again. Under NAFTA, we must keep sending the same proportion of our oil to the United States no matter what happens on the world stage. Article 605 of the NAFTA Agreement is the section you want to read.


Now look at you, getting all ethical about our oil. When you fail to mention that we are hogtied by foreign oil companies. Canada has "no policy to direct and develop its own resources, has to import half of its own energy needs, cannot guarantee resource access to its own citizens, and tolerates environmental disasters on its own territory while the energy sector rakes in record profits?"

Get off the high horse sweetheart - I've had enough of your ilk blowing smoke up the ass of Canadians. This isn't about your average Canadian, this is about an elite few, mostly foreign oil companies making money off our backs.

And you'd defend that? You're an unapologetic apologists for those that would rape our country and the environment and it's citizens be damned?

Shame on you.
05:38 PM on 02/21/2012
You are right on the money my friend. China is allowed to compete on the world stage with slave labor yet we aren't allowed to use oil as our bargaining chip on the world stage. All this fear talk about running out of everything from water to energy. Not so. We have lots of everything yet we are too poor to support OAS? We need a new plan. The current system isn't free market anymore. It's a manipulated market that only benefits a few.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bec DeCorbeau
Le langage de l'invisible est le silence
06:08 PM on 02/21/2012
Absolutely. It is easy to search internet and get the total revenue of oil production per country. It looks like Iran for example, is making 8 times more revenues per million of gallons than Canada.

They should at least make money with it.

The situation is totally ridiculous, unbelievable.

It feels like coming out of the matrix!
03:11 PM on 02/21/2012
Per usual - its a split decision. I work in the industry so I'm quite obviously biased and admittedly take the (extraordinarily good) money and wish to put a wall up between Sask and the rest of Canada.
If there's enough push back from David 'I'm No Hypocrite' Suzuki and his Mean Greenies ... and no pipeline is built...the oil will go West by train car. Pick the lesser of two - matters not to me and likely not to the 300,000+ (or whatever) people who are directly and indirectly employed by the oil sands.
I agree with Refab and I probably buy more Italian wine than they do of our oil. Let the boycotts begin.
02:48 PM on 02/21/2012
No more of these war-mongering ads from Ethical Oil please, HuffPost. Everyone can see through them.
02:41 PM on 02/21/2012
it's not ethical if the chinese own it, and they do. 2 wrongs don't make a right. oil and coal are both dangerous, and we should have the will to find alternative energy sources to keep our planet healthy for our future generations. What about all the animals and bugs and birds etc that use to call the tar sands home? And all the people living there now destroying the land and water and having to truck supplies to places so remote, all that has a devastating effect, and it isn't sustainable. So you try to spin it anyway you like lady, you are wrong in the big picture.
01:45 PM on 02/21/2012
>>>>moving off OPEC's conflict oil and switching to Canada's ethical oil

You just keep on plucking that chicken Ms Marshall.
It pays your bills.
Don't you worry about your personal credibilty.
The public has a notoriously short memory. ( or so I'm told )
01:40 PM on 02/21/2012
Let the Euros freeze the dark. China will buy our oil!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rickthaluddite
What noisy cats are we
05:06 PM on 02/21/2012
Not if they can't get it across any of Alberta's borders they won't.
08:12 PM on 02/21/2012
By "our oil" do you mean just alberta,just westerm canada, orall of Canada's oil? Please elaborate!
01:19 PM on 02/21/2012
oil is in short supply and big demand -----

NOTHING is going to stop any supplies from getting to those who want it NOTHING -----

attaching a phoney baloney label like ETHICAL OIL ---does not enter into the equation once the tankers hit the high seas they are all carrying oil and it is all the same ---------

some weak minds cling to the idea that a silly label somehow gives them more market access ---
but the weak minds are free to wallow where they will --it keeps them from doing damage elsewhere
12:45 PM on 02/21/2012
Why is HP posting this ad for Enbridge? How many solar panels could we put on buildings with the $7,000,000,000.00 for the XL pipeline? Now that might be ethical.