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
Canada threatens EU over oil sands emissions rating - The Globe ...
No Tar Sands | Keep Europe out of the Tar Sands!
Canada threatens trade war with EU over tar sands - Democratic ...
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."
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.
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?
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
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.
They should at least make money with it.
The situation is totally ridiculous, unbelievable.
It feels like coming out of the matrix!
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.
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 )
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