Hi all,
An article from the April 21st edition of The Globe and Mail (Comment). The writer believes that there is an alarming disconnect between what the Alberta government sees and what is actually taking place in the US. Excerpts:
A strange and alarming disconnect has opened between what the Alberta government sees and believes about climate-change policy, and what is actually emerging in the United States. Alberta, which accounts for about 32 per cent of Canada`s emissions and is home to the "dirty" oil from the tar sands, seems convinced that threats from the south are hollow.
Americans need, and will always need, our oil, the provincial government insists. They will not cut it off. They will be impressed by what we have done, and what we are doing, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The threats to Alberta`s complacency come not from the usual targets of provincial scorn - the East, Central Canada or the federal government - but from Washington and states such as California.
In Ottawa, the Harper government increasingly has no policy, but is just waiting to latch on to whatever emerges in the United States. Waiting for Obama is the way to describe the Canadian position.
In Washington, something of potentially enormous consequence occurred last week. The Environment Protection Agency issued a "proposed finding" (now subject to public comment) that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health.
This "finding" followed a review required by the U.S. Supreme Court. It means that the EPA could pass, if necessary, mandatory regulations reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For the moment, the EPA says it prefers the U.S. Congress to deal with the problem. But the "finding" suggests that if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration, through the EPA, will.
If passed, these regulations would stop tar-sands oil from being sold in the United States. Alternative sources would have to be found and, Alberta pretensions notwithstanding, these are available at whatever the world prices at the time.
What we are seeing, therefore, in the EPA ruling, the Obama proposals and the Waxman bill, are the first markers being put down for a protracted debate, the end product of which is unknown.
With Ottawa having abandoned any pretense of having its own policy, and Alberta stubbornly divorced from emerging North American (and world) realities, Canadians can only wait until their country`s policies are framed in Washington, after which they will have no choice but to act.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...specialComment/
Keith
An article from the April 21st edition of The Globe and Mail (Comment). The writer believes that there is an alarming disconnect between what the Alberta government sees and what is actually taking place in the US. Excerpts:
A strange and alarming disconnect has opened between what the Alberta government sees and believes about climate-change policy, and what is actually emerging in the United States. Alberta, which accounts for about 32 per cent of Canada`s emissions and is home to the "dirty" oil from the tar sands, seems convinced that threats from the south are hollow.
Americans need, and will always need, our oil, the provincial government insists. They will not cut it off. They will be impressed by what we have done, and what we are doing, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The threats to Alberta`s complacency come not from the usual targets of provincial scorn - the East, Central Canada or the federal government - but from Washington and states such as California.
In Ottawa, the Harper government increasingly has no policy, but is just waiting to latch on to whatever emerges in the United States. Waiting for Obama is the way to describe the Canadian position.
In Washington, something of potentially enormous consequence occurred last week. The Environment Protection Agency issued a "proposed finding" (now subject to public comment) that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health.
This "finding" followed a review required by the U.S. Supreme Court. It means that the EPA could pass, if necessary, mandatory regulations reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For the moment, the EPA says it prefers the U.S. Congress to deal with the problem. But the "finding" suggests that if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration, through the EPA, will.
If passed, these regulations would stop tar-sands oil from being sold in the United States. Alternative sources would have to be found and, Alberta pretensions notwithstanding, these are available at whatever the world prices at the time.
What we are seeing, therefore, in the EPA ruling, the Obama proposals and the Waxman bill, are the first markers being put down for a protracted debate, the end product of which is unknown.
With Ottawa having abandoned any pretense of having its own policy, and Alberta stubbornly divorced from emerging North American (and world) realities, Canadians can only wait until their country`s policies are framed in Washington, after which they will have no choice but to act.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...specialComment/
Keith