20 Nov 2013
Over the last several weeks, my hometown newspaper, The Hamilton Spectator, has run a series of
Op-Ed pieces all of which conclude that the exploitation of the Alberta oil
sands needs to be stopped.
- In the case of K.S., he wants them stopped because it
would make Iranian oil more valuable in the world economy.
- In the case of D.M., he is a hair-shirt
environmentalist who wants everyone to shiver in the dark and walk to
work. Abundant oil and gas make that difficult to enforce.
- In the case of D.R., he is a kid with an intellect but
devoid of worldly experience, and apparently happy to see suffering visited on
people he will never meet.
L.H. just wants people to notice her.
Today, we have T.W. of the Pembina Institute making the
completely irrational claim that the loss of nuclear generating capacity is
good for Ontario. (Maybe he is an Albertan who is seeking revenge!)
None of these enviro wackos has observed that for every ton
of steel made in Hamilton by ArcelorMittal Dofasco, 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide are created. At 4.2
million tons of steel made last year, that’s 4.96 million tons of carbon
dioxide. Rather than make the case that their steel making neighbors be
impoverished and thrown out of work, these fearless Spec Op-ed writers make the
case against Albertans instead. Their favorite whipping boy is Steven
Harper, who represents a Calgary riding, and who, much to their chagrin,
supports the development and exploitation of highly profitable Alberta oil
sands.
What I don’t understand is why the Spectator opinion pages
express such a volume of anti-Alberta sentiment. Does the Calgary Herald
run editorials demanding that steel making at Dofasco be shut down in order
that Canada lower it’s carbon emissions? Has Fort McMurray Today
demanded that the printing presses at the Spec be shut down in order to
alleviate the world-wide shortage of ink?
Where’s the balance? Does the Spec have a hate on
for things Alberta, like tar sands and Steven Harper?
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment