文章 Articles

加拿大向中国兜售石油“美梦一场”?

加拿大总理哈珀正在前往北京,向中国游说加国的油砂矿。孟安琪认为,对于中国来说,远离这个烫手的山芋,才是明智之举。

Article image

加拿大总理斯蒂芬·哈珀明天前往中国,目标非常明确:为加拿大的油砂开采争取市场。他曾将此工程比作中国的长城:“但只能更宏伟”。

鉴于国内愈演愈烈的环保抗议声浪,美国政府两周前拒绝了修筑拟投资70亿美元(440亿人民币)的“拱心石” (Keystone) XL输油管道的申请。该工程计划修筑一条管道,将加拿大西南部阿尔伯特省的油砂运送至美国德克萨斯的炼油厂。在该计划遭拒之后,哈珀现在似乎将兴趣转移了,打算将油砂石油卖给中国。

出于环境和政治因素反对油砂开采的声音已经持续数年:加拿大当地担心石油开采破坏环境,国际社会忧虑此举会加速气候变化。最近的进展情况是,加拿大提出了“北方门户管道计划”(Northern Gateway pipeline)。该计划一旦实施,出口到中国的“脏”油将提高五十余倍。由于在美国受到了环保压力的强烈阻碍,加拿大现在也许更情愿意承受来自国内而不是国外的各种批评,即希望能将石油出口到更好说话的中国市场。

加拿大的石油储量居世界第二位,仅次于沙特阿拉伯。但是由于该国石油存在于沥青、砂土、粘土的高度粘稠混合物之中,与传统的石油开采相比,需要耗费更多的水和能源,并且对当地环境的污染更严重。

浅层油砂通过露天开采可以提取。但露天开采首先需要砍伐森林,同时每桶原油平均需要清除掉四吨的沙石和土壤,对周围地区的沼泽、河流和北部森林等造成生态破坏。深层油砂的开采对环境的破坏更大:一般通过蒸汽和油来加热泥状混合物,使其成为流体,再用油井抽出。

待混合物被抽出后,需要用加热好的数桶水将沥青与沙土分开,而污水被导入尾矿池(废水将会被储存在这里,以便将固体颗粒与液体分开)。在整个的处理过程中,除循环水之外,每生产一个单位的石油,还需要消耗1.5到4个单位的水资源。

上述这些工作,都是在常规炼油之外需要完成的。这不仅仅给当地环境、空气、水——甚至很可能包括当地居民的健康——造成了不可修复的损害。

从2005年起,中国公司一直对加拿大的油砂进行投资,并且,根据《休斯顿纪事报》(Houston Chronicle)的报道,在过去18个月里,单单在阿尔伯特省,中国公司就投入了150亿美元左右。目前,加拿大每天向中国出口的石油只有10,000桶,而“北方门户管道计划” 可以将出口量增加到日525,000桶。

该计划如果得以实施,油砂原油将通过管道,从西部的阿尔伯特省进入英属哥伦比亚,跨过该地山区,到达西北海岸,从那里被装入巨型油轮,发往亚洲。英属哥伦比亚山区是公认的风景秀丽之地,也是加拿大50个“第一民族”或称“原住民”的家园所在地。

中国正在设法满足国内日益增长的能源需求,因此被认为是这些石油最大的潜在买家。国际能源机构(IEA)预测,到2035年,中国的能源需求会增长75%,占世界消耗总量增长的三分之一强。

即使中国愿意购买,加拿大国内的民主程序也极有可能减缓该国回应的时间。就像“拱心石”XL输油管道在美国的遭遇一样,加拿大政府也需要先平息国内政治和环保人士的反对声浪,之后还要考虑怎样处理原住民的土地权问题。

议会、政府机构和环保组织的成员多半都支持“负责任地发展油砂”;但他们也都承认,需要启用有效的环境管理系统,对油砂周围的土地、空气及水资源给予特别关注。很多人也认为,这也是一个可预测、稳定的投资环境所必不可少的。

石油开采对于该地水域的累积效应暂不可知,但几份独立且得到政府认可的研究显示(参阅此处),联邦及各级地方政府都需要加强水域监控系统。环境学家还认为,当地没有设定对油砂所致污染的可接受范围,并未制定计划保护油砂开采区受威胁的物种。

加拿大国内对“北方门户管道”反对更为激烈,由加拿大政府首席独立审计员、环境与可持续发展特派员于2011年12月递交议会的一份报告更助长了反对大潮,在加拿大全国掀起了政府应加强输油管道安全管理的声浪。

呼吁负责任地开发油砂的环保组织彭比纳研究所最近出炉的报告进一步支持了反对的观点。该报告倡议,拒绝“北方门户管道”,禁止巨型油轮在英属哥伦比亚海岸装卸。去年,有议员向议会提交了一份禁止巨型油轮的法案,并得到了加拿大除执政的保守党之外所有联邦政党的公开支持。如果该项法案通过,225艘连接中国市场与门户管道的巨型油轮将受到影响。

几周前,有关输油管道提案的听证会开始进行,已经有超过4000人提出申请,要对此计划发表意见,听证会将持续一年半的时间,此项目成为了加拿大历史上最受关注的能源工程。听证会的主要议题包括油砂开发对环境造成的影响,输油管道或海上油轮的潜在风险以及此项目能带来的实际经济收益。众多“第一民族”原住民员将会到场维护自己的土地权,这一点,加拿大政府已经预计到了。

加拿大第二大影响力的政党新民主党环境发言人琳达·邓肯接受“中外对话”采访时表示,在涉及哈珀总理关心的“北方门户管道”议题上,“我们的贸易伙伴需要明白,会有旗帜鲜明的反对派”。

在邓肯看来,加拿大人越来越关心外国投资以及加拿大资源的所有权问题。而加拿大政府“完全不积极回应”国民的环保诉求。

哈珀所属的保守党自然资源部部长认为,建立北方门户管道的主要反对声来自于“环境组织和其它激进团体”,他们称此项目被外资操控,用以“破坏加拿大经济”。

这已经不是环保人士第一次对包括中国在内的外来投资国家提出抗议了。但邓肯坚称,实际的情况是加拿大政府是“根本没有响应”加拿大人民的环保要求。环保人士还称,诸多环境问题跨越国境,因此他们需要国际社会的响应。

国际社会中的不少声音,也对目前加拿大政府不光彩的环境记录表示质疑。2011年,加拿大政府因其退出《京都议定书》(为应对由排放引起的气候问题于1997年制定的国际气候条约)后对环境变化所做的不佳表现,被某环保组织联盟授予第五届“年度顽固不化”奖,并由于其糟糕的环境政策连连成为加拿大环保组织攻击的对象。

不仅仅是“拱心石”XL计划遭到批评,油砂的进一步开采活动也成为攻击的焦点。加拿大国内攻势猛烈的反对派聚焦当地危害,而国际环保组织则齐聚火力,声讨开采活动对环境变化造成的恶果。

虽然根据加拿大石油生产商协会的说法,目前油砂只占加拿大碳排放的6.5%,但加拿大已经是世界上人均碳排放最高的国家之一。彭比纳研究所预计,油砂将成为未来加拿大温室气体排放增长“几乎唯一”来源,并且宣称,“约束碳排放的举措与加拿大的气候承诺并不一致”。

显而易见,与常规石油相比,油砂的碳强度更高,而两者之间具体的差值则因测量技术而异。有些专家计算从开采到提炼(“油井到油罐”)过程的碳排放量,估计油砂石油比常规石油的碳强度要高3到5倍。而环境咨询机构剑桥能源研究协会则以“油井到车轮”作为检测范围,包括了从开采一直到汽车排气管的全部排放,得出的结论是油砂石油的碳排放只比常规石油多5% 到15%。石油的碳排放主要来自燃烧,而非开采过程。

与此同时,世界顶尖能源经济权威机构国际原子能机构的一项研究显示,建设如输油管道这样的基础设施会导致“骑虎难下”的局面,促使该地区未来数十年在高碳能源增长的道路上奔驰。

“我们是要严肃认真地对待新能源,还是顺着非常规石油的路走下去?” 《国家地理》杂志一篇文章(图片请点击这里)引用彭比纳研究所西门·迪尔的话,“我们现在情愿用四吨土来换一桶石油,看来这个世界上容易开采的石油真的为数不多了。”

环境学家们认为,“北方门户输油管道”会使全球更加依赖化石燃料。将石油列于可再生能源之前,最终要付出的不仅仅是沉重的经济代价,还有环境代价,需要后代子孙来偿还。

加拿大很有可能还是急于加强与中国的合作,以使其贸易构成多元化。但如果中国打算从加拿大进口更多的原油,也要对这个贸易伙伴的政治和环保状况做好准备。如果说“拱心石”XL工程能有什么启示的话,那就是:如果贸易伙伴打算低估环保界的呼声——他们将会自食其果。

本文作者孟安琪是驻北京的环保人士、教师,现在为国内民间非盈利环保组织“绿家园志愿者”,同时在“中国教育之旅”的学术项目中教授有关中国社会变迁的课程。

翻译:索瑞娅 

图片作者:Greenpeace/ Jiri Rezac

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar
chjy002tw

良好的意愿而以

如果加拿大人愿意牺牲他们的环境来换取石油的利益,那么没有理由相信中国人会比加拿大人更关心加拿大的环境。中国可能会明智地和加拿大沥青砂油保持一段安全距离。同样的,中国本应该会更明智地不从伊朗买油。但是他们还是买了。从中国一直做生意的方式来看,“北方门户管道计划”几乎可以确定不是一个输油管道梦。

Wishful thinking

If Canadians are willing to sacrifice their environment for oil profit, there is no reason to believe that Chinese will care more about the environment of Canada than Canadians do.
China might be wise to keep a safe distance from dirty Canadian tar sand oil. Similarly, China would be even wiser not to buy oil from Iran. But they do. Judging from what China has been conducting business, Northern Gateway pipeline is most certainly not a pipe dream.

Default thumb avatar
agy100

一个合理的警告

真是一篇好文,同时也是一个有理有据的警告!
加拿大保守党的行为怎能如此狂妄?

A fair warning

Well written - a fair warning!

How can the Canadian Tory government behave that insolently?

Default thumb avatar
haefen

事实上的错误

这篇文章,连同许多同一主题的文章,都是不成立的事实,只不过是政治信仰而以。我只谈一谈其中的几个片段,实际上本文的每一段都是建立在空谈之上。

来自油砂的产品有沥青和合成原油,以及所有可以从中提炼的产品。合成原油,有需求才有生产,此特性让其成为最可爱的石油产品。

生产过程中的水几乎是完全可回收的,一些工厂根本都不用江河水,有些工厂使用河水,也仅仅是弥补蒸发而以。一个普通的城市使用的水远远大于这些。

相比其他大部分行业,它对环境的破坏造成的损害是微不足道的。所有项目都有回填计划,事实上一些项目已经在这样做。相比,世界上很多城市扩张中发生的负面效应,都还没有得到补救。

加拿大是一个大国,有大的湖泊,海洋和广袤的森林。加拿大的自然界吸收的二氧化碳比它们产生的要多很多,并且几十年来一直在吸收世界上的碳。

世界上没有任何的石油,像加拿大的石油这样面临着这么多环境和人权的条条框框的限制。

Factually incorrect

This article, like so many on the topic, is not founded on facts but political beliefs. I'll just touch on a few as almost every paragraph is based on myth.

Products from the Oil Sands are Bitumen and Synthetic Crude Oil and all the products that can be refined from those. Synthetic Crude is made to order making it the sweetest oil available, if that is what is ordered.

Water is almost completely recycled, some plants draw no water from rivers, others use river water to make up for evaporation, only. An average city uses much more water.

The environmental damage is insignificant compared to the damage caused by most other industries. All projects have reclamation plans some of which have already occurred. Something we have yet to see for areas affected by urban expansion internationally.

Canada is a large country, with large lakes, oceans and many forests. Canada naturally sinks more carbon than they emit and have been sinking the worlds carbon for decades.

No oil in the world faces as many environmental and human rights restrictions as Canadian oil.

Default thumb avatar
lanlin

贸易应对社会和环境负责

Angela,你的文章很有想法,我希望评论也是有见地的。在中国从事环境和发展问题已经六年,清楚地看到全世界都面对着短期经济增长和长期经济健康、人和环境之间的斗争。大企业和它们政治上的支持者已经失去了绝大多数人的信任。如果我们想要一个健康的未来,那么需要拥有良好意愿的人们应该共同努力。

企业和政府应该利用一部分经济收入支持社会发展、教育和环保事业。加拿大人也应该意识到我们是在以健康、他人的幸福和环境为代价致富。

至于我的中国朋友们,情况则完全不同。在中国企业走出国门走向世界的同时,中国应该确保它们的行为尊重人权和环境。加拿大沥青砂油和北方门户管道计划项目冒风险展开公平、公开的公共审议流程对加拿大作为民主国家的名誉至关重大。这个问题不仅仅关乎钱,现在如此,未来也应如此。

Trade must be socially and environmentally responsible

A thoughtful article Angela, I wish the comments were as well informed. Working over the past 6 years on environment and development issues in China it is clear that the same battle between short-term economic gain and long-term health of economy, people and the environment is being fought across the world. Big business and their political advocates have lost the trust of most people. Men and women of goodwill must work together if we want a healthier future.

Our businesses and governments should use some of their economic gains to support social development, education and environmental protection, and Canadians need to realize we are enriching ourselves at the expense of the health and well-being of others and the environment.

As for our Chinese friends, the shoe is on the other foot. As Chinese enterprises go abroad China has the responsibility to make sure its behaviour respects human rights and the environment. The Tar Sands development and northern gateway project risk both and a fair and open public review process is essential to Canada’s reputation as a democratic society. This issue is and must continue to be about more than money.

http://www.harmonyfdn.ca

Default thumb avatar
o.boyd

回复:Haefen的“事实上的错误”

Haefen你好,

你的观点很有意思。你能给出那些消息的来源吗,以便让其他读者自己去阅读去思考?

对于你提到的加拿大碳汇方面的观点,不能因为加拿大拥有天然的碳汇优势,就赋予其多排放的权力。如果气候变化问题可以用国界线划分,那加拿大或许可以保持其自身碳排放和碳吸收的平衡。但是,气候变化是全球性问题,每吨二氧化碳的排放,无论它源自哪里,都是影响着每一个人的全球性问题。

Reply to Haefen 'Factually Incorrect'

Hi Haefen,

Interesting comments. Can you give us some sources to back them up so other readers can look at the issue themselves?

On your point about Canada being a carbon sink: just because Canada happens to have natural carbon sinks doesn't mean Canada somehow has a right to emit more. If climate change was limited by national boundaries then perhaps Canada could control its emissions to keep in step with the uptake of its carbon sinks. But climate change is a global problem and every tonne of CO2 emitted, no matter where it comes from, represents a global problem that is shared by us all.

Default thumb avatar
haefen

加拿大给出解决方案

对于那些那些关心环境和人权的人们来说,油砂和北美管道提供了一个过渡油源,而这是现有最好的折衷办法。

在地球上其他地方建造运作的管道并没有像在加拿大那样严格审查。例如,我们很少听到有关俄罗斯或从苏丹南部经过肯尼亚管道建造的消息。

加拿大对管道话题的讨论持开放态度,这也意味着它要达到别人无需达到的标准。

今天,我们用石油用来种植粮食供人食用,用来家庭供暖制作塑料。石油正是我们10亿人生活在这个脆弱的星球上的基础,但是我们也需要鼓励更好的能量来源。

油砂也是石油。它昂贵并且受到严格监控,常在现代环保标准健全的国家制造,最重要的是它是接受大众的审查。

像油砂这种价格昂贵的石油,为许多一些更可持续的能源打开了市场。未来能源的趋势也许不再是石油,但仅就今天来说,我们最好的选择也许就是加拿大石油。

Canada offers the solution

The oil sands and north american pipelines give those concerned about the environment and human rights a source of transitional oil that is the best compromise available.

The pipelines being built and operated elsewhere on the planet do not have the intense scrutiny those in Canada have. For example we hear little of the pipelines in Russia or those being built from Southern Sudan through Kenya.

Canadian pipelines are open to discussion and must meet standards others could not.

We need oil today to grow food to feed people, to heat homes, to make plastic. Oil is the very foundation of our ability to have 10 Billion people living on this fragile planet. Yet we need an oil that encourages better sources of energy.

Oil Sands oil is that oil. It is expensive, heavily monitored, and made in a country with modern environmental standards and most importantly is open to scrutiny.

Expensive oil, like that from the oil sands, open the markets to the many other much more sustainable energy sources. The future is not oil but today the best oil for those concerned about the future is Canadian Oil.

Default thumb avatar
yugong

加拿大土著居民致中国人民的一封公开信

他们抗议史蒂芬·哈珀在自己的土地、领土和水域上兴建安桥北方门户管道和油轮的计划。他们说:“哈珀计划修建一条1200公里长、从阿尔伯特省的油砂田到太平洋的石油管道,这违反了我们土著居民的人权。我们不会允许哈珀让输油管道强行通过我们的土地。根据联合国国际法,我们有权抵制这条管线。我们会实行自己的合法权利,保护我们的水域远离漏油风险。
我们是​加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省菲沙河流域的土著民族,拥有自己的独立主权。这些水域将我们多个民族维系在一起。 安桥公司试图通过建立管道,从菲沙河上游抽取大量焦油砂,然后用巨型油轮承载这些石油通过极度危险的水域。一旦石油在我们的土地和河流中泄漏,我们的鱼、水,人民、生计,以及未来都会被毒害并摧毁。海岸线的石油泄漏更会使成千上万人的海鲜鱼类的来源(比如螃蟹)遭到破坏……”中外对话的读者是怎么看的呢?”

Native Canadians write an open letter to the Chinese people

They are protesting against Steven Harper's plan to build the Enbridge Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline and Tankers through their lands, territories, and watersheds. They say: "Harper plans to violate our indigenous human rights to build this 1200 kilometre oil pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to the Pacific Ocean. We will not allow Harper to force this oil pipeline through our lands. Under United Nations international law, we have the right to say no to this pipeline. We will enforce our legal rights to protect our waters from this the risk of an oil spill.
We are the sovereign Indigenous nations of the Fraser River Watershed in British Columbia, Canada. We are many nations, bound together by these waters. Enbridge wants to build pipelines to pump massive amounts of tar sands crude oil through the Fraser’s headwaters, and then use giant oil tankers to carry the oil through very dangerous waters. An oil spill in our lands and rivers would destroy our fish, poison our water, and devastate our peoples, our livelihoods, and our futures. An oil spill on the coast would destroy sources of seafood and fish, like crabs, for thousands of people..." What do chinadialogue readers think??

Default thumb avatar
cgn

回复“良好的意愿”

亲爱的“良好意愿”:这篇文章的关键不是加拿大人“愿不愿意牺牲环境来换取石油利润”,恰恰相反,加大拿政府或许愿意这么做。但目前保守党政府仅获得不足24%的有效支持率,加拿大人曾多次表示环境保护要优先于经济增长,但政府对石油贸易更感兴趣,因此,许多人认为这是民主的失败。

Reply to 'wishful thinking'

Dear 'Wishful thinking': the point of this article is not only are Canadians not "willingly to sacrifice their environment for oil profit" - quite the opposite. Perhaps the Canadian government is willing. But the current Conservative government received less than 24% support of those eligible to vote. Canadians have repeatedly expressed that they want to prioritize environment over economic growth, but the government is more interested in oil revenue. Many see it as a failure of democracy.

Default thumb avatar
cgn

回复:Haefen

我向你保证,文中所列举的诸多环保主义者都有着他们自己的政治信念或社会信仰,他们希望所生活的社会是一个在科学的基础上制定政策的社会,而不是一个由特殊利益驱动的社会;是一个尊重法律程序,尊重比现任掌权者更早就居住在那片土地上的原住民的需求的社会;是一个维护每一位成员的荣华和幸福,子孙后代的幸福的社会(不仅仅是金钱带来的幸福感)。这些社会信念应该体现在我们的政策上,但现实却并非如此。这是一个政治问题。

如上所述,许多加拿大环保人士认识到全球能源需求的现状,倡导要负责任地开发油砂。希望他们在发出此呼吁的同时,也关注能源消耗的控制,以及更深远的经济增长问题。

你的观点完全符合加拿大政府的主张,即加拿大油砂更受青睐,因为加拿大是一个尊重人权的民主国家。哈珀忘记了四年前他拒绝出席奥运会,并且直言不讳地批评...

Response to Haefen

I’ll assure you that many of the environmentalists cited are driven by political, or social beliefs: the belief that they want to live in a society where policy is driven by science and not by special interests, a society which respects legal process and the original land claims of peoples who were there well before those currently in power, and a society which ensures prosperity or happiness for its members (which goes far beyond money) including for future generations. These social beliefs ought to be reflected in our political system but the reality is that currently they are not. This is a political issue.

As mentioned, many of the Canadian environmentalists recognize the reality of global energy demand and advocate for responsible development of the oil sands. Hopefully they do so at the same time as discussing limits to energy consumption and more broadly, economic growth.

Your comments are exactly the same as the Canadian government’s line that Canadian oil sands are preferable because they come from a government that respects human rights, a democratic country. Harper forgets that only four years ago he didn’t attend the olympic games and has been an outspoken critic of

Default thumb avatar
haefen

补充两句

CGN你好。政治问题不能成为改变事实的借口,同样科学也不能依赖于个人的政治信仰。我认为除了某些鬼鬼祟祟的人以外,双方还是在某种程度上达成了一致。这就应该引起人们思考,他们究竟想建立一种怎样的社会。

几乎在地球的每块领土,都会有拥有者之外的人宣布拥有。但如果想尊重所有的声音,最终只能引来战争和流血。如果大家都能搬回到我们原来的家园---非洲,这样想想感觉不错,但在现实世界中根本不可能。

支持加拿大的一些声音实际上就是在支持种族隔离制度,这和南非的情况一样不道德。这在情理之中,因为南非的制度正是建立在加拿大的基础之上。由于道德和基本人权的关系,这样的制度,以及其中的种族隔离和种族歧视,甚至仅仅是部落和家庭的歧视,都不应该得到丝毫的支持。当然,环保运动已经向我们证明了,在政治与人权的冲突中,前者总是战胜后者。攻击加拿大良心石油的言论就证明了这一点。

就像我之前指出的,在大多数情况下,不买加拿大的石油也就意味着去购买带血的石油。而且已经有很多的环保主义者已经充分准备好这么做了,同时强迫别人也这么做,以此来显示他们对人权以及一个建立在繁荣和幸福基础上的社会的关注程度。

我想大多数人都会同意,减少能源消耗和节能增效,是一个​​很好的过渡目标。能够明显减少能源的使用,并且使生活水平的日益提高的最好办法,就是减少人口。加拿大已经向世界证明了这是可行的。加拿大不仅是一个巨大的天然碳汇,而且也是世界上出生率最低的国家之一。这是一件好事,因为这给了我们更多的时间去寻找下一个最好的能量来源。

我们暂时还没办法离开石油,起码在下一代之前是这样,而如果考虑到它的其他用途,这个时间也许会更长。 加拿大石油是最好的选择,因为它储量丰富,价格不菲,创造就业机会,生产过程能够得到监视和改善。

人民,环保主义者,甚至非加拿大人都不会因为帮加拿大指出如何改善石油这项基本必需品的生产而被枪毙或监禁。事实正好相反。他们可以在这个过程中起到重要作用,但当然,首先他们必须选择这么做。他们也可以选择传播仇恨和误解,而不必担心被枪杀或监禁,这些对他们来说已经不会陌生。

至于哈珀,不用担心。与其他石油生产国不同,我们的政府一直是轮流执政,而且不必通过流血的方式。

hi again

Hi CGN, Political issues should not change the facts, nor should science depend on ones political beliefs. I suspect that all sides agree on that to some extent, except those that cannot stand the light of day. Which should lead one to ask what kind of society they would be working towards.

Almost every part of the planet is claimed by someone other than the people currently controlling it. Respecting all those claims can only lead to war and bloodshed. It is a nice to think everyone can move back to the Africa they came out of but that isn't possible in the real world.

When it comes to supporting some of those claims in Canada it can also mean supporting a racial apartheid system that is every bit as immoral as that in South Africa. Which is to be expected as South Africa based their system on Canada's. Such systems, with their segregation and racial, even tribal and family discrimination should not be given support due to moral and basic human right concerns. Of course the environmental movement has shown us that their politics often trumps human rights when they conflict. That is best seen in their attack of Ethical Canadian Oil.

As pointed out, not buying Canadian oil in most cases means buying blood oil. That so many other environmentalists are fully prepared to do that, and force that choice on others, shows the level of concern they have for human rights and a society based on prosperity and happiness. .

I think most would agree that reducing energy use and being as efficient as practicable is an excellent transitional goal. The best way to reduce energy use significantly and have an increasing standard of living is to have a declining population. Something Canada has already shown the world is possible. Not only is Canada a large country with massive natural carbon sinks but the birth rate is one of the best in the world. Which is a good thing as that gives us more time to find the next best source of energy.

Meanwhile oil will be with us for at least another generation and much longer for it's many other uses. That oil should be Canadian oil because there is a lot of it, it is expensive, employs more people and it's production can be monitored and improved.

People, environmentalists, even non-Canadians will not be shot or imprisoned for helping Canadians by pointing out ways to improve the manufacture of a basic necessity. Just the opposite. They can have an important role in the process but of course only if they choose to. They can also choose to spread hate and misinformation without fear of being shot or imprisoned, something they seem to already know.

As for Harper, don't worry about him. Unlike other oil producers we can and do change our governments all the time and do so without bloodshed.