Gateway is Certainly in Sinopec's Interests. It is in No way in Canada's National Interests

Defenceless: Selling Our Sovereignty 

Glavin's been writing a series of articles on our retreat from even gesturing in the direction of national security interests in our trade and foreign investment dealings. We are sacrificing both our natural resources and sovereign power in the interests of what is clearly a neoliberal agenda: trade and short term profits at all costs even if it means handing the reins to China in the case of the tarsands and the Gateway pipeline.  


And to think OGL(Our Glorious Leader, one of John Doyle's terms for President Harper) is on his way there right now even as I write with the expressed purpose of selling us out completely while the rest us are forced to sit idly by while Canada burns. I suspect we're going to have to become much more radical during the next three years. It really is getting to the unbearable point.

Keystone, Northern Gateway pipelines raise questions that need answers before approval

The Star:  This is the most realistic and sensible perspective I've seen on the environment-oil-pipeline dilemma. Olive is right:  oil as our primary source of energy is not going to go away any time soon. It took well over 50 years to shift from coal as a primary source of energy to oil and natural gas.  Given the slow pace of commercializing innovations in alternative energy, the complexities of implementation, and governments' lack of political will to drive the development of alternative sources aggressively and cooperatively, it will be much longer before we witness a fully established energy paradigm shift - probably not in our lifetimes. 

Bottom line: while living with oil as the primary source of our energy - about which we have no choice -  we must in that context seek energy efficiency and ensure environmental safety everywhere we can in order to lessen the impact on the planet. This may involve focusing on the two pipelines not necessarily with the goal of stopping them since - let's be realistic - that's impossible, but with the goal of ensuring maximum environment safety and energy efficiency. That is actually acheiveable because both Trans Canada and Enbridge so desperately seek approval of these projects, and if we demand such stringency there's a very good chance they will accede.   Is such a position a compromise? You decide.


Robert Kennedy, Jr. said as much in his interview on CTV's Question Period. But David Hughes, a well-known energy analyst, says Gateway is unnecessary and that the pace of extractions from the tarsands themselves should be more evenly paced. Instead of pushing to sell oil to Asia and the U.S., he says, we should develop a comprehensive national energy policy and ship that oil east to central and eastern Canada to wean those regions off foreign oil, which is going to peak long before the tarsands. Agreed, but is there an ounce of political will from the Harper Regime for such a sensible idea?

The Harper Regime is Playing Dangerous Game

By unleashing strident propagandistic messages aimed nominally at environmentalists but really anyone opposed to or even questioning of the Gateway pipeline, the Harper Regime is playing a dangerous game in attempting to limit legitimate discussion on the Gateway pipeline. This is, as David Eaves argues, given all the complex issues involved, exactly the moment to begin a full and transparent arms-length approval process. Otherwise, I would add, any sort of intervention will potentially result in political blow-back from ordinary Canadians - who of course expect fairness in the assessment - that may turn out to be severely politically damaging, especially since the Regime is already skating on thin ice with so many other policies and practices, including - ordinary Canadians are beginning to realize - mismanagement of the economy through misguided spending and the loss of jobs in the general economy. Watch out once the full force of austerity measures kick in. http://goo.gl/AgmdV