Ethical oil vs. Saudi oil

Canada has its own problems, but I’d rather the money I pay for gas go there than to a repressive theocratic monarchy. I’d rather still the money I pay for gas stay in this country, but that seems not to be an option.

UPDATE 30 September 2011: More of my gas money is going to North Dakota. That suits me fine.


3 Replies to “Ethical oil vs. Saudi oil”

  1. the gas the US and canada buy still goes to saudi arabia, just not as directly as importing their oil and gas from them on supertankers… aramco owns half the oil production coming out of the jackpine oilsands, currently producing 100.000 barrels a day, and will soon have mineral rights for an even larger site in northern alberta within a few months… and aramco is a wholly owned subsidiary of the saudi royal family. no way to avoid payment to oligarchs, when it’s nothing but oligarchs who own the industry.

    it is a real lose-lose situation, for all involved except the saudis, i suppose. the only option is rapid reduction in gasoline usage, but neither the political will, nor the infrastructure required to enact swift change appear to exist. the problem is not technological, but sociological in nature, and will not improve in the continuation of current demand…

    wholesale investment in the technologies necessary for a shift in power of this scale would have to be massive, but it’s a feasible alternative and a logical step forward to address an untenable resource dependence chain.


    1. There’s something to what you say, and certainly oil on the world market is a fungible commodity. In the near term I’m in favor of importing oil from Canada instead of Saudi Arabia. In Canada oil is more likely to be produced in environmentally responsible ways; women in Canada have at least as many rights as men; and Christians aren’t subject to as many legal disabilities.

  2. i would say the environmental responsibility has been largely shirked in canada, especially when it has come to the development of the oilsands. the open pit mining and evaporative tailings ponds along the banks of a river which supplies drinking water for 2 million people have been responsible for drastic spikes in cancer rates and birth defects in animal and human populations, continued increase in carbon emissions per barrel of oil, and an a industry funded monitoring agency that refuses to release data sets on water and air quality.

    your argument based solely on the protection rights of one group of foreigners shows your true frame of reference, that you are seeking justification to continue on consuming a resource, but want to clear your conscience by considering it the lesser of two evils. i am simply pointing out that if human life and the rights it implies are truly the basis of your argument, then canadian oil sands production will provide many factual examples of harm to life and abuse of citizens inalienable rights, which could be used to argue against the continued destruction and pollution in northern alberta.

    why the emotional outpouring for people so far away, when albertans continue to suffer the harm caused by unrestricted and subsidized oil production? you’ll meet one of us before you’ll meet one of them…


Comments are closed.