American Petroleum claims Canada oil sands will create 600,000 U.S. jobs
Most Canadians have never seen it, but the American Petroleum Institute (API) has been running ads in the U.S. promoting Alberta's oil sands as a tool for creating American jobs. The ad features actors of various age groups and ethnicities in the role of plain-folk Americans expressing surprise—and delight—at the fact that Canada is America's top supplier of imported oil.
“Makes sense -- Canada's about the best friend we have,” a young man comments, while an older man adds approvingly, “Canada is a very good neighbour.”
“More oil from Canada means more energy,” a woman enthuses. “More energy means more jobs,” she says, as the words “support 600,000 American jobs by 2035” (figures from the Canadian Energy Research Institute) float across the screen.
Canada is America's best friend and neighbour, and the two countries get along. So presumably, all will be hunky dory if Canada can simply hurry up and deliver on their "promise" of Albertan oil sands, the ads suggest. And although the commercials don't explain how Canada's oil sands will create jobs for Americans, they promise 600,000 new American jobs will flow down from Canada, along with the oil.
Who are the real foreign puppets?
For some time, now, the Conservative rhetoric has been that "foreign", usually American, billionaires have been funneling money to environmental organizations to fight the oil sands. They claim it's all because the U.S. wants to protect its own economic interests.
Yet by this account, Americans are fine – eager, in fact -- to allow Canada to develop Alberta's oil sands. As the woman in the ad succinctly put it, more Canadian oil equals American jobs. After she promises the nameless jobs, the ad ends.
U.S. oil giants have a huge stake in Albertan oil. On the American Petroleum Industry website, the second item reads "Canadian oil sands". The vital importance of this issue to American Petroleum is made clear. The words "Oil Sands" appear again to the left beneath a picture of Capitol Hill and a plea to "take action".
Despite the Harper government's propaganda campaign, demonizing environmental foundations for accepting "foreign funds", American corporate interests have been funding oil advocacy on both sides of the border to make sure that the pipeline gets built no matter what.
Sustainable energy vs. oil and gas = no contest
The oil industry in North America (as worldwide) is a political and economic behemoth. Its political connections run deep: corporations pay heavily for that influence. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips and Chevron together paid $42 billion in income tax in 2010, and $54 billion last year.
In 2009, alternative energy organizations spent an “unprecedented” $22 million to push their interests on Capitol Hill. The effort went nowhere. The oil and gas lobby outspent them eight to one, putting $175 million into lobbying.
President Obama tried to end the government's $4 billion annual subsidies to the oil industry, and his bid got squashed by the Senate in March—not just by Republicans, but by his fellow Democrats. And why was it rejected? ExxonMobil (which pays more taxes than any other US corporation) forked over $8 billion in income taxes in the first quarter of 2011, according to its own reports. That's something like $1 million per hour, and nothing in the environmental industry comes even close to touching this.
Even comparing oil to a heavyweight champion beating the crap out of a clean energy featherweight is too generous. To be fair, the sustainable energy movement has some powerful backers: "socialist" billionaire George Soros, for example. But given the small scale and the newness of sustainable energy, it's more like Mike Tyson versus a kindergartener in the ring. There's simply no comparison.
Do charities in Canada that fight the oil sands receive funding from the U.S.? Sure they do. But as it turns out, so do the pro-oil sands charities in Canada.
The Fraser Institute, which has actively been promoting the development of Canada's “ethical” oil, has received over half a million dollars from the Tea Party billionaire Koch brothers in the last few years. They've also received funds from ExxonMobil and the oil-rich Scaife Foundation, but no one wants to bring those up.
Conservatives have smeared Tides Foundation, the David Suzuki Foundation and other environmental groups, yet somehow missed or chose to remain silent about U.S. money coming in to advocate for and empower the pro-oil side.
If Harper's Tory government is genuinely concerned about foreign interests inappropriately meddling in Canadian politics, why don't they ask Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver to uncover which oil companies and Republican funders are pouring their money into Canadian charities that advocate for Tory agendas, like expanding production for Alberta's oil sands?
More in News
(5) Comments
Amazing how you could spin this American ad into anti-Harper diatribe.
Everyone is pointing fingers at the "evil" oil companies, at how powerful and influential they.
Want to stop oil? Stop buying oil!
These companies sell oil to everyone, and while we are comfortable slamming large corporations and slimy politicians, we never point the finger at ourselves.
The truth is we are all a problem, collectivly, as a society. We must change our habbits and lifestyles if we are to end the rule of energy executives.
How to stop buying oil:
-buy locally grown food; it takes oil to ship bananas across the world
-don't drive, take the bus, walk, or ride a bike OR buy a hybrid
-buy locally made products; it takes oil to import goods from China
-don't fly in airplanes everywhere; if you do, buy carbon-offsetting plane rides
-tell your family and friends to do these things too
It's not as simple as "stop buying oil", Stefan. Oil isn't just the fuel used in transportation and shipping. Oil is the energy that keeps the lights on, it's the basis of most of the synthetic compounds in your house, it's essential for herbicides and pesticides, it's how plastics are made, etc etc. The problem of oil consumption and exploitation can't be solved by consumer's making better choices. We primarily need to make sweeping changes in how we generate energy, not how often you take the bus. You don't choose where you draw energy from when you make toast in the morning. Buying locally and reducing your own emissions and changing your lightbulbs and so on is important and great, but that alone is simply not going to solve the problem.
We need to stop subsidizing oil, stop building coal-powered plants, stop expanding the tar sands and start taking renewable energies seriously.
It is staggering how the media spins more oil drilling as positive. Many of us can read and understand that if drastic change doesn't take place soon we will all die from heating of the atmosphere. The science is pretty basic and settled.
The science is NOT settled.It is basic, but being able to read doesn't mean everyone can understand it. Venus is a hot planet because it is 30 million miles closer to the sun than we are.Nothing to do with GHG.The oceans have been rising for 16,000 years.The ice has been melting since the last ice age.The arctic was 20 degrees warmer and the CO2 was 15 times higher(5000 PPM) in the not so distant past.What is new in the equation,are the millions of climate guru's fresh out of university, all competeing for a job.Only the most dramatic doomsday prophets have their papers published, and so the rhetoric ratchets up year after year.There are no jobs for climate guru's when "everything's o.k." Remember, any science done with a result in mind before hand, is junk science.That is why there is no consensus, because both sides have something to gain and therefore are suspect in their science. I, for one, tend to ignore doomsday prophets and breathless reports.Some rules of thumb to remember; never believe anything you read on the internet.If you didn't learn it in a classroom, from a professor,it's probably wrong.Remember there is money to be made on both sides and people with vested interest on both sides.Predicting the end of the world is nothing new.