Steam, Baby, Steam

Here is a fascinating article (h/t Instapundit) on the scientific process involved in mining oil from sand that occurs in Alberta's oil sands.  And, here is a very salient point (from that article):

Modern capitalism and the technology it engenders has lifted a significant proportion of humanity out of our natural state of abject poverty for the first time in history. 

Indeed, Alberta's oil sands stimulated the economy and caused an economic boom there.  Alberta has, by far, the highest per capita GDP of all provinces.  Its median income, as recorded by the 2006 census, was $70,986 CAD (approx. $63,900 USD in 2006, or $71,631 USD now).  According to Canadian free market think tank the Fraser Institute, Alberta trailed only Delaware and Texas in economic freedom among US States and Canadian Provinces.  

Also, the oil sands tick off environmentalists, which is always a bonus.

A subsequent article, by the same author (Ronald Bailey), describes the benefits the US would amass by importing Canadian oil:

TransCanada’s Robert Jones, who is in charge of getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved and completed, pointed out the energy security benefits to the United States of importing oil from Canada. He asked, why would the U.S. want to depend on “conflict oil” imported from countries run by unsavory regimes like those of Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia? And whose oil is dirtier? After all, producing oil sands crude in Canada already includes the costs of reclaiming the land and a whole panoply of other environmental regulations.

 The assembled Canadian oil moguls cited studies [PDF] that project the creation of as many as 600,000 jobs and a $775 billion boost to the U.S. gross national product by 2035 as a result of importing Canadian oil. 

To environmentalists concerned about disturbing boreal forest, the percentage of Canada’s total area covered by boreal forest that is disturbed for oil development is about 0.019%.  That article also describes another method of extracting oil from sand that is used for oil 350 feet below the surface, steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and its environmental impact:

Interestingly, anti-oil sands activists who eagerly highlight photos of the vast oils sands mining pits, don’t tend to show photos of SAGD facilities. Likely this is because such pictures would not do much to scare target audiences—the footprint of SAGD operations typically occupies only 5 percent of the land from which oil is being recovered, leaving most of the forests undisturbed. 

Back to "Dirty Oil Sands," to which I linked earlier in this post, they present a number of beautiful images on their website.  Personally, I have always been awestruck by massive industrial structures and works.  

Cycling and Socialism

One thing that irritates me immensely is when politicians are obstinate about implementing unpopular programs or initiatives because “they are better for everyone.”  An example is Vancouver’s mayor, Gregor Robertson, and his zeal for cycling.  Among cyclists, Vancouver is known as a cyclist-unfriendly city.  Mayor Robertson is hell-bent on changing that.  He has established numerous cycle paths in Vancouver, despite opposition from motorists and business owners.

Montreal, on the other hand, is known among cyclists as a cyclist-friendly city.  Montreal has sacrificed parking spaces downtown for bicycle paths.  This has created problems such as a shortage of parking and lower profits for businesses.  Because parking spaces at the sides of streets are converted into bicycle lanes, there is less parking available which means less patrons for businesses. 

The motivation of having a cyclist-friendly city is to reduce traffic, thereby reducing congestion, as well as pollution, and offering an alternate commute.  Those are all noble causes, or whatever, but they should not be pursued at the expense of parking, which, especially in Vancouver, is a sparse commodity.  Montreal is having problems, and Vancouver’s nascent bicycle lanes are already causing problems as well.

So, given that bicycle lanes cause problems, and given that there is much opposition to the establishment of bicycle lanes in downtown Vancouver, Mayor Robertson's obstinacy is quite irritating.  Of course, given that he is a leftist, this is unsurprising.  One of the central tenets of leftism (or liberalism, progressivism, socialism, social democracy, or whatever you want to call it) seems to be that (private) business can be sacrificed for anything else.  I suppose this is logical, considering socialists treat the private sector like an ATM.  

The Green (and Red) Economy

An electric car company, based in Salinas, California, is the latest example of a "green" company that cannot sustain itself, even with the assistance of the taxpayers.  Here is an excerpt from an excellent article at Forbes  (and thanks to Vicki at Frugal Café for citing that article):

...in the name of environmental activism, and most particularly global warming, government is squandering billions of dollars each year giving taxpayer money to companies that have no hope of producing a marketable product. Companies like Green Vehicles pocket the money and then go bankrupt. Other companies, like wind and solar power companies, perpetually maintain their station at the government pork trough, yet never produce products at a remotely competitive price. As a result, money that could have and would have been invested in goods and services that actually improve people’s lives is instead flushed down the big green toilet.

There is nothing I need to say that isn't said in that article.

The Anger of the Green Party is Proportional to my Happiness

The government of Canada is cutting funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by 43.1%, shortly after a 6.9% cut.  Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is outraged:

Harper’s Throne Speech in June committed to improving the environmental assessment process, and instead he is driving a stake into its heart, it makes absolutely no sense to be giving $1.4 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry while allotting a measly $17 million to CEAA. In what way is that protecting our environment? 

I disagree with subsidies to oil companies, but this is good news to me.  Anything that infuriates Elizabeth May makes me happy (in general). 

The priorities of the Harper government are obviously not in line with those of Canadians.

Really?

A poll released this week found 45 per cent of surveyed Canadians said the federal government should make health care — a topic the government and federal politicians are often shy to talk about — a priority in next week's budget.  That's compared to 35 per cent who chose the economy, and 15 per cent who picked the environment.

Emphasis added.
In a throne speech, Harper stated:

“Our Government is committed to developing Canada's extraordinary resource wealth in a way that protects the environment. It will support major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance, such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada. It will engage the provinces, territories and industry on ways to improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects, while ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities, including Aboriginal communities.”

Perhaps eliminating excess spending on this environmental agency is what Harper meant when he said the government will “improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects.”

I direct you to Bjørn Lomborg, whose views are similar to mine:

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

 I don't agree with him about spending money on fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and water, but with everything else I agree.

The radical environmental movement is largely based upon emotion and fear rather than rational analysis.  Protecting the environment should be a priority, but it should be done within reasonability.  The Earth belongs to humans, and it is ours to exploit for our own personal gain.  But we have to keep in mind that protecting the environment is also in our best interest.  We just can’t let emotion dictate how we approach environmental protection.

Industrial activity does not equal environmental destruction.  Industrial sites can be reclaimed. In addition, the environmental friendliness of industrial practices has drastically improved in recent decades.  The role environmental regulations has played in that should not be ignored, but, in my opinion, the reach of environmental regulations is overkill.  It just doesn’t make sense to impede business with regulations, especially regulations that have questionable efficacy.  In some cases, environmentally friendly business practices are good for business.  For example, environmentally friendly products are ubiquitous and the efficient use of energy saves money.  

This brings me back to the original topic of this post, the federal government’s cut on the funding for the CEAA.  In addition to the obvious advantage (decrease in government is (generally) always good), I applaud this move for the reasons above.  That Elizabeth May and the Green Party are angry is always a bonus.