Saudi Lawyers threaten lawsuits over "Ethical Oil" ads

[Bob]

You know for years I've been excoriated by right wingers for having the temerity to suggest we stop dealing with regimes like Saudi Arabia.

And then I see this crap...I guess this is what happens when conservative right-wingers suddenly imagine they have a clue what an ethic is.

I don't care how you clowns spin things, I'm stickin' by my guns - we should have been applying a tariff or better yet outlawing the import of products from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and China years ago. It's how I've always rolled.

There's no hypocrisy whatsoever on our side of the river. I say buy whatever from Saudi Arabia we need. It's not like oil is some sort of luxury we can do without. Now that alternative sources of crude oil are taking up larger and larger portions of the global oil market, however, we're given more options with respect to which oil to consume. If I recall correctly, what you were advocating for was crippling our economies in the name of ethics, as if the people of Saudi Arabia are worth hurting ourselves over. In the current context, people are advocating for a greater portion of our oil demands to be met by non-enemy sources, i.e. Alberta.

We want a better alternative where available, in order not to fuel the enemy. I don't care one iota about Saudi Arabian men, women, or children. You want domestic economic destruction in order to appease some sort of perverted sense of ethics in order to promote the "rights" of Saudi Arabian people. Let's just cut off the oil, and...? Well, let's just engage in self-destruction for the sake of leftist self-righteousness.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Bob

[Wild Bill]

You know for years I've been excoriated by right wingers for having the temerity to suggest we stop dealing with regimes like Saudi Arabia.

And then I see this crap...I guess this is what happens when conservative right-wingers suddenly imagine they have a clue what an ethic is.

I don't care how you clowns spin things, I'm stickin' by my guns - we should have been applying a tariff or better yet outlawing the import of products from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and China years ago. It's how I've always rolled.

Well eyeball, I agree with your position and laud you for having taken it!

You prove there is one "leftie" who thinks a bit.

I can't help but wonder if sometimes you feel a little lonely...

[jacee]

Yeah, I guess it does. Also, apparently the vote is only for local councils anyway that have no real power. It's a symbolic gesture but one thing's for sure, this ethical oil thing has rattled the Saudis! I've never understood how the western left can champion these extremists, preferring Saudi oil over ours when Saudis deny women basic rights, kill gays and generally ignore if not outright despise virtually all the values that the Left claims to hold dear!

It tells me that most of the Left is made up of yammerheads who really have no idea what they believe in or the character of those they choose as their 'heroes'. Or their 'villains', for that matter. Who cares if some Islamist rulers executed some gays when George Bush wants to increase university tuition and destroy the planet with evil carbon just for the sheer, unadulterated joy of it!

It's really quite mad, when you think about it.

How did George Bush get in here?

And what's all the yammering for?

Edited September 27, 2011 by jacee

[eyeball]

Well eyeball, I agree with your position and laud you for having taken it!

If you say so.

[eyeball]

If I recall correctly, what you were advocating for was crippling our economies in the name of ethics...

Crippled and all ethical, like it is now you mean?

[Cameron]

You know for years I've been excoriated by right wingers for having the temerity to suggest we stop dealing with regimes like Saudi Arabia.

And then I see this crap...I guess this is what happens when conservative right-wingers suddenly imagine they have a clue what an ethic is.

I don't care how you clowns spin things, I'm stickin' by my guns - we should have been applying a tariff or better yet outlawing the import of products from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and China years ago. It's how I've always rolled.

For years the purchasing public has wanted more abundant and cheaper products. They aren't willing to buy products made in Canada, or the US (en mass), so companies look for countries that can produce them cheaply. Not to mention that these countries set up shop and entice companies to do business with them. So, we play a chess game. If we slap on import taxes, those will be passed down to the consumer and that slows down our economy, and it becomes a domino effect. So we set up trade deals and smile nervously while shaking hands and getting our picture taken.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Cameron

[eyeball]

For years the purchasing public has wanted more abundant and cheaper products. They aren't willing to buy products made in Canada, or the US (en mass), so companies look for countries that can produce them cheaply. Not to mention that these countries set up shop and entice companies to do business with them. So, we play a chess game. If we slap on import taxes, those will be passed down to the consumer and that slows down our economy, and it becomes a domino effect. So we set up trade deals and smile nervously while shaking hands and getting our picture taken.

Eventually though the public wises up to the real cost of more abundant and cheaper products from unethical countries, not that our's is any sort of shining beacon of what that constitutes.

[jacee]

‘Ethical oil’ argument not valid

The Canadian and Alberta governments and oilsands proponents are all singing "ethical oil" from the same song book. This is to support the sale of more bitumen to the U.S. Their rationale is that Canada is a more ethical, kinder gentler country than Venezuela or Middle Eastern states, the other important suppliers to the U.S. Therefore, the U.S. should be doing business with us rather than with these evil kingdoms. There are two large holes in this simple argument.

First, the U.S. will continue to buy unethical oil because it is cheap. Saudi Arabia once made money selling oil at $3 per barrel; they can underbid almost anyone. The U.S. wants Canadian oil for security of supply and for bargaining power to negotiate price, not to replace cheap oil.

Second, this reasoning assigns to Canada a standard of not having the worst ethics in the world. Is it OK for us to pollute only millions of acres with spilled oil and mining wastes because the Congo is polluting tens of millions of acres? Can we arrest and jail demonstrators without trial because Iran kills demonstrators? Did we tell South Africans their apartheid was OK because Sudanese were more violent?

Omitted from the argument for ethical oil is that greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands are greater than from almost any other source. Because we are such nice people, is it OK for Canadians to produce seven times more CO2 per capita than even China’s dirty industry? If so, we should explain to everyone who is paying more for property insurance that extreme weather is increasing property damage. Also, we can each invite a family from Bangladesh to live in our house because rising sea level has flooded theirs.

There are acceptable reasons to mine the oilsands and ship the products to the U.S., but ethical oil isn’t one of them. ...

I think the oil spin doctors really blew it with the "ethical oil" campaign. It's making a joke out of them and I think it's an embarrassment to Canadians.

What kind of industry pays millions for ads that are so disrespectful of another country and culture, and expects a positive outcome?

What kind of industry thinks that's 'good business'.

Really ...

Edited October 9, 2011 by jacee

[TimG]

Omitted from the argument for ethical oil is that greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands are greater than from almost any other source. Because we are such nice people, is it OK for Canadians to produce seven times more CO2 per capita than even China’s dirty industry?

First, environmentalists calling the oil sands unethical because of GHGs is no different than the Vatican calling Canada's abortion laws unethical. i.e. it is nothing but their opinion which is not shared by the majority of people.

Second, per capita emissions are nonsense. The atomsphere only cares about total emissions. People who insist on looking at per capita emissions are warmed over communists that wish to see the Canadian middle class crushed in the name of some misguided belief that everyone should have the wealth (a.k.a emissions).

Edited October 9, 2011 by TimG

[jacee]

First, environmentalists calling the oil sands unethical because of GHGs is no different than the Vatican calling Canada's abortion laws unethical. i.e. it is nothing but their opinion which is not shared by the majority of people.

Second, per capita emissions are nonsense. The atomsphere only cares about total emissions. People who insist on looking at per capita emissions are warmed over communists that wish to see the Canadian middle class crushed in the name of some misguided belief that everyone should have the wealth (a.k.a emissions).

That doesn't change the facts.

[waldo]

Second, per capita emissions are nonsense. The atomsphere only cares about total emissions. People who insist on looking at per capita emissions are warmed over communists

total emissions only, you say - hey, TimG? .....(total emissions - in millions of tonnes of fossil fuel carbon emissions)

(pop July2010 est. - China: 1,330,141,295 /// U.S.A.: 310,232,863)

U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!, U.S.A!

[Guest American Woman]

total emissions only, you say - hey, TimG? .....(total emissions - in millions of tonnes of fossil fuel carbon emissions)

(pop July2010 est. - China: 1,330,141,295 /// U.S.A.: 310,232,863)

U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!, U.S.A!

Canada also emits more CO2 per capita than China does. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. As for total emission, China is #1 - as your link verifies. As the Chinese middle class grows and more people own cars, I'm sure that will rise rapidly accordingly.

Edited to add: interesting to note on the 'total emissions per capita' chart that the U.S. reduced it's per capita rate from 1990 - 2008 while Canada's rose slightly.

Edited October 9, 2011 by American Woman

[waldo]

China is #1 - as your link verifies.

ya, ya... that's what my drawing attention to the historical total emissions graphic was all about... to highlight that in the last years China has (finally) passed the U.S. as the largest emitter. I certainly didn't intend to have you look back through to 1950 and recognize the glaring distinction between China and the U.S.... no, certainly not - why would you ever acknowledge that overall cumulative aspect, hey?

besides, don't ya know... you're a commie for looking at per capita figures - so says TimG!

[Guest American Woman]

ya, ya... that's what my drawing attention to the historical total emissions graphic was all about... to highlight that in the last years China has (finally) passed the U.S. as the largest emitter. I certainly didn't intend to have you look back through to 1950 and recognize the glaring distinction between China and the U.S.... no, certainly not - why would you ever acknowledge that overall cumulative aspect, hey?

Are you serious?? "Historical" total emissions for China vs. the U.S.? Do you know anything about China's history?? It's just in the "last years" that China has (finally) started to join the modern world. The advances even in the few years since I've last been there are glaring.

[waldo]

Are you serious?? "Historical" total emissions for China vs. the U.S.? Do you know anything about China's history?? It's just in the "last years" that China has (finally) started to join the modern world. The advances even in the few years since I've last been there are glaring.

and you know nothing about the cumulative impacts of CO2 emissions - clearly. That your country has been responsible for the most significant cumulative impact is staring you in the face with that graphic I've linked to... highlighting China's most recent 'industrialization' does not negate the cumulative impact your country has had. The real distinction between China and the U.S. in terms of today's emissions, is just what each respective country is doing to address those emissions...

[Guest American Woman]

... highlighting China's most recent 'industrialization' does not negate the cumulative impact your country has had.

It highlights the absurdity of your comparing China's CO2 emissions back through 1950 with the U.S.'s - which was my only intent.

[waldo]

It highlights the absurdity of your comparing China's CO2 emissions back through 1950 with the U.S.'s - which was my only intent.

absurdity? How so?

[Guest American Woman]

absurdity? How so?

Sorry, I'm not going to repeat myself - I don't play that game. Go back and reread what I've already said.

[waldo]

Sorry, I'm not going to repeat myself - I don't play that game. Go back and reread what I've already said.

how... progressive of you!

[TimG]

and you know nothing about the cumulative impacts of CO2 emissions - clearly. That your country has been responsible for the most significant cumulative impact is staring you in the face with that graphic I've linked to

China's recent leap forward would not have been possible with US technology, US capital and US markets. So a portion of any historical emissions by the US also belong to China since they have clearly benefited from these emissions.

[waldo]

China's recent leap forward would not have been possible with US technology, US capital and US markets. So a portion of any historical emissions by the US also belong to China since they have clearly benefited from these emissions.

yes, thankee... I'll take that freebee you've thrown up, anytime!

Developed countries outsource emissions

Developed countries are "outsourcing" more than a third of their carbon emissions associated with products and services to other countries, researchers say.

A study of trade data found that some countries in Western Europe have more than half of their total carbon dioxide emissions occurring elsewhere, especially in developing countries such as China.

[TimG]

Developed countries outsource emissions

Yep. That is exactly my point. All the wealth that developing economies have today is a direct result of the emissions in developed countries. Therefore, developing countries own a share of those developed country emissions because they have benefited from it. Edited October 9, 2011 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

Or perhaps it would have been preferable for said countries to remain in the Dark Ages without the benefits of the advancement of society/modernization/technology ...... I'm sure these countries/citizens were much better off before .......

[waldo]

yes, thankee... I'll take that freebee you've thrown up, anytime!

Developed countries outsource emissions

Yep. That is exactly my point. All the wealth that developing economies have today is a direct result of the emissions in developed countries. Therefore, developing countries own a share of those developed country emissions because they have benefited from it.

all... all the wealth? A direct result of developed country emissions? Really? Do you have a study to support your claim, notwithstanding you, apparently, aren't offering distinction between developed country emissions, proper, and outsourced developed country emissions... care to qualify that distinction... equally, with a study?

the study referenced in my earlier linked article: 2010 National Academies of Science - Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions (Davis, Caldeira)

[TimG]

all the wealth? A direct result of developed country emissions?

Are you saying that developing countries would have developed if they did not have access to the technology, markets and capital of the developed world? Prove it.

It is pretty obvious that developing countries would still be trapped in medieval times without access to those things. Since developed world emissions are what made the developed world technology, markets and capital possible it follows that developing world owes their wealth today to the emissions in the developed world.

Edited October 9, 2011 by TimG