Kathianne
06-20-2011, 09:46 AM
In the name of 'ecology' there has been a concerted effort to put the focus on alternatives that are not 'shovel ready/ready to go online'. No, the focus has been on keeping the dependence on OPEC nations and blocking all attempts by developed nations to develop and exploit their natural resources.
Is it a concerted effort? Following the money logic would say, 'Yes, by golly, I think it is!':
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/17/saudis-have-west-over-a-barrel
Saudis have West over a barrel
And they don’t want to hear about oilsands development
ezra-levant
By Ezra Levant ,QMI Agency
First posted: Sunday, June 19, 2011 2:00:00 EDT AM
2Share
* Change text size for the story
* Print this story
An OPEC billionaire has publicly said what everyone long suspected, but just hadn’t heard out loud before: Saudi Arabia doesn’t want the world to develop unconventional sources of oil, like Canada’s oilsands.
Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the world’s 26th richest man, worth more than $19 billion, told CNN he’s worried if oil prices stay around $100 a barrel, the West will look for other sources of oil and Saudi Arabia would lose its dominant position.
“We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives,” he said, “because, clearly, the higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives.” Give the sheik full marks for honesty. Saudi Arabia has the West just where they want us. They don’t want us getting any big ideas that would reduce our dependence on his dictatorship, and terrorist states like Iran...
and it's not just the Saudis. Chavez isn't giving away oil to the Northeast because of religious reasons. Putin too is in play here regarding natural gas.
The following regards Canadian resources exclusively, no mention of what the US sits on:
...There are more than 170 billion barrels of oil in the oilsands we can recover with today’s technology. That’s 300 years worth at the rate we’re producing it. It’s the world’s second largest oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia.
But there are another 1.7 trillion barrels in place in the oilsands that we don’t yet have the technology to get out economically. That’s what this Saudi sheik is worried about. If oil stays at $100 a barrel, it’s worth it for Canadian scientists to invest in new technologies to get at that 1.7 trillion barrels.
It’s pretty tough to like Saudi sheiks, Iranian ayatollahs and Russian former KGB agents. Which is why you don’t usually see those folks attacking the oilsands in public. Prince Al-Waleed’s comments were a rare Saudi public criticism of the West. Normally, they leave that sort of thing to their allies — professional environmental lobbyists...
...Greenpeace, for example, is a $200-million multinational corporation based in Europe. If they don’t raise a million bucks a day in fundraising, they’d have to shut down.
As Vivian Krause has documented, the U.S. Tides Foundation, their Canadian arm Tides Canada and other foreign foundations have pumped about $200 million into Canada to fight development of the oilsands and forestry, among other causes. Imagine if Canadian lobbyists pumped $200 million into the U.S. to meddle in their political decisions: Congress would hold hearings and the Pentagon would go to Defcon 1.
The professional environmentalist movement is neither Canadian nor grassroots. It’s foreign, professional and well funded.
It may not be funded directly by Saudi Arabia — we have no evidence of that.
But every time a Canadian oil company is slowed down or our pipeline projects are delayed, it is another day the OPEC near-monopoly continues...
Now how well connected could Greenpeace and other 'professional' environmental groups be?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100092809/greenpeace-and-the-ipcc-time-surely-for-a-climate-masada/
...And how are you feeling today, all you Greenies, after your most embarrassing week (well, one of the most embarrassing: the competition, it must be said, has been pretty stiff these last 18 months) since Climategate?
Just in case your only information sources are RealClimate or Guardian Environment let me explain, briefly, what has been happening out here on Planet Reality. In a nutshell, you’ve been caught with your trousers down yet again, viz:
An official IPCC report bigging up renewable energy as the power source of the future turns out to have been lead-authored by an activist from Greenpeace and based not on solid science but a wish-fulfilment fantasy scenario devised by, you guessed it, Greenpeace.
Here’s how the press release of the IPCC’s Summary For Policymakers reported its findings:
Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.
This was uncritically reported by its amen corner in the MSM, led of course by the BBC’s Richard Black and the Guardian. But others more diligent smelt a rat – among them the mighty Steve McIntyre whose magisterially contemptuous blogpost on the subject has been keeping climate sceptics such as Bishop Hill, WUWT, Rex Murphy, Ronald Bailey and Mark Lynas busy all week.
Mark Lynas? Not the same eco activist Mark Lynas who once threw a custard pie in Bjorn Lomborg’s face and was responsible for advising the Maldives cabinet to pose for that nauseatingly disingenuous publicity shot where they’re all under water (because, like, the Maldives are being drowned due to global warming: except, of course they’re not)? Yep, that one. But on this occasion, at least, even as committed an eco zealot as he has been forced to concede that IPCC has done its reputation as the “gold standard” (copyright: B Obama) of international climate science few favours:
...
Is it a concerted effort? Following the money logic would say, 'Yes, by golly, I think it is!':
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/17/saudis-have-west-over-a-barrel
Saudis have West over a barrel
And they don’t want to hear about oilsands development
ezra-levant
By Ezra Levant ,QMI Agency
First posted: Sunday, June 19, 2011 2:00:00 EDT AM
2Share
* Change text size for the story
* Print this story
An OPEC billionaire has publicly said what everyone long suspected, but just hadn’t heard out loud before: Saudi Arabia doesn’t want the world to develop unconventional sources of oil, like Canada’s oilsands.
Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the world’s 26th richest man, worth more than $19 billion, told CNN he’s worried if oil prices stay around $100 a barrel, the West will look for other sources of oil and Saudi Arabia would lose its dominant position.
“We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives,” he said, “because, clearly, the higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives.” Give the sheik full marks for honesty. Saudi Arabia has the West just where they want us. They don’t want us getting any big ideas that would reduce our dependence on his dictatorship, and terrorist states like Iran...
and it's not just the Saudis. Chavez isn't giving away oil to the Northeast because of religious reasons. Putin too is in play here regarding natural gas.
The following regards Canadian resources exclusively, no mention of what the US sits on:
...There are more than 170 billion barrels of oil in the oilsands we can recover with today’s technology. That’s 300 years worth at the rate we’re producing it. It’s the world’s second largest oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia.
But there are another 1.7 trillion barrels in place in the oilsands that we don’t yet have the technology to get out economically. That’s what this Saudi sheik is worried about. If oil stays at $100 a barrel, it’s worth it for Canadian scientists to invest in new technologies to get at that 1.7 trillion barrels.
It’s pretty tough to like Saudi sheiks, Iranian ayatollahs and Russian former KGB agents. Which is why you don’t usually see those folks attacking the oilsands in public. Prince Al-Waleed’s comments were a rare Saudi public criticism of the West. Normally, they leave that sort of thing to their allies — professional environmental lobbyists...
...Greenpeace, for example, is a $200-million multinational corporation based in Europe. If they don’t raise a million bucks a day in fundraising, they’d have to shut down.
As Vivian Krause has documented, the U.S. Tides Foundation, their Canadian arm Tides Canada and other foreign foundations have pumped about $200 million into Canada to fight development of the oilsands and forestry, among other causes. Imagine if Canadian lobbyists pumped $200 million into the U.S. to meddle in their political decisions: Congress would hold hearings and the Pentagon would go to Defcon 1.
The professional environmentalist movement is neither Canadian nor grassroots. It’s foreign, professional and well funded.
It may not be funded directly by Saudi Arabia — we have no evidence of that.
But every time a Canadian oil company is slowed down or our pipeline projects are delayed, it is another day the OPEC near-monopoly continues...
Now how well connected could Greenpeace and other 'professional' environmental groups be?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100092809/greenpeace-and-the-ipcc-time-surely-for-a-climate-masada/
...And how are you feeling today, all you Greenies, after your most embarrassing week (well, one of the most embarrassing: the competition, it must be said, has been pretty stiff these last 18 months) since Climategate?
Just in case your only information sources are RealClimate or Guardian Environment let me explain, briefly, what has been happening out here on Planet Reality. In a nutshell, you’ve been caught with your trousers down yet again, viz:
An official IPCC report bigging up renewable energy as the power source of the future turns out to have been lead-authored by an activist from Greenpeace and based not on solid science but a wish-fulfilment fantasy scenario devised by, you guessed it, Greenpeace.
Here’s how the press release of the IPCC’s Summary For Policymakers reported its findings:
Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.
This was uncritically reported by its amen corner in the MSM, led of course by the BBC’s Richard Black and the Guardian. But others more diligent smelt a rat – among them the mighty Steve McIntyre whose magisterially contemptuous blogpost on the subject has been keeping climate sceptics such as Bishop Hill, WUWT, Rex Murphy, Ronald Bailey and Mark Lynas busy all week.
Mark Lynas? Not the same eco activist Mark Lynas who once threw a custard pie in Bjorn Lomborg’s face and was responsible for advising the Maldives cabinet to pose for that nauseatingly disingenuous publicity shot where they’re all under water (because, like, the Maldives are being drowned due to global warming: except, of course they’re not)? Yep, that one. But on this occasion, at least, even as committed an eco zealot as he has been forced to concede that IPCC has done its reputation as the “gold standard” (copyright: B Obama) of international climate science few favours:
...