Why Barack Obama is bad for Canada (2)
When Barack Obama met with Stephen Harper in Ottawa on Feb. 19, his message on the oil sands sounded like it could have been written in Calgary. He talked about the need for government investment in new technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and he wanted to work together to achieve it. “I love this country and think that we could not have a better friend and ally,” Obama said. “And so I’m going to do everything that I can to make sure that our relationship is strengthened.” He added: “We are very grateful for the relationship that we have with Canada, Canada being our largest energy supplier.” Tom Corcoran, a former Republican congressman from Illinois and head of a Washington lobbying outfit for the oil sands and other “unconventional” fuels, remembers the day: “It was encouraging and made us feel good.”
But it turns out that Obama has a knack for making people feel good when perhaps they ought to be watching their back. “Then the realities begin to take root when you look at what is taking place here in Washington,” says Corcoran. The reality is that Obama is leading an aggressive effort to remake American energy policy with potentially severe consequences for the oil sands, and by extension, the Canadian economy.
The oil sands currently export about half of their production of 1.2 million barrels per day to the U.S. Over the next 25 years, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary, that production will more than double, to four million barrels per day, with most of that oil going to the U.S. For Canada, that will mean 380,000 new jobs—and an additional $1.4 trillion in GDP, which will kick off $252 billion in tax revenues, more than half of which would go to Ottawa.
So Canada has a lot at stake in the process that Barack Obama set in motion by calling on Congress to pass climate change legislation this year. In the House of Representatives, where the American clean energy and security bill has been drafted, Democratic leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California’s Henry Waxman, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, have Alberta’s oil patch squarely in their sights.
[More]
Updates:
Popularity: 25% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
Mitch Says:
Why Barack Obama is bad.
Period.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
John Luft Says:
Obama is bad for Canada, the US AND the world. This guy is going to crash hard.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Soccermom Says:
No. Really? Duh.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
hynd Says:
BAD? He is in the process of shooting a recovery with an atom bomb. That cannot be bad can it?
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
MaryT Says:
How many people has he put out of work with his plans to save and create jobs.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Joe Molnar Says:
Obama = Nuanced speech.
Translation:
Obama speak = Forked tongue.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Jack Says:
“Hey people.” They voted for him just like we did with Trudeau.
This is a really good lesson and the yanks need to learn it.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
hynd Says:
But willl they?
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Jack Says:
I think so. We did.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
zee Says:
only took us 16 years
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Cunctator Says:
The good thing about the US system is that a bad president can be checked by the other two branches of government (Congress and Supreme Court). WE should hope that the US Congress quickly realises that the president is little more than a demagogue and start reining him in.
Posted on June 26th, 2009 at 7:16 am