HOPE OIL SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE SACRIFICED AT THE ALTAR OF CLIMATE CHANGE BLATHER

The buzz word ‘climate change’ was used by President Obama in his joint press conference with Canada PM Stephen Harper during the recent Three Amigos meeting in Toluca, Mexico. Obama was responding to question on Keystone XL pipeline.

In the Liberal Party of Canada convention held in Montreal in the last week of February, the Liberal leader Justin Trudeau also used this buzz word in the context of development of Canada’s natural resources (clearly the allusion was toward oil sands development).

While Obama habitually talks about climate change in the context of Keystone XL pipeline project as if climate change is on the line due to this project – this of course is a preposterous correlation, self-intuitive to someone who is endowed with reasonable amount of intellectual faculties – it is not clear where Trudeau stands on the above correlation. But Liberals also have a habit of mentioning ‘environment’ and ‘climate change’ in a parrot-like manner in their speeches.

Now, let’s see whether the phrase ‘climate change’ is appropriate to use in the context of some different weather conditions seen in some parts of the world, for instance, polar vortex which brought quite cold temperatures in parts of US not experienced in many years. So, if a certain winter becomes relatively colder or a summer is relatively hotter than usual, does it provide sound basis to trumpet the phrase ‘climate change’?

It is well know that the meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region, i.e., climate, are known to be have been different (more severe/less severe) during certain year or years if one looks at hundreds of years data for a given region. So, the point is that: differences in meteorological conditions in a certain winter or summer should not be confused as climate change, rather the more appropriate phase would be ‘climate aberration’.

In 2014, winter has been relatively colder in certain parts of the world, due to the wider impact of polar vortex, all this should be viewed/studied as climate aberration instead of jumping up and down like a clown parroting the phrase climate change. If the temperature, precipitation data of a certain area shows a longer trend of change, then the new set of data could possibly qualify as a basis to characterize a change as climate change.

The next question to ask in the context of so-called climate change, which should actually be referred to as climate aberration, should be: Do the so-called environment scientists really know what is causing the climate aberration(s) of recent years? Why this question is important to ask because the so-called environment scientists have been ascribing the climate aberrations to GHG – first they coined the phrase ‘global warming’, but when winters started to get colder they switched on to this phrase ‘climate change’.

It is well known that factors most responsible for earth’s temperature are water vapour, methane, solar activity, earth’s magnetic effect, Gulf Stream among many other factors, including CO_2, about which the scientists are still not fully knowledgeable about. However, CO₂ is certainly not the main culprit – by no stretch of rational imagination.

So, if CO₂ is not the main culprit for climate aberrations and since emission of this gas is associated with oil sands for levelling all sorts of (irrational) criticism against oil sands’ development, it is clear that Canada’s this very vital resource (namely, oil sands) is not the critical factor for the climate aberrations one is witnessing in recent past, no way!

Hopefully, the Liberals would remember this when they deal with the subject of oil sands development whether as part of any government or any debate within and/or outside Canada. Hopefully, they would also remember the huge contribution oil sands has made to Canada – this fact has been clearly brought out by a recent study by IHS CERA called ‘Oil Sands Economic Benefits: Today and in the future, January 2014’.

And, by the way, if, for argument sake, CO₂ happened to be the main culprit (which it is NOT!), is any one on this planet in a position to shut down ALL CO₂ emitting operations all over the world with a snap of a finger? Of course, not! Can fossil fuel consumption be brought down to zero in next 5 or 10 or 15 years? Of course, not! Not even in next 50 years!

But what CAN be done is to develop resources like oil sands in a responsible manner, meaning, using processes which emit lesser GHG and causes minimal impact on environment. Hopefully, the Liberals would understand and remember this, Trudeau seemed to be okay with ‘responsible development of natural resources’ as he put it in his address to delegates on 22 February 2014.

Obama may not want to see things in scientifically rational manner for his own reasons/agenda, but the Canadian political parties of different stripes need to see and deal with the subject of oil sands development in rational manner and not kill it or stifle it out of some foolish political jingoism. The parties would do well to remember an old English saying that cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face does not help anyone! Certainly not Canada!

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE AND 2014 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS: OPPORTUNITY FOR OBAMA TO RETRIEVE HIS OWN RELEVANCE FOR DEMOCRATS

Pro-Democrat TV channel MSNBC stated on its website on 10 February 2014 the following:

........Perhaps the top reason why Republicans have a realistic shot at winning back the Senate is the GOP-leaning playing field. They’re taking on Democrats Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina -- all states President Obama lost in 2012. Not surprisingly, Politico reports that these incumbents don’t want the president to campaign for them this year…..

Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Kay Hagan do not want Barack Obama (BO) to campaign for them not because BO lost these states in 2012, but because of BO’s opposition to Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline project. These four senators joined the Canadian Ambassador to US, labor union leaders and others last week to express support for this project. These four senators are completely frustrated with BO’s dithering, foot dragging on this issue and spineless countenance towards the so-called environmentalists opposed to this project.

Heidi Heitkamp (Democrat-ND) is reported to have said: “We have been waiting 5 years. We fought a world war and defeated the Nazis in less time than we have been waiting to have a determination on the Keystone Pipeline..” Such is the frustration of the Democrats. And, rightly so! They know that BO’s genuflection in front of a motley group of fanatical anti-KXL people can very well ruin their chances in 2014 congressional elections.

The most important point that makes any dithering on KXL utterly foolish and un-called for is the US State Department’s report on environmental impact assessment – published in January 2014 – which puts at rest all doubts if this pipeline would “significantly exacerbate climate change”. To start with, it required a huge amount of stupidity to conceive that a pipeline carrying only 830,000 bbl/day of bitumen could “significantly exacerbate climate change”. Moreover, it is widely accepted that Canada has well defined set of regulations in regard to environment protection which makes climate change related doubts appear more foolish or driven by some agenda.

Further, the above cited State Department report also mentioned about the fairly big number of direct and indirect job that would be created by KXL project and the economic benefits that would accrue to US. Not only this, the scare mongering created by anti-KXL group about pipeline leakage has also been addressed by the Report. All in all, there does not seem to be any logical reason to not approve this project.

Now, there is a 90 day period (from the date of publication of report which works out to 1^st week of May 2014) to carry out ‘benefits assessment’ of this project, and then State Department would convey its recommendation to the President after which BO is supposed to give his decision – he may approve, or he may punt it further down the road on some pretext. But whatever decision he makes, it would be before the 2014 congressional elections in which Republicans are hoping to wrest majority in Senate by defeating the four Democrat senators mentioned at the top and gaining couple of other senate seats.

If BO dithers again on KXL and does not approve the project, it would mean a solid nail in the coffin of chances of winning of the said four senators. If Democrats lose Senate (and they already do not have control of House of Representatives), it would mean BO will be virtually relegated to the sidelines in the form of a ‘lame duck’ president for the rest of his presidency. The Republicans would make sure that he does not make headway on any policy issue that he proposes; in short, his political life would become miserable.

Would Obama like to be an outcast within his own party for the rest of his presidential term? Would he like to be portrayed as a pusillanimous person who could not stand up to the agenda-driven so-called environmentalists and scheming, manipulative persons, like, Tom Steyer? BO seems to possess tenacity and stubbornness but stubbornness for a just cause is understandable – stubbornness for something illogical and foolish endangers that very person and his surroundings. Hope BO would let rationality triumph over foolish stubbornness!!

CANADIAN POLITICIANS: IT IS TIME TO FOCUS ON THE ECONOMY, COMMON MAN AND COUNTRY’S OVERALL WELL BEING

The Canadian economy is passing through a very critical phase wherein:

-      Canadian economy is looking up but still hobbling a bit moving forward with some unsteady steps: disinflation, less than expected increase in exports, and tardy rate of full time job creation being some of the issues staring in the face;

-      The global economic recovery is fragile, unpredictable;

-      Chinese economy is not going to be the locomotive of world economic rejuvenation;

-      US economy is just turning the corner but remains unpredictable due to political circus in Washington DC and gradual withdrawal of artificial respiration, i.e., Quantitative Easing;

-      European economy is far from having come out of the after effects of bail-out support provided to some its members to prevent them from sinking;

-      Emerging economies have their own woes to deal with and are clearly struggling;

-      International political scenarios are not providing any sense of calmness settling in.

At such a juncture, what is expected of the people who practice politics at federal and provincial level, i.e., politicians? Answer is simple: They need to focus on working together to strategize how to reinvigorate the Canadian economy, put it back on a firm footing, and in the process ensure continuation of a prosperous, happy, less stressful existence of the people.

If the country’s economy does not get the proper focused direction, guidance and support what could be the potential consequences? There could be:

-      Cuts in Federal and Provincial budgets for the various services Canadians have been benefitting from for many decades;

-      Cuts in Federal and Provincial budgets for many important sectors, like, education, health care, senior citizen care, child support, R&D and many more;

-      Deterioration of overall quality of life of Canadians which is matter of envy world over;

-      Delayed retirement of thousands of people;

-      Nucleation/initiation of social discontent/tension which may simmer and eventually stress the very fabric of social integration and diversity;

-      Cut in funding for international causes for which Canada has been a beacon of inspiration and support.

So, at such a crucial phase of country’s journey in this and future decades, the Federal and Provincial politicians’ paramount objective should be to close ranks and focus on the solutions, planning and implementation of strategies instead of diverting attention on issues which are:

-      Either nor germane to the above mentioned scenario – in other words, they are secondary; or,

-      Solvable in parallel while working on the PRIMARY issue of the nation, i.e., economy of today and future.

At the moment, the Federal parties seem to be spending their intellectual resources more on the secondary issues, like, mis-appropriation of Senate funds. There is another issue which can potentially divert the energy and focus of the Federal parities for next several months, and that is: Electoral Reform. This is an important issue, and some opposition parties may want more debate and analysis of the pros and cons but if all the energy of the policy makers gets diverted to this one – there may be some other issues too that may be thrown out there before the next Federal election in 2015 – it could herald serious harm because the policy makers would not be able to focus on the PRIMARY issue facing the country: economy.

Issues like electoral reform (and others which may be raising the passions of the political parties of different stripes) should be dealt with in parallel with the focus on the PRIMARY issue. While discussing the PRIMARY issue (economy), the parties need to close ranks and contribute all the wisdom they can marshal for getting the most effective strategy detailed out and implemented.

Canada does not have the luxury of time – the folks at Federal and Provincial level got to act fast. Whether it calls for laying out new policies, making decisions on critical matters, removing road blocks, facilitating coordinated action within and outside Canada, whatever they may be, they got to be done fast. There is no time to lose.

If the folks at Federal and Provincial level spend their time and energy on inter-party shenanigans, the ultimate losers would be Canadians of the present and the ones to come in future. Time and tide waits for nobody – if the politicians of today fail to see the need to act on the PRIMAY issue, there won’t be any point in ruing in future and wringing hands in despair and muttering “Alas, we had acted unitedly then for the sake of the country instead of frittering away precious time on secondary issues.” There is an old saying: God helps them who help themselves, hope politicians of today would realize this!!

WOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA WANT TO LEAVE BEHIND A LEGACY OF BOTCHED UP RELATIONS WITH SOME OF AMERICA’s CLOSEST ALLIES?

Based on conventional knowledge, the following countries have been some of the closest allies of United States (in no particular order):

-     Canada

-     Israel

-     Saudi Arabia

As situation stands today, the above countries are feeling frustrated, upset with and mistrustful of United States. Let’s look at each of them why this is so:

Canada: There are very close ties between the US and Canada in terms of trade (NAFTA), cultural relationship and military cooperation/alliance, e.g., NORAD. At international level, Canada and the US share membership of G-7, G-20, Asia-Pacific economic cooperation and many more. Canada is a stable, democratic country and, arguably, has been a trusted friend/partner of the US since the World Wars. But in the recent past, the actions on part US have been continually demonstrating huge negativity toward Canada. The main fly in the ointment has been the pipeline projects that emanate from Canada and end up inside the US, especially, the Keystone XL project. This project is being evaluated by US authorities for the last 5 years – and President Obama, for some strange reason, has made this project as a scapegoat of his pro-environment stance.

It is okay to be worried about global warming but to hold clearance of a pipeline project (which is supposed to transport only 830,000 bbl/day of bitumen from Canada) on the premise that it would be cleared only if it does not ‘significantly add to GHG emission’  is utterly nonsensical. That this notion was indeed utterly stupid has been corroborated by the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 2012 Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, issued by the US State Department on 31^st January 2014. One has to be an outstandingly stubborn moron to not approve this project which is clearly not going to have any significant impact on environment. Remember, on this project a lot hinges as far as Canadian economy is concerned. As well, mind you, Canada is far stricter in terms of environment regulations than the various countries, like, China, who are dumping huge amounts of GHG.

It is simply Obama’s obstinacy, and perhaps nothing else, which is standing in the way of approval of this project. The question is: Why should US display this kind of obstinacy, and consequently sour up relations with a trusted partner, especially, at a time when US is increasingly finding it reduced in stature and/or ineffective in various current international scenarios? US is being snubbed, rebuked, ignored, shown the middle finger by friends and foes alike – whether  it is Syrian crisis or Ukraine upheaval or the China/Japan tension over  Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Instead of having a trusted friend, like, Canada alongside at this juncture, the US would appear to be willy nilly hell bent on screwing up that nice, warm, cordial relationship. And for what? Just to placate a small section of democrat supporters who anyway are so fanatical that it is impossible to reason out with them on environment issues?  Whether this fanaticism is based on some quid pro quo and/or some sort of incentivizing, that’s a separate matter? But this motley crowd is too small a cause for which a long standing, time tested friendship should be sacrificed!! But, unfortunately, then, the dithering Obama has allowed himself to be led by his nose by this motley crowd, or, so it seems!

Israel: Ties between Israel and the US are historic in nature and the Americans have always let the world know from the roof tops that US is the closest ally of Israel. But of late, the policy trajectories the current US administration seem to be following with respect to Middle East and Iran have been irritating Israel more than anything else. They seem to be so pissed off that recently the Israeli Defense Minister rebuked John Kerry in one of the strongest languages rarely seen in diplomatic talk and certainly unheard of between these two countries. Again, the question to ask would be: Why the hell US is doing this? Is it because the chip Obama carries on his shoulder – the Nobel Peace Prize? Is it because he wants to leave a legacy of a peace-maker even if it means steam rolling over Israel’s concerns? The US policy on Iran has also riled up Israel. Reason? Because, the Israelis maintain that it is absolutely unclear whether the agreements with Iran can REALLY be verified. Moreover, Russia has already started providing financial succor to Iran which would thence enable it to negotiate from a relatively stronger position than before.

It is clear that the US is almost beseeching the heavens for some kind of face saving agreement with Iran because of its virtual financial bankruptcy and inability to fight another war. But, from Israel’s perspective, these constraints should not conspire to dump an agreement on the concerned parties (i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia) which they are not comfortable with. The back channel talks between the US and Iran in Oman did not go down very well with the above-mentioned two countries.

Further, Iran is known to be experts in double speak – this coupled with the embarrassing inability of US intelligence to monitor things within Iran renders overseeing, policing and enforcing any agreement with Iran completely doubtful and useless. No wonder, Israelis are concerned and incensed over American unilateralism and head in the sand approach. The Israelis see this as, again, an obstinate Obama’s desperate attempt to achieve something, which his Republican predecessor could not, and pat his own back (and have some material for the so-called historians to write later).

One can’t say for sure what the outcome will be of the above mentioned efforts of the US in the Middle East, but one thing is for sure, their relations with Israel (and Saudi Arabia) have hit unprecedented low. The US has succeeded in pissing off one their much avowed closest allies in the region. And, what is the real gain for the US in all this? Have they (the Americans) accounted for the loss of trust equity in all this?

Saudi Arabia: This close ally of the US is terribly upset because of Syrian policy followed by President Obama. The Saudis are so upset that Obama is travelling to that country in March to mend relations. The Saudis’ actions in the Syrian theater have apparently made it clear to the US that the Saudis can play spoil sport in Syrian imbroglio and without their support some of the anti-Assad factions can NOT be corralled. The Saudis are also upset over the way the US is handling the Iran matter. They see this is an attempt by the US to counterbalance their (Saudis) Sunni influence in the region. They have also not liked the US’s stance and countenance vis-à-vis Qatar’s activities in Syria and Egypt.

Clearly, the Obama administration has ended up screwing up relations with another of its close ally by following some policy trajectories which are not only seeming to be ineffective but giving more time to the adversaries of Saudi Arabia and Israel in recovering/recouping – this applies to the current regimes in Syria and Iran. This does not bode well from Israel’s and Saudi’s perspective; obviously, they are badly cut up with the Obama administration.

Summary: The current US administration has probably forgotten that loud talks mean nothing in international diplomacy if they can’t be demonstrably backed up by force. The US is being increasingly perceived to be a groveling patsy – be it with respect to Iran, China, or Syria issue – trying to further its own interests without bothering whether or not it destroys time-tested relations with some of its closest allies. US is also being perceived as someone who starts with a loud mouth but ends up in a whimper with no matching guts to provide any teeth to their big pronouncements (“Syria has crossed a red line”, the famous line Obama spoke!). No wonder Kerry is at pains to explain, time and again, in international forums that US is not retreating from global issues. 

Clearly, the current administration’s policies towards Canada and Israel in particular have been baffling to say at the very best and bull-headed at the worst. Obama and his cronies have been continually needling these two countries on some frivolous and some not so frivolous pretexts. In all this, what has the US achieved? Not only it is risking serious damage to the friendly relations with these two countries, it is sowing seeds of deliberate miscalculations in its policy making which could potentially backfire on the US in the long run. Is it sign of intelligent policy implementation strategy or sign of a stubborn gutless loser who is desperate to leave behind some legacy which he can trumpet about later as unprecedented achievements  never mind even if they came at the cost of screwing up long standing friendships, or bringing NO REAL benefit to the US over the longer term?