Having just experienced our own political ructions over the climate change issue, I thought OLO members might be interested in gaining an insight into the Canadian government's stance on the issue.

George Monbiot wrote this article a few days ago about the Canadian government's behaviour on the world stage, particularly on climate change.
Find the article at:
http//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands

Monbiot was scathing in his criticism of Canada's attitude, accusing it of being the nation most responsible for sabotaging a climate agreement and labelling it "a beautiful cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state".

Certainly an eye opener.

Well the Gruaniad was never much of a paper

largely because of the sanctimonious drivel it churns out (for ingestion by the left-wing lightweights of academia)

Poirot, while clearly not mandatory, surely it would have been polite to also make reference to the Canadian rebuttal?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/04/canada-commitment-fight-climate-change

Thank you, Pericles.
I'm learning as I go along.
Thank you also for providing the link.

Poirot,

I've tried the site you posted even with the ':' in place but still can't get on to read the story.
In the absence of details I can only talk in theory. More details please.

It seems to me, Monbiot's tendency is for sensationalizing stories beyond their objective worth. Therefore,I'm not surprised by any purple prose from him. That's is his journalist style, no doubt encouraged to sell papers, make his fortune.

The problem with tar sands and other intensive processing sources for petroleum oil, is that they will become more viable as the know resources of easier accessible oil decrease and the price rises.

I could note that Australia is hardly in a position to claim the moral high ground especially open cut mining of coal and uranium.

Not withstanding, I seem to remember the Canadian method is very power intensive, and extremely environmentally destructive.

One wonders why they haven't opted for the biological solution?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090907214306.htm
I suspect timing and $s (profit) are at play in their mining venture.

All this goes to prove my assertion than 'Business Profit potential' + Governments + short term objectives *do not necessarily* = the best out comes.

examinator,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal

Canada's response about sticking to their CO2 promises notwithstanding, it has to be one of the dirtiest mining operations I have come across. So far it has created a 134 sq km lake of poisonous, utterly dead water. I imagine the only reason they will be able to stick to their CO2 promises is they have run out of Natural Gas to power the process, and so are turning to Nuclear to provide the heat to drive the oil out of the rock.