[ajarmst]

I don't have to. They're pretty vocal about it, and it is widely reported in the media (because liberal democracy with free press). Not all 'natives' necessarily agree (quite a few work in the industry). There are also a wide variety other Canadians who live and work in the area who have strong opinions, on multiple sides of the argument. This is hardly surprising, as it is a controversial issue, and it certainly won't stop being one.

I bet that if I asked people (native or otherwise) about local fracking operations, coal mines, tailing ponds, power plants, refineries, offload and storage facilities, etc, etc, in any country I will find a bunch who would really rather they were somewhere else. I'm not sure why that's important to the discussion.

As for the reported "straw man", you seem to be under the impression that I argued that tar sands were wonderful and that Canadians truly enjoy living near them. Which is, of course, a straw man. I made three points: (1) The assertion that Alberta bitumen mining has twice the C02 impact of other sources of petroleum is provably false and (2) If you do not change the demand for petroleum products and do not want to source them in Canada, you have to source them somewhere else. (3) Other sources aren't necessarily much more palatable, especially if you include factors like support of the economy of the country of origin and the source producer.

Where's the straw man?

[Boothroid]

Here: 'But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela'

I never said any of what you refute above. Also you set up a false dichotomy by implying that we either choose to use tar sands or are forced to support corrupt regimes - there are of course other alternatives scenarios - I note you avoid mention of LNG.

Bottom line though: tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind as being environmentally disastrous, far worse than the alternatives, but I'm guessing that's not in your corporate refutation manual.

[ajarmst]

(1) The top 10 oil exporters: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Canada, Nigeria, Kuwait, Angola, Venezuela, Kazakhstan. I don't think my assertion that replacing Canada with another source might involve some political issues runs contrary to the facts. You didn't say that was required, but it was implied by what you did say.

(2) I did mention LNG. I just spelled it 'fracking'. Currently, two thirds of US-produced natural gas is retrieved by hydraulic formation fracturing, and that fraction has been steadily growing.

(3) Arguing that "tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind..." is inaccurate and sloppy goal-post moving. I'm also not claiming that petroleum production isn't a serious and global environmental problem, I'm arguing that a belief that Canadian bitumen is the heart of the problem is dangerously misinformed. I'd much rather we shut it down and invested heavily in molten salt reactors, but until that happens the problem isn't tar sands: it's global demand and dependence on burning petroleum.

(4) I don't even know why I'm writing this---when you implied I'm a corporate shill and claimed that the only people who disagree with you are those who have a stake of some kind in tar sands, you conceded the argument. Have a good day.

[Boothroid]

Ever heard of Prelude? That'll be the world's largest floating structure, soon to be parked off Australia producing LNG, and with no fracking involved.

Also I'm prepared to put up with some despotic regimes if it means we don't boil the oceans.