Warning: Weirdness and personal details contained within. Mostly weirdness. You've been warned.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

I don't get it

I was reading this article today. I had to laugh. The ad idea blows my mind on so many levels.

How are the oil sands and tourism related? The last time I checked, the oil sands are nowhere near Banff, which is where a goodly portion of the tourists go, or near the major cities. And even if they were, Canada has rather strict regulations on environmental standards and cleanup, much higher than the US. Although I agree that it's not an environmentally sound plan to depend on a non-renewable resource, I don't see why the oil sands are being remotely coupled to the disaster that is the Gulf spill.

Besides which, the US is a much larger producer of oil than Canada. Canada/Alberta certainly isn't the reason that the States has an addiction to non-renewable energy. Even beyond that, the States went through a major kerfuffle several years ago with the WMD distraction in order to get more oil. They have a history of using misdirection and blaming Canada for their failings.

I don't know who came up with this plan, but next time guys, think a bit more first.

Updated: And also, just to get to Banff, one would need to drive/fly, therefore using OIL.

This followup says that the oil sands destruction covers an area the size of England. I've seen an oil sand well produced using steam, along with the resulting "mess" it creates. It was a pile of sand. Not a very big pile of sand. I'm inclined to believe the Albertan who said it's more like 550 km square. Environmental groups like to fly kicking and screaming off the deep end about situations they haven't fully researched. It's fun playing the Let's Get Sued For False Advertising game!

Brain... exploding... now.


Post a Comment

<< Home