Well, for one thing, it dramatically reduces the amount of fossil fuel available for burning, slowing climate change, which benefits Canada as well as the rest of the world. There’s a significant short-term cost, but the long-term costs of NOT doing so are much greater.
What you’re really asking is “Why should we behave in our long-term interests, to our economic harm, when nobody else is?” My answer there is: because it’s the right thing to do for ourselves and for the planet. These are the Canadian values I was raised with: you do what is right, even if there is a significant cost (as lived by my Albertan grandfather).
Except it doesn’t. The demand is there and someone else meets it. They benefit, we don’t. Nor do we have the funds to implement alternatives because we’ve ‘given’ that money to someone else. Most likely the Saudis, etc.
So, climate change isn’t affected, Canadians don’t get the revenue, with the only benefit being realize are self-rightous types thinking they are doing the ‘right’ thing.
It’s quite curious how conservatives stop believing in the basic principles of economics when it comes to oil. Decreasing production won’t result in higher prices (all evidence to the contrary), higher prices won’t result in lower consumption (all evidence to the contrary).
Just to be clear: are you calling me self-righteous? I would appreciate it if you did not do that. I expressed a genuinely held value, but it’s not performative. I don’t give a fuck whether you believe me or not, or what you think of me, but please attack my arguments rather than my character.
Regarding the argument, your position is akin to that of those marketing nicotine, handguns, and all sorts of harmful things: if we didn’t do it, someone else would. Perhaps, but I find a value in not being the party supplying the harmful thing. Just because the other kids are making money by destroying the planet, doesn’t mean we should too.
You claimed it was the ‘right’ thing to do for ourselves and the planet. Given that it will have no affect other than to transfer wealth from Canadians to someone else and thus done only to make you feel good in doing it, as you have clearly stated, how is this not the definition of self-rightous? Or is your actual goal to transfer the wealth?
Given that there exists a large but finite quantity of fossil fuels in the ground, any amount not extracted and burned decreases the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere. This amount may not be enormous, but it is not zero, and that is a net good for the environment. Not especially for me.
Doing so does not transfer wealth from Canadians to others. It simply means that wealth isn’t being transferring into Canada by this route. We could (and do) have other sectors by which to make money. So it doesn’t cost anything, though it does reduce the income of those who are counting on wealth from selling fossil fuels and their byproducts.
You do not appear to be factoring in any costs for mitigating the results of climate change in your calculations. You do not appear to be factoring in the fact that Albertans have other ways of earning money, and it’s not an oil-or-nothing proposition.
So, yes, I think it is the right thing to do for the planet, and by extension for ourselves. I don’t agree that it will have no effect other than to transfer wealth; I don’t agree that it WILL transfer wealth, though it certainly rearranges the economy with the usual winners and losers in any such rearrangement, and that too of course has knock-on effects.
I also don’t agree that doing so feels good: I think the transition period would suck. But I think it’s in our long-term interests to bear the short-term pain, and to mitigate it as much as possible. Right now, we’re over-reliant on producing a toxic product and relying on the Americans to buy it, and they’ve now commited to a policy of disdain for the environment.
Global News in Canada did an interview with Steve Bannon. His take on it is that tariffs are just the beginning. Trump, and the Project 2025 movement, are committed to North American hegemony. They say the Arctic will be the new Cold War with Russia and China, and the US can’t trust Canada to do its part in keeping it secure, so the US will have to take over Canada as part of its own continental security.
I have very little regard for anything that this unwashed convicted felon has to say. Trump doesn’t have a strategy beyond bloviating anything that happens to come into his head, and even if he did, neither his administration nor Trump himself will be around long enough to make anything like this happen.
The only truth here is that Arctic security is becoming strategically important and there will be skirmishes over it. Canada needs to do more to protect its interests in the far north…
Four years or for that matter one is more than long enough to conquer Canada and for that matter Mexico. It would make America much less secure rather than more, of course and be a disaster in multiple ways, but the act of conquest itself wouldn’t take long with such a disparity of military power (and in the case of Canada, terrible population distribution for defensive purposes).
Interesting discussion in the NYT about Trump and the marshmallow test.
Excerpt:
Appelbaum: There’s a very famous test in psychology called the marshmallow test. Basically, you put a kid in a room, you put one marshmallow in front of them, and you tell them that you’re going to come back in several minutes and if they have not eaten the marshmallow, you will give them a second marshmallow and they can eat both of them.
Much of Donald Trump’s approach to life is to systematically fail the marshmallow test at every opportunity. He always eats the first marshmallow as soon as it’s on the plate in front of him.
Healy: He can’t resist.
Appelbaum: He can’t, and doesn’t think he should. That’s what’s going on here. The easy thing to do is to eat the marshmallow of compelling Mexico and Canada to concede to us on whatever set of issues he regards as important.
The reason that you should wait for the second marshmallow is that the long-term interest of the United States is best served by having close partnerships with these nations. In the first place, we share long borders with them. Our peaceful relationship with them has been a huge advantage to the United States over the centuries; being able to manufacture goods across North America rather than just in the United States is a force multiplier in our competition with China.
One thing to focus on here is if you believe that China is, big picture, the greatest threat to the United States, what you want to be doing is assembling an alliance in opposition to China. You want to be bringing your friends closer and make common cause with them in this effort to protect democracy and our system of government and our way of life, instead of taking advantage of those countries and squeezing them and bullying them and making them resent you.
It is not a good formula in the long term for pursuing the national interest of the United States. It’s just eating the first marshmallow.
Healy: You’ve captured so well that impulsive thinking, but at the same time, Trump sees his own genius as not doing the expected thing. He’s someone who kind of abhors tinkering around the edges.
That isn’t the point. Trump is president, not god-emperor (yet). It would take a long time to build political support for such a venture to not be seen as complete insanity. Meanwhile as we saw during Trump 1.0, both Congress and the military chain of command has safeguards against an insane president.
Even if that was true, it doesn’t matter. Dumping Californian water was also irrational, but Trump ordered it so it happened. And Canada isn’t part of the US yet. If told to attack Canada the reaction would be “orders are orders” and they’d do it, just like all the other countries the US has attacked for no good reason.
Remember that Bush the Younger had to manufacture some pretty persuasive pretexts for his Iraq invasion even though it was already seen as an enemy country. He had to convince Americans – and even sent poor old Colin Powell to try to convince the UN – that Iraq was a clear and present danger.
While this is true, I think the Americans have spent the last generation convincing each other that the UN is not the boss of them, and I don’t think they’re quite as worried about the perception of their actions as legitimate on the world stage as they were during the Bush era.
During the first Trump presidency, Trump was treated like a president. Or at least implored to act presidentially. Such as by taking an interest in the arts and the Kennedy Centre.
According to this poll, 62 percent of Americans oppose imposing tariffs on Canadian imports.
I usually say that one poll does not matter. But this is a poll where, overall, Trump beat his polling average (53 percent approval) by maybe two points. I think that if Trump’s real approval is a point or two less less, the real disapproval of tariffs against Canada is a point or two higher.
And, whatever he says, Trump watches polls.
I’m not saying this means an end to the economic war on Canada. Trump will not give up his expansionist impulses easily. But it’s a good sign.