Talk:North American energy independence

This article seems to have some serious NPOV and factual problems:

• How does buying more oil and gas from Canada and Mexico and less from the Middle East improve the US balance of trade? I'm pretty sure it would HURT, since Middle Eastern oil comes to the US and is refined there (value added), while I'm assuming Canada (and Mexico?) do this themselves. The US south-eastern and Gulf coasts are especially dependent on the industry of refining foreign oil. These (largely Republican) areas would not take kindly to seeing their industry move north and south of the border.

The article does not seem to say that every single measure contemplated on the list enhances both balance of trade and national security. Some moves might well reduce one and increase the other but be justified on the other grounds. Your assertion does not explain why the Bush Administration would be presently talking about using more Mexican and Albertan oil sources, or moving Alaskan crude down through Alberta's pipelines into the "lower 48". It is a good question whether Canada and Mexico refine their own. Look into it. EofT

I can see why the US might want to import more North American oil for security reasons, I was just pointing out that I don't see the economic and trade benefit. Canadian oil (whether off the East coast, from the Arctic, or synthetic oil from the tar sands) is MUCH more expensive to produce than Middle Eastern oil, which means that oil prices can only go so low.

It's only a security benefit to the US if it gains a supply that is not prohibitively difficult or expensive to defend. Those costs (US$85B for the Iraq war alone) add up fast. Not to mention all those tanker routes, ports, pipelines, which may prove outrightly impossible to defend. So figure in those costs and the Mexican and Canadian sources look cheap, even with Kyoto charges. EofT

• I don't understand how importing oil from North America vs. from the Middle East has anything to do with Kyoto.

Importing from Kyoto compliant countries might carry some emissions tax when oil is exported to non-Kyoto countries. In any case if Bangladesh is being flooded, tens of millions of displaced Muslims might have something to say about the people burning that oil, and might get their friends to cut it off. EofT

Are you suggesting the US is worried about Saudi Arabia or Iran signing on to Kyoto and charging extra export taxes? I highly doubt that will happen :)

Some Americans (not the US government) are worried about a general r/evolution as Saudi or Iran feel compelled to support their flooded cousins, or, become targets of movements using them as an excuse to raise funds and armies. This would be a substitute for the West Bank and Gaza Arabs who are presently used as poster boys for such raising efforts. This is about killing, not about charging. EofT

I'd point out that this article is written with the assumption that global warming caused by Co2 release is an absolute fact, and that the effects are known, which they are not.

That assumption could be stated. Why not add it? But there is no serious scientific dispute about CO2 as a cause of warming, only which activities cause it and how much it matters, and the exact impact on climate. EofT

• The idea that Canada and Mexico are under US protection and control is silly.

Is it? The Pentagon certainly seems not to think so. There have been numerous calls for these countries to "pay more of the cost of their own protection". Same for Japan. EofT

That would be true in the case of Japan because they're under threat from North Korea, and possibly China and others.

• Who or what exactly is threatening Canada (the most geographically isolated country in the world!)? And I don't think Mexico is under much threat from Guatamala or Coasta Rica :)

It could maybe be argued that the US has economic sway over these countries, but that's a two-way street (especially re: Canada), and neither of these countries is anywhere near as dependant on oil as is the Middle East. -- stewacide 16:08 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Off-topic, but ... Canada, the most geographically isolated country in the world. Huh? Tannin

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE US, nobody can militarily threaten Canada with anything short of an ICBM attack - which there is no defense from anyways. The only way to approach is by sea, and that's a hell of a long ways no matter who's trying it. The US is the only country who can project serious force beyond their shores (China can't even invade Taiwan!). So the only possible threat a country like Canada would face (other than terrorism) is from the US itself (which is beyond unlikely).

Not everyone thinks so. EofT

The idea that the US is protecting Canada, Western Europe, etc. should have died with the Cold War. -- stewacide 00:11 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

One wonders why they keep all those missiles. EofT