Yes, it's slightly old news but, when it comes to this whole freshwater thing, I'm amused by this passage:
A draft report will be submitted to the three heads of state at a partnership summit in Alberta this August.
“It’s no secret that the U.S. is going to need water. ... It’s no secret that Canada is going to have an overabundance of water.
Got that? An "overabundance" of water. The implication is clear: somehow, it's just not right. It's just not fair. We have so much while others have so little, so we should work to somehow balance this out because, well, it's the right thing to do.
And if any of my American readers want to take that position, let me give them something to think about:
* Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)
* In 1997, U.S. residents consumed an average of 12,133 kilowatt-hours of electricity each, almost nine times greater than the average for the rest of the world. (Grist Magazine)
Sure, let's talk about fair and balanced, shall we? Tell you what -- we can discuss sharing all that water equally when you folks start consuming energy equally.
Whaddya think? Is that fair? Does that work for you?
UPDATE: It occurs to me to ask -- where are all those patriotic, flag-waving Blogging Tories on this issue? Remember, these are the people who are allegedly "standing up for Canada" and "getting things done" and yadda yadda yadda.
Certainly, there's no shortage of Canadian progressives who are sounding the alarm over this issue, but from the Blogging Tories, we seem to get ... a deafening silence.
Why is that? It's not as if there's a distinct ideological divide here. This isn't same-sex marriage, or Intelligent Design in the classroom, or the freakin' Wheat Board. This is all about whether Canada has the sovereign right to control its own water. It's hard to even imagine a more obvious no-brainer, and yet the BTs seem blissfully unconcerned (if they aren't actively campaigning to give away Canada's water rights).
So here's a little homework. First, are there any BTs who are actually blogging about this? That is, who are actively opposed to allowing the United States to control Canada's water supply?
And for my Blogging Tory readers (all three of you, I'm sure), a simple question -- what's your stand? Is giving away control of our water supply your idea of standing up for Canada and getting things done? Seriously, it's not a tough question. Where do your loyalties lie?
Enquiring minds want to know.
5 comments:
So here's a little homework. First, are there any BTs who are actually blogging about this? That is, who are actively opposed to allowing the United States to control Canada's water supply?
Gah, no! What I meant to say was...
So here's a little homework. First, are there any BTs who are actually blogging about this? That is, who are actively opposed to allowing the United States to control Canada's water supply?
Er, I WOULD, CC ol' sport, but my Hazmat suit's in the shop.
" Is giving away control of our water supply your idea of standing up for Canada and getting things done? Seriously, it's not a tough question. Where do your loyalties lie?"
My loyalties lie with Canada. Straightforward enough?
My question to the self-proclaimed progressives is "What do you think Canada should be prepared to do to protect our 'rights', as you see them?".
Show me your cards, and I'll show you mine.
I dunno, Gram - not sell? Is that something we can be prepared to do?
I love people who argue by refusing to reveal their opinion. It's really fun.
Adam,
And when they don't take "not for sale" as an answer, what then?
A question like "Where do your loyalties lie?" is belligerent, much like asking if one has stopped beating one's wife. I responded in kind. How far are you "progressives" willing to go? I answered the "loyalties" question CC asked, he has not answered mine. I am not being evasive, I'm just waiting for the conversation to begin.
Post a Comment