iraq (Photo credit: The U.S. Army)
I don’t understand why environmentalists are supporting regimes that are well-known for their corruption and human-rights abuses, like Iran or Venezuela. Mich from Beating the Index had some great thoughts on the matter:
“The US oil and gas sector played a part in the job improvement in 2011 by creating 37,000 jobs directly and 111,000 jobs indirectly. That represents 9% of all jobs created in the USA according to a World Economic Forum report. Remember that these are no minimum wage jobs, these are high quality paying jobs and for each direct job in the oil and gas sector, 3 indirect ones are created.
In terms of GDP, the average annual growth of the sector is expected to achieve 6.9% through 2015. This comes out to more than double the overall real GDP growth forecast of 2.6%. North Dakota and Oklahoma are the lucky states benefitting the most as their unemployment rates remain well below the national average.
For those who like to whine and complain about the oil and gas sector, you need to understand that this sector is benefitting the US on all levels from local job creation to weaning off dependency on foreign oil. The shale revolution will help the US stand back on its feet and potentially tip the trade balance thanks to rising energy exports.
Instead of complaining about the profits of oil and gas companies, why not grab your share by investing? Remember that if you block this industry, you will lose the jobs and the oil will be produced by someone else in the world!”
Here is a list of the top oil exporting countries in the world:
| 1 |  Russia |
7,400,000 | 2010 Actual[1] |
| 2 |  Saudi Arabia |
7,322,000 | 2009 |
| 3 |  Iran |
2,400,000 | 2010 est. |
| 4 |  United Arab Emirates |
2,395,000 | 2009 est. |
| 5 |  Norway |
2,150,000 | 2009 est.[2] |
| 6 |  Kuwait |
2,127,000 | 2009 est. |
| 7 |  Nigeria |
2,102,000 | 2009 est. |
| 8 |  Canada |
1,929,000 | 2009 est. |
| 9 |  United States |
1,920,000 | 2009 est. |
| 10 |  Iraq |
1,910,000 | 2009 est. |
| 11 |  Venezuela |
1,871,000 | 2009 est. |
| 12 |  Netherlands |
1,871,000 | 2009 est. |
| 13 |  Angola |
1,851,000 | 2009 est. |
| 14 |  Algeria |
1,694,000 | 2009 est. |
| 15 |  Mexico |
1,511,000 | 2009 est. |
| 16 |  Kazakhstan |
1,501,000 | 2009 est. |
| 17 |  Libya |
1,385,000 | 2009 est. |
| 18 |  Singapore |
1,374,000 | 2009 est. |
| 19 |  United Kingdom |
1,311,000 | 2009 est. |
| 20 |  Qatar |
1,038,000 | 2009 est |
1. Restricting north american production supports countries that restrict freedom and commit crimes against humanity.
Some of the countries on this list are a little suspect, and well known for human-rights abuses, political corruption, and sponsorship of terrorism. I find it hard to believe that these environmentalists care about human beings, because if they did, they would realize that restricting oil production here in Canada and the US forces us to import more from abroad. Not only do we have to import more from abroad, but that means we have less to export overseas, meaning other countries also have to import more from abroad.
The environmentalists therefore support policies that are equivalent to sponsoring the countries that commit these human-rights abuses! The environmentalists might not like it, but we live in a fossil-fuel driven world. Either the oil can be produced here at home, or it can be imported from abroad, some of it necessarily coming from these countries! Since the U.S. needs to secure those resources and keep the regions relatively conflict-free, that also means more war, more intervention, and more soldiers abroad. This is expensive, and does not endear westerners to the locals!
2. Restricting north american production harms the environment.
Canada and the U.S. are two countries that are known for having some of the best environmental protections and laws in the world. We both care about the environment, and we also have the capital to spend to ensure that it is protected. Other countries don’t have the same laws and regulations in place, and often allow local companies to abuse the local environment and population in the name of making a profit for the politically connected elite.
If oil production is restricted in areas where it is accessible, in Alberta, North Dakota, and other places, then there will be more pressure to exploit undersea resources, as well as resources in more environmentally sensitive and dangerous areas. Offshore drilling is more expensive and dangerous, and can sometimes lead to catastrophic results.
At the same time, natural gas in particular is a very compelling alternative to burning coal. Many areas in north america still rely on coal for electricity, and coal is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels you could burn for producing electricity. At least north america has coal scrubbers and other pollution-reducing mechanisms in place: what about China, where many areas of the country have so much pollution from coal-fired power plants that walls turn black from soot? Do environmentalists really think that this is preferable to exporting liquified natural gas to these markets?
Protecting the environment is important, but being an environmentalist to be “cool” is not.
I have the feeling that many environmentalists don’t actually care very much about humanity or the environment itself, for that matter. They are protesting for the sake of protesting and because it is “cool” to rail against the “big evil corporations”, and sometimes, they do have a point. Solar power and other renewable energies are making strides every day, but it will be decades before the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure is replaced. Even when it is, oil will still be needed since it has many valuable uses apart from simply being burned as fuel.
We have a choice: Do we want to continue burning dirty coal and continue to support corrupt and abusive regimes around the world, or can we build up a local infrastructure that will help the environment, provide jobs to people that need it, and bridge the gap until that time when solar power and others can truly provide for the whole world?
The choice is pretty clear to me. Developing local oil & gas resources can, if done in a responsible manner, help the environment and help many people out at the same time. I have no connection whatsoever to the industry, and even I can see that.
Those tree huggers would probably turn farmland into parks in their zeal!
Someone’s got to produce oil and gas until an alternative source of energy is available, if it’s not the US, it will be some other country which respects the environment even less.
Agreed, Mich! Forest brought up some good points which show the problems when you allow companies to evade responsibility for their actions. I don’t think the situation in NA is perfect by any means, but nor do I think that increased reliance on overseas is a better idea.
I think this is issue is far too hard to sum up in this post.
Surely the focus should be on supporting home grown energy production away from oil and the reduction of energy use.
Tell people who are dying from Cancer downstream of the oil sands (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4BOdfP5Eg) or fisherman who lost their livelihoods off the West Coast of USA that oil is good for the environment and people!
As pointed out in the Inconvenient Truth (I am sure you despise that movie), if we screw up the planet there won’t be an economy to try and make better!
And don’t tell me there is such a thing as safe clean oil production. You are seriously putting your fingers in your ears if you believe that!!!! It’s like draining pints and pints of blood out of a human and expecting them to carry on problem free.
Reduction is seriously the only real solution that will help us all and the industry that creates those alternatives will provide a huge leap in jobs. Sure there are downsides of the alternatives but it is seriously under-developed right now because oil is still the big earner.
True environmentalists are calling for reduction and I would say the majority of people I know who badge themselves as such are in agreement with that.
Hey Forest,
One of my controversial posts finally struck a nerve.
First, let me be perfectly clear that I believe that the companies should be held to 100% of their actions. If there is a clear link between cancer and the oil sands, the oil companies need to pay damages. As for the fishermen, I did say “Offshore drilling is more expensive and dangerous, and can sometimes lead to catastrophic results.” I hope you weren’t reading into my post with a biased agenda and missing points like that, but I’m not sure, with comments like “I am sure you despise that movie.” 
You can blame the government for imposing liability caps and restrictions against lawsuits. I am completely in favour of companies paying up or even getting dissolved. However, these aren’t the kinds of environmentalists I’m talking about. I’m talking about the ones that haven’t ventured outside of their school, are against progress at all costs, and want to destroy the economy with draconian regulations against carbon emissions (all while failing to address the existing problems with regulations!); some even want to risk screwing up the world even more, with dangerous geo-engineering. They complain about carbon dioxide levels instead of actual problems, which I’m glad you brought up here, and prefer the government to pay wasteful subsidies of 40c/KW + to “home grown energy production), and waste hundreds of millions of dollars. Surely you don’t support the ethanol subsidies, a move away from oil, even though they have hurt the poor the most?
The only solution is for renewables to catch up on their own merits, and, I’m in complete agreement with you that companies of all shapes and sizes get away with too much, thanks to the government protecting them.
…. Just want to point out I did read the last part of the post but I believe reduction will seriously decrease the need for oil and very quickly (I don’t believe it would take decades). The oil companies don’t want us to believe this and people will feel that sanctions on their use of oil will be a rights violation BUT it is something we need to be rallied into doing.
As much as I hate Iran too I think they violate peoples rights on a level comparable to many governments. So they held a couple of American’s (accused as Spies) travelling on the border, the USA and it’s buddies stuffed a shed load of innocent brown people in a prison in Cuba for years, and many are still there! Supporting USA oil is supporting a country that abuses the rights of many people around the world!
Hey, don’t lump Canadians in the same basket!
The USA is no angel, I’ll give you that… I don’t think any government is. One of the biggest guzzlers of oil does happen to be the government; all that military equipment moving around burns up a lot of fuel.
I don’t see restrictionism as the answer. You can restrict oil output in NA all you want, but all that means is that more will be imported from overseas. It’s a fact, and not a preference, that our world has billions of cars and powerplants all reliant on fossil fuels, and it will take time to replace this stock. No amount of reduction or impoverishing subsidies will change this fact.
More money will be flowing to regimes that also violate rights, and with perhaps less oversight and scrutiny than the USA gets. Environmental standards might not be the strictest in North America, but they are amongst the strictest that you get in the world. What do you think happens in places like China and Africa on a daily basis, and what people have gotten away with there, due to corruption? What about the human-rights abuses? Maybe one day the USA will be as bad, but I think it takes a biased viewpoint to say that living in the USA is already as bad as living under these other corrupt regimes.
Oil demand will go away naturally on its own, since the alternatives will be *better* in every way. In the meantime, punish any company, oil producing or not, that screws over people, and allow companies to reap the full benefits of the fruits of their labour when they do produce something that people want to buy. The politicians are NOT in it for us, and their subsidies and interventionism just hurt the most vulnerable and cause resources to be wasted. Some people do benefit from this, but it’s not us.
I think we should be able to drill, build oil refineries and lay new oil pipelines as we see fit for the benefit of the American people. Nature should never trump the needs of economics or the people.
One of the latest things I’ve heard is that the environmentalists want to do away with land ownership. It’s not ours, its mother earths so we shouldn’t be able to own it.
So of course they expect the government to hold all the land and divide it up for the purposes that best fit the people’s needs. Hello, that’s communism and that didn’t work. We have a living example of that.
Following that nonsensical logic would ruin the US.
Hi Joe,
I believe that strong property rights line up nicely with a morality well-suited to maximizing individual preferences, so I am in strong agreement with you. If companies are hurting others with their pollution, they should be held to account and assessed full damages, extending to personal and criminal liability of the officers and directors if necessary. Simply banning production is not the way to go.
I also agree that central coercion is bad, because to put such power in the hands of a central authority also puts a lot of power in the hands of whoever controls and influences that central authority. People seem to forget that a strong government really means strong individuals who happen to be affiliated with that government. That force is not held equally among the people.
Oil is a fungible commodity. While producing more at home in NA *might* decrease demand abroad, it may also reduce overall prices and encourage more consumption. I agree that conservation makes good sense. This is indeed the way the more developed economies are heading: less energy consumed for each unit of GDP. Also, no question that oil production in NA is made under more stringent EH&S standards than abroad. A visit to former soviet oilfields (or even current Russian and Chinese ones) will only confirm that point.
Good point on the consumption; I also agree that conservation makes good sense so long as we’re looking at total lifecycle and not at a narrow component of efficiency. I don’t see less energy consumption in the long run, though, unless we end up living in a virtual world, so we are going to have to find a way to produce more clean energy.
Well to clarify, there could be less per unit of GDP but if GDP is high enough you still have quite a bit of consumption. It’s a bit scary sometimes when you see growth projections based on existing trends. Technology better keep up!
Well, there’s no mystery, considering my name, that I’m a doomer. On my blog I strongly stress reduction – serious, drastic, life-changing reduction – because I’m pretty opposed to our continual dependence on oil and gas, regardless of its origin. I cringe when I read people like Joe who insist that nature should never trump economics. Honestly, people, we don’t NEED oil and gas to live – but we do need drinkable water and clean air and healthy vegetation.
You are posing a false dilemma, as well as appealing to emotion, to say that the only choices are “dirty oil” from overseas or “ethical oil” from North America. It’s all “dirty”.
Alternatives are never going to provide the cheap, easy energy of oil and gas. That golden era of ease has finished – in about a century, we have gobbled through resources that took the earth millions of years to create. The only answer is to rethink our lifestyles. I fully accept that most of us don’t *want* to do that. Consider Japan, though – since the earthquake, the Japanese people, as a nation, have entered a lifestyle of “setsuden” – extreme energy conservation, and have . It’s possible.
Hi Doomer,
It depends on your observation point. From your point, I can see how you can see oil as dirty. However, if it’s a choice between producing in North American and elsewhere where production and environmental standards may be more lax, I see North America as the better choice. I do agree with you we need drinkable water, clean air, and healthy vegetation, and I don’t think there should be liability caps or other special regulations protecting companies from paying compensation or damages.
I also agree with you that the golden era is dimming, for fossil fuels at least. I don’t share your pessimism that alternatives are not going to provide a solution; in fact, once alternative technologies advance far enough, we’ll wonder why we ever depended so heavily on fossil fuels in the first place. In the meantime, we still need to use oil and gas, and it’s about relatives: Some oil is cleaner and more humane than others, and gas is cleaner than oil & coal, even if from some high point they all appear dirty to a certain extent.
Thanks for the great, thought-provoking comment!