Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands [Import] [Hardcover]

Ezra Levant (Author)

Book Description

Release date: September 14, 2010 | ISBN-10: 0771046413 | ISBN-13: 978-0771046414 | Edition: First Edition Thus

Canada's "no. 1 defender of freedom of speech" and the bestselling author of Shakedown makes the timely and provocative case that when it comes to oil, ethics matter just as much as the economy and the environment.

In 2009, Ezra Levant's bestselling book Shakedown revealed the corruption of Canada's human rights commissions and was declared the "most important public affairs book of the year." In Ethical Oil, Levant turns his attention to another hot-button topic: the ethical cost of our addiction to oil. While many North Americans may be aware of the financial and environmental price we pay for a gallon of gas or a barrel of oil, Levant argues that it is time we consider ethical factors as well. With his trademark candor, Levant asks hard-hitting questions: With the oil sands at our disposal, is it ethically responsible to import our oil from the Sudan, Russia, and Mexico? How should we weigh carbon emissions with human rights violations in Saudi Arabia? And assuming that we can't live without oil, can the development of energy be made more environmentally sustainable? In Ethical Oil, Levant exposes the hypocrisy of the West's dealings with the reprehensible regimes from which we purchase the oil that sustains our lifestyles, and offers solutions to this dilemma. Readers at all points on the political spectrum will want to read this timely and provocative new book, which is sure to spark debate.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"[Levant's book] has clearly had a huge impact on the debate."
— Calgary Herald

"Ethical Oil provides some desperately needed perspective."
— National Post

"Compelling....Ethical Oil posits some uncomfortable answers, making it a challenging and provocative read."
— Halifax Chronicle-Herald

About the Author

EZRA LEVANT is a lawyer, journalist, and political activist. As the publisher of Western Standard magazine, he was charged by the Government of Alberta for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. He is a frequent radio talk show guest known for his plain-spoken opinions, and he has written columns for media throughout North America. His most recent book, Shakedown, was a national bestseller.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: McClelland & Stewart; First Edition Thus edition (September 14, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0771046413
• ISBN-13: 978-0771046414
• Product Dimensions: 5.8 x 1 x 8.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (20 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,602,955 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 18 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Levant seeks to denormalize the denormalization that a myriad of critics are engaged in against the oil sands September 19, 2010

By Joel Barnes

Format:Kindle Edition

This latest book from Ezra Levant was released last Tuesday. As the subtitle suggests, _Ethical Oil_ is an impenitent and unapologetic "case for Canada's oilsands". Though it may be lost on many who are unfamiliar with Levant, this book shares an interesting link with his previous book, _Shakedown_.

One of the objectives of _Shakedown_ - which, I dare say, was largely successful - was the denormalization of Canada's Human Rights Commissions (CHRCs). Levant sought to change public perception of the CHRCs from that of general positivity to general disgust such that any future discussions about the CHRCs would be over before they begin.

_Ethical Oil_ is also about denormalization. In arguing his case for Alberta's oil sands oil, Levant seeks to denormalize the denormalization that a myriad of critics are engaged in against the oil sands. Says Levant about the question of supporting the oil sands: "It's an important question to ask because critics of Canada's oil sands complain that the oil isn't just environmenally dirty but somehow has moral failures, that it is inherently evil. It's an attempt to denormalize the oil sands, to make them so morally repugnant that any debate about them is over before it starts." (p. 19)

I suppose you could say that two denormalizations amount to normalization. Levant seeks to normalize Alberta's oil sands.

The methodology of _Ethical Oil_ is to argue for the oil sands from a politically liberal world-and-life view. The question this methodology is employed to answer is not "whether we should use oil sands oil instead of some perfect fantasy fuel that hasn't been invented yet. Until that miracle fuel is invented, the question is whether we should use oil from the oil sands or oil from other places in the world that pump it." (p. 13)

Levant examines the world's official ethical indicators that are applied to oil companies and finds them arbitrary, lacking an objective basis, and unhelpful in making judgments about the ethics of energy companies (pp. 48-69).

Levant endorses ethical indicators put forward by a Canadian group called Kairos of which Levant is hardly a friend. The indicators are: (1) Justice - is there access to affordable energy? (2) Peace - do the oil sands promote peace or violence, directly or indirectly? (3) Sustainability - what's the environmental impact of the oil sands? (4) Democratic Decision-Making - is there a shared decision-making process between oil companies and citizens regarding the energy future of the citizenry? (pp. 62-64)

Compared to any other country on the planet - whether Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, or China - there's no doubt as to which country meets these ethical indicators and which countries do not. Canada's oil sands are a light unto a dark, dark world.

The remainder of the book is devoted to an expose of the self-righteousness, utter hypocrisy, and double standards of many of Alberta's oil sands critics, including "ethical funds" investment firms, and organizations like Greenpeace. Levant also spends time on the cancer prevalence in Fort Chipewyan.

***

Let's be honest. _Ethical Oil_ isn't going to end the debate on the oil sands. Nevertheless, its strength is its methodology, applying a politically liberal world-and-life view to the question of the oil sands and, on that basis, coming out in support of them. If we Canadians believe in open and honest dialogue on tough issues, _Ethical Oil_ must be welcomed to the debate.

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars One-Sided Assessment January 20, 2012

By Keith Noren

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

At least the author admits to be polemic (subtitle is "The Case for Canada's Tar Sands"). Two thirds of the book makes the point that it is better for the world (although he focusses on the US), to get its oil from a friendly, non-Islamist, non-socialist source - namely Canada. That supposedly makes the Tar Sands the "ethical" choice. He does not discuss in any rational way whether or not unleashing the CO2 involved in total Tar Sands consumption does to global warming. Nor does he bring up the cost of this form of oil is 2-3 times that of crude oil and more costly than solar energy even right now. Nor does it address the fact that 4.5 liters of water (a dwindling and essential resource) has to be used to produce 1 liter of dirty oil. Possible actions (such as full implementation of Alberta's Tar Sands) must address all the results (good and bad) of that given action not just ones that support their desired stance.

Personally I do not like sarcasm and this book is full of it pointed at environmentalists in general. As a holder in a MS in Environmental Management, I know the onerous burdens of environmental regulations (risk assessments, etc.) and believe they are overly burdensome. But bad health effects and effects on natural resources have to be sensibly assessed. Levant attempts to laugh it off.

11 of 14 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Important, could have been so much better April 17, 2011

By MM

Format:Hardcover

To begin with, I'd like to acknowledge that Levant's book is full of interesting and useful information about the social, economic, and political world of oil. He makes some strong arguments that Alberta's oilsands aren't nearly the villain that many make them out to be. But he weaves his research together with a logic that is at times convoluted and sometimes seems to miss the point completely.

Early in the book, Levant lambastes advocacy groups who applied so much pressure to Talisman Resources that the company eventually pulled out of Sudan. He notes that Talisman had done much for human rights in this highly corrupt dictatorship and that when they pulled out, it was a disaster for the people, possibly even a factor in the Darfur genocide. Okay, granted. Given this, how does encouraging America to invest in the 'ethical oil' of Alberta's oilsands help places like Sudan? His argument is a valid criticism of overzealous activists, but it doesn't say anything about the oilsands (except perhaps, "Activists have been wrong before, so they could be wrong again," but that doesn't make for a very powerful argument).

Levant's discussion of ethical stock options really left me scratching my head. Useful and eye-opening information, to be sure. But how does the fact that stock companies that claim to be ethical apparently invest in everything from Three Mile Island, a Chinese-Tibetan railroad, and tobacco to Alberta's oilsands further the case that the oilsands are ethical? To be sure, he harnesses this topic as one more way to mock those whom he at various points in the book refers to as "fair trade coffee-drinking, Prius-driving, Green Party-voting, recycler[s] who dabble in vegetarianism," Che-T-shirt wearers, and "bicycle-riding, hemp-wearing investor[s]". But that wasn't the point of the book.... Was it? If he's trying to convince oilsands opponents (or even those who haven't fully made up their mind one way or the other) to support his views, mocking those he disagrees with and reducing them to a meaningless stereotype will do little to support his cause. Unfortunately the book - which could have offered a valuable counterpoint to other views - reads more like a rant to the converted.

I really liked Chapter 9, which went into great detail about ways oilsands companies have improved their processes for extraction, carbon capture, and reclamation. He presents a strong argument that when all factors are taken into account, oilsands oil doesn't have a much bigger carbon footprint than most other available sources. But I was put off by Levant's obvious ignorance of climate science. It seems he did a lot of painstaking research to support his arguments, and he is (rightfully) contemptuous of activist organizations masquerading as science ('Greenpeace is not a scientific organization'). But if he's so supportive of science, why does he have such thinly disguised contempt for human-caused global warming, which has the support of many in mainstream science? Even serious skeptics like Nigel Lawson and Garth Paltridge acknowledge potential dangers of excess CO2 and aim their criticism at the hysteria surrounding global warming and the lack of attention to adaptation rather than at the entire idea that human-generated carbon might influence the climate. Levant, on the other hand, throws in lots of trivializing digs, referring to CO2 as an 'alleged pollutant' and 'plant food' (which, of course, it is - but suppose they can't eat it all?). The part that really got me was his claim that since the vast majority of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is naturally occurring, we needn't worry about the small fraction that is produced by humans. It sounds convincing, but naturally occurring CO2 is in balance with the natural forces that remove it. Everything we add contributes to a growing debt in the atmosphere (as even the deficit continues to grow). If nature can handle CO2, why is it accumulating? To me, Levant's overlooking of this most basic understanding of climate science casts huge doubt on his credibility and claimed alliance with science. I'm not suggesting that boycotting the oilsands would play even a small part in solving the climate problem (whatever that turns out to be), but belittling the whole idea doesn't do much for his general thesis.

Finally, Levant is full of praise for Alberta's relatively strict environmental guidelines, and notes on several occasions that the people of Alberta's many concerns about the oilsands put severe pressures on government and developers to work in a responsible manner. He also notes the monumental strides that have been made in oilsands technology in the past decades. While I agree that many activist groups take things too far, the environmentalists he so decries have played an important role in influencing public opinion such that these changes were deemed necessary.