Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

DEIDRA GARYK -- An Open Letter to Member of Parliament Elizabeth May; ‘We don’t need saving by you – we want you to leave us alone’



Dear Ms. May,

 

I debated writing to you, but I cannot sit back and allow your hateful speech towards the oil and gas sector and its workers go unchallenged. I assumed by now you would be humbled by the insensitivity of your gaffe and that you would quietly shirk into a corner or would sheepishly apologize to the thousands upon thousands of people you have deeply offended. However, I see you’ve doubled down in your article in the National Post.

 

Saying “Oil is dead.” is not only disrespectful, it’s dishonest. There will be a demand for oil for decades to come, credible studies show this. Demand may taper off once alternative sources of energy become competitive, both from a price and reliability perspective, but that does not mean its use “dies” imminently. Look at coal. Even though consumption has steadily decreased, it’s still an integral part of the world energy mix. It has not “died”.

 

The lockdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have created an unprecedented drop in fossil fuel demand that is likely to continue for the remainder of 2020. However, the US Energy Information Agency data released on May 12, 2020, predicts oil demand will recover to pre-COVID levels in 2021. Let’s not disregard the significance of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) comment about why there hasn’t been a decrease in the consumption of renewable energy sources: “Renewables were the only source that posted a growth in demand, driven by larger installed capacity and priority dispatch.” [Emphasis added].

 

You appear to have taken an absolutist, short-sighted view of the consumption data, and that won’t help create quality, long-term energy policy in Canada.

 

You’ve also taken a myopic view of the Canadian oil and gas industry. What you ignore is that the sector is not only oil sands owned by large multinationals. It’s made up of various types of product — crude oil, liquids, and natural gas — produced and serviced by companies of various size, from one person to several thousand.

 

That you focus solely on the oil sands and consider it the “oil and gas industry” suggests your knowledge of the subject matter you speak so authoritatively about is rather weak. This is unfortunate because people in the climate movement, including the media, believe without question the things you say.

 

The Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment Working Paper that has influenced your opinions may have included a large cross-section of esteemed interviewees, but it did not even consider direct stimulus support for fossil fuels. As a result, it’s hard to compare the impact from those dollars against the twenty-five other “fiscal recovery archetypes” presented. Using this incomplete data could have serious negative ramifications on energy and economic policy.

 

Ms. May, your denigration of Alberta and the oil and gas industry is a personal attack against the very people you pretend to care about – oil and gas workers.

 

We don’t need saving by you, by the way. We want you to leave us alone so that we have a level playing field, not one riddled with regulatory bullet holes and virtuous carnage.

 

Let us do what we do best – innovate and problem-solve – and we’ll figure out the economics.

 

As someone who believes strongly in environmental protection and a diversified energy mix, your ill-informed, misguided comments cut me deep.

 

When politicians don’t strive for honest debate and conversation, but rather for soundbites that get air time, we lose the opportunity to implement sane, well-constructed public policy.

 

Ms. May, you owe Albertans and the oil and gas industry an apology.

 

Sincerely,

Deidra Garyk

 

 

If you agree with this open letter, click the EMAIL Icon below and send this to Elizabeth May at  Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca with the words “I agree” or use the email to send your own note to Elizabeth May.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more