Marking Up the Alberta Government's $30,000 Keystone XL Ad

authordefault
on

This is a guest post by Heather Libby.

If you’re a regular reader of the Sunday New York Times, you might have noticed a half-page ad in the A section promoting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline last weekend. Paid for by the Alberta government with $30,000 of taxpayer funds, the text-heavy ad asserted several reasons why President Obama should approve the project.

Their primary argument? This is โ€œthe choice ofย reasonโ€.

Putting aside the fact that their word selection suggests those who oppose the pipeline are illogicalย or unreasonable; the ad says โ€œsome still argue Keystone should be decided on emotion rather than science and fact about Canada’s responsibly developed oil sandsย resourceโ€.

We completely agree. Here are a few scientific facts it forgot toย mention:

And the list goes on, full of reasonable concerns that the Alberta government would rather you not ponder.

Check out our copy of the ad below (click to embiggen) to see a few more suggested edits to Alberta’s assertions.ย 

authordefault

Related Posts

on

The Reform UK leaderโ€™s planned trip to Washington D.C. has prompted fresh consternation from campaigners.

The Reform UK leaderโ€™s planned trip to Washington D.C. has prompted fresh consternation from campaigners.
Series: MAGA
Opinion
on

Policymakers, civil society, investors, business, and the media all must answer key questions fast โ€” before the regulatory rollback turns into a rout.

Policymakers, civil society, investors, business, and the media all must answer key questions fast โ€” before the regulatory rollback turns into a rout.
on

The Alberta gas giant Capital Power lobbied the government 37 times in the lead-up to an accord suspending clean energy regulations, federal records show.

The Alberta gas giant Capital Power lobbied the government 37 times in the lead-up to an accord suspending clean energy regulations, federal records show.
on

Justice Samuel Alito did not recuse himself from considering the petition, despite significant financial conflicts of interest in implicated cases.

Justice Samuel Alito did not recuse himself from considering the petition, despite significant financial conflicts of interest in implicated cases.