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

Israeli private eye Amit Forlit denied appeal in decision that could lead to his facing a maximum of 45 years in prison if found guilty.

Israeli private eye Amit Forlit denied appeal in decision that could lead to his facing a maximum of 45 years in prison if found guilty.
Analysis
on

Canadian politicians and pundits are leveraging Trumpโ€™s war with Iran to expand fossil fuel infrastructure.

Canadian politicians and pundits are leveraging Trumpโ€™s war with Iran to expand fossil fuel infrastructure.
on

Clean Creatives analysis reveals a โ€œcoordinated narrative shiftโ€ by Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron.

Clean Creatives analysis reveals a โ€œcoordinated narrative shiftโ€ by Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron.
on

Now, parish lawsuits, including one in front of the Supreme Court, could make oil giants pay to restore the stateโ€™s vanishing marshes.

Now, parish lawsuits, including one in front of the Supreme Court, could make oil giants pay to restore the stateโ€™s vanishing marshes.