Is Canadian Oil Dirty?

While vociferous debate has sprung up in the United States over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a different kind of debate is brewing, starting in the European Union. The big question being being asked in Brussels is whether fuel should be taxed based on the level of pollution it produces as a byproduct. Moreover, how severe should that penalty be?

Although the tar sands may hold 170bn barrels of oil, getting it out is tricky, complex, and messy. The operation in Canada's back country is already considered by many to be an ecological and environmental disaster of historic proportions:

Prominent scientists even warn that the impact of tar sands oil production on climate change could outstrip nearly all other known contributors.

The European Union is on the verge of classifying fuel that comes from Canada's wild tar sands as dirtier than other types, thereby making it more expensive over time. Canada is pleading with the EU and even going through intermediaries in the United Kingdom to water down the proposal or scrap it altogether, even though Canada currently exports no oil to Europe.  Canada has gone so far as to threaten to take its case to the WTO.

The fear is not of Europe itself, but a precedent-setting international domino effect. Canada, the country of great environmental beauty, may actually end up on the wrong side of the climate change debate. This could spell the end not only of Canada's resource-intensive economy, but also the economic driver that has held Canada high during the recently leaner economic times elsewhere. It is, in a sense, an existential crisis that Canada has drummed up, all on its own.

Cautious Optimism Amidst Elections and Violence in Pakistan

With former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif winning last week's elections, the future of the country remains unclear.

On the one hand, Sharif's succession to power will mark the rare democratic transfer of power in Pakistan.  Furthermore, Sharif ran a campaign promising economic revitalization in a country desperate for electricity and the resources to rebuild a struggling (possibly crumbling) economy.  Sharif's election also raises the specter of military détente and improved relations with India.

On the other hand, violent militant attacks continue to plague Pakistan.  On election day alone, more than 30 people were killed and more than 200 wounded by militant bombings and attacks.  Then, on the eve of a run-off election in her district, the vice president of the Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI, the party headed by former cricket player/celebrity Imran Khan), was murdered execution-style.  The idea of a major party's second-in-command being brutally murdered would be almost unfathomable in western democracies, yet it barely registers as a major news item.  The brazenness of such an attack on a party leader, moreover, may be a more ominous sign of Pakistan's stability than the scattered violence.

Incoming PM Sharif has a lot on his plate, yet one can only hope that a focus on economic revitalization will help promote stability in the country and the region at large.  Economic revitalization is not and should not be a separate issue from Indian relations; indeed, India appears ready to engage in cross-border transmission and pipeline projects that would go a long way toward easing Pakistan's crippling energy problems.  Given the large stakes, Mr. Sharif would do well to move swiftly.

Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria)

What has transpired in Syria over the past few years can only be described in two ways: both as a tragedy and as an embarrassment. A tragedy because a country pining for freedom has been devastated by war and devastation while its citizens huddle into refugee camps or are killed as collateral damage. An embarrassment because the world has stood by with covered eyes and ears, limiting any aid that may cut short the conflict, and just imagining a magical solution will help it end. And all because of politics - because Russia is still supportive of Assad, because Syria has limited natural resources, because no one wants to be performing regime change...

It seems that over the past six months or so, the conflict has crossed a broad, invisible line that will separate it from the level of medium-term resolvable (like the Balkans) to long-term potentially resolvable (like the Democratic Republic of Congo). This is also a line that separates the points where those inside the country can be trusted to where they cannot. The Syrian Civil War has arguably crossed that threshold.

Most evidently, the animosity and ferocity only continues to increase. Reports and videos circulate of (among other things) a rebel eating the heart of a government soldier, biochemical weapons use by both rebels and the government, and executions of prisoners of war, Meanwhile, the line the in sand that the United States drew regarding biochemical weapons use has turned to nothing more than a mirage, with reports as early as March, and more recent (and confirmed) reports being treated not as a reason to act now, but as a reason to investigate further. A vacuum of leadership is becoming ever more evident.

At this point, the likelihood that anyone in Syria currently on either side is a feasible post-conflict leader is questionable. Neither side can really be trusted to take charge and rule fairly and honestly. Moreover, the window that may have existed to tilt the balance may have closed long ago. Perhaps nothing short of a costly ground force, in human and physical terms, will change the current conflict path - and such an event is not likely to happen. Instead, the can is being kicked down the road, and another generation will wonder why a powder keg was allowed to ignite so easily and with such devastating consequences.

To Do What Feels Necessary

Reports early this morning indicated that Israel had struck inside Syria, though details were slim. At first, there was speculation that the Israelis had struck a chemical weapons site. This would have changed the dynamics of the Israel-Syria relationship, which remains in a technical state of war. Despite espousing concern over Syria's chemical weapons over the past month, Israel has not ventured into the conflict itself, likely at the behest of the United States, who belatedly continues to review and grow concerned with the atrocities inside Syria.

It seems, later reports indicate, that Israeli planes did not enter Syrian airspace (though they did enter Lebanese airspace) to conduct the airstrike. In fact, the target was another weapons convoy to Hizbullah, much like the previous strike in January. Therefore, in fact, as the day has gone on and the details have come out, this story has died down. It is not a new phase in the war, but Israel's continuance of doing what is necessary in order to keep itself secure.