SUN COLUMN: Radical Environmentalists Have Helped Putin

Vladimir Putin SecondStreet.org
President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, addresses the Russian military (photo: Shutterstock.com)

If you’re appalled by Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine, consider how radical environmentalists in Canada helped enable the dictator.

To begin, note that Russia is the third-largest producer of oil in the world and the second-largest producer of natural gas. Much of those resources it produces are exported; according to The Economist, Russia is the largest provider of natural gas in Europe. The United States imports 585,000 barrels of oil per day from Russia, and even Canada has spent a small fortune importing Russian oil over the past decade – $3.6 billion.

Another important point to take note of is that the oil and gas sector makes up about 10 to 25% of Russia’s economy. In other words, it’s enormous. Russia is highly dependent on this resource for its economic well-being, but is also very vulnerable if the world could somehow boycott or reduce how much it purchases from Russia.

This is where Canada could have come in – emphasis on “could have.”

Canada is the fourth-largest producer of both oil and natural gas in the world, but readers should note that most of our energy exports are sold to the United States. This is largely due to the fact that we don’t have enough pipelines to our coasts so shipping the resources beyond North America is extremely limited.

Of course, companies in Canada have tried building more pipeline, but radical environmentalists and governments have opposed these projects.

For instance, the proposed Energy East pipeline would have transported oil from Western Canada to Eastern Canada. This could have allowed Eastern Canada to reduce reliance on countries like Russia for oil, while allowing Canada to export more oil abroad. The federal government put up a blockade in front of this project.

Then there was the Northern Gateway project in British Columbia. It would have allowed Canada to ship oil from Alberta to nations outside of North America. The Trudeau government rejected this project too.

Finally, consider the Keystone XL pipeline. It would have transported more Canadian oil to the United States, helping the latter reduce reliance on countries like Russia. The Biden Administration cancelled that project – another “win” for radical environmentalists.

In terms of natural gas, our nation has faced a similar problem. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, there were five proposed projects to develop natural gas in Eastern Canada – none were built. Had any of those projects been supported by government, we could be exporting natural gas to Europe right now, reducing their reliance on Putin’s Russia.

In fact, our energy policies in Canada are so non-sensical, a carbon neutral natural gas project from Questerre has essentially been rejected by the Quebec government. In the meantime, Quebec continues to import natural gas from the United States.

One has to wonder how many of the environmental groups opposed to these projects in Canada were funded by Russia.

Many have raised concerns for years about how keeping Canada’s oil in the ground means the world is more dependent on oil from regimes like Putin’s Russia. Sadly, governments have sided with radical environmentalists and here we are – the chickens have come home to roost.

As the tanks roll into Ukraine and casualties pile up, Canadians should stop shaking their fists at their televisions and start shaking them at our own radical environmental movement. They’ve helped enable the dictator behind the invasion.

 

Colin Craig is the President of Canadian think tank SecondStreet.org. You can reach him at colin@secondstreet.org or follow him on Twitter (@colincraig1)

Column published in Sun newspapers (Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Edmonton) on February 28, 2022.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.