Oh damn... I'm tired...but let me try to explain...
Let's say the right wing of Canada wanted to rape the plains of ...say, Alberta...the "Texas" of Canada, and rip off layers and layers of soil and substrate, destroying thousands and thousands of pristine lands and forests using precipitious amounts of natural resources to eek out a bit of shale oil.
Let's say the effort would never be accomplished without tugging at the heartstrings of those other residents of Canada...you know, those far more unaware of their agenda...by picturing their plans as something all warm and fuzzy and embracing the minds of amateur tree huggers while simultaneously tickling the nationalistic, bigoted fantasies of their own islamophobic followers by creating blogs and creatively worded letters to the editor of local newspapers.
Let's give it a name that would placate the minds of both groups in an attempt to make them think they're doing the right thing.
Let's name it "ETHICAL"!
hehe.
you do raise a good question tho.. how much 'resource' (natural and Saudi supplied) do we use to get to the shale? if it's a 10 to 1 ratio (10 be resources/1 being shale) then really, what's the point other than propaganda-like boastfulness of trying to become 'green'..
