Headline: Canada's dirty oil needed on market: UN report
Almost all words on this headline took my attention because. The headline looks:
a) Contradictory: it speaks about “dirty oil” but adds the word “needed”; these words seem contradictory because we need something that we consider dirty.
b) Politically incorrect: it looks politically incorrect that today UN releases a report supporting the Canadian oil; nowadays, the global warming religion, the intolerance of radical groups, the ignorance of the crowd, the blindness of the politicians, the mercenary scientists, and the pressure of radical crowd conduct that this report seems without sense for a UN report.
c) In time: this UN report has a clear message for the world leaders in their discussion during the Copenhagen meeting on Climate Change next month.
a) I expected to find information related with the oil market trend and its relationship with oil sands. Also, I expected to find information about the real contamination of oil sands, but nothing related with the opium of the crowd: the GHG emission. Finally, I expected discussions and clarifications showing the common possible position that countries which belong to the International Energy Countries (the UN agency that release the report) could have in Copenhagen.
b) The article partially meets my expectations. It deals with some expected issues, but also it speaks about the taxation for CO2 emission to the Oil and Gas industry, which means an intermediate position and more of the same thing.
a) The article is designed for several audiences. First of all, it is addressed for the general public. It is written in a plain text without technical word or depth discussions, neither political nor technical.
b) The article is directed for several groups of general public. People will be attracted for this article due to the contradiction (dirty oil needed). In addition, it is a subject that we will hear more and more till the end of the year, when the Copenhagen UN meeting concludes.