Author Topic: The Wreck of BC  (Read 4946 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4239
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #810 on: April 20, 2018, 03:50:15 am »
Such as?

I've previously stated the principal gains the NEP brought forward in its short existence

The NEP was a dud because ...

In fact the reason the NEP flopped had little to do with Lougheed, nothing to do with Joe Clark, and a whole lot to do with bad assumptions.

That very national infrastructure people are beaking off about would be getting built right now if Mr Horgan weren't attempting to waylay the project.

not a dud... didn't flop. If your sole determination on the rationale for NEP was the relative world oil price... but then again, you seem to have no problem with the earlier Eastern subsidization of Alberta's oil industry while whining about a shift to offset higher Eastern costs - go figure! Of course, prices rise and fall... it would be foolhardy to work to isolate Canada from that fluctuating price impact!  ;D As an aside, see self-determination and self-sufficiency... see Canadian ownership... why, gdamnit... see Canadian sovereignty and control of our own resources!

notwithstanding your complete failure in confusing oil and gas pipelines, that national strategy plan (some 35 year ago) was tailored for and positioned to work towards Canadian self-sufficiency and control; i.e. see national infrastructure opportunities well in advance of the current lobby interests (Mr. Horgan among those). Why... you wouldn't have Harper Conservatives pissing away a decade in doing absolutely nothing to promote pipelines - meaning lil' Jason Kenney wouldn't need to feign ignorance of his own participation in that Harper Conservative doNothingNess!   

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4239
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #811 on: April 20, 2018, 04:01:03 am »
I don;'t understand why so many people in BC don't want it.  That's the main reason? I don't know many details of this issue. Can't BC receive compensation so they benefit too?

72,000 miles of crude pipeline crisscrossing the US, i don't hear about a lot of major spills.  Or maybe there are??

the optics of tanker leaks prevail... the absence of legitimate scaled recovery results for dilbit sinking to the ocean floor prevail. Notwithstanding, of course, what significant expansions to tarsands output means when exported countries utilize the refined product... notwithstanding, of course, how that further extension of longer-term world reliance on fossil-fuels means... notwithstanding, of course, what influence exported tarsands product has on respective export countries (more) actively working to shift their own reliance away from fossil-fuels toward alternate energy sources... etc..

guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #812 on: April 20, 2018, 08:07:44 am »
There are remarkably few given the huge amount of pipe and most of them are cleaned up quickly. Spills used to be no-news events until the enviros started obsessing about them.
I'm not even against the pipeline, but the enviros starting obsessing because relying on the capitalistic earth rapers meant that
no safeguards and minimal or no clean up would be the goal.  Look at you, as representative: "Move along folks, nothing to see here" as sea levels rise and people relocate due to the effects of climate change.
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #813 on: April 20, 2018, 08:45:37 am »
I take it Waldo is anti NAFTA.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #814 on: April 20, 2018, 08:51:57 am »
I'm not even against the pipeline, but the enviros starting obsessing because relying on the capitalistic earth rapers meant that
no safeguards and minimal or no clean up would be the goal.  Look at you, as representative: "Move along folks, nothing to see here" as sea levels rise and people relocate due to the effects of climate change.

If you are so concerned about rising sea levels, why no concern about Vancouver being North America’s largest coal exporter? A lot of which is US produced thermal coal. No outrage about exporting US crap coal that produces 30% more CO2 than oil per ton.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #815 on: April 20, 2018, 09:09:28 am »
If you are so concerned about rising sea levels, why no concern about Vancouver being North America’s largest coal exporter? A lot of which is US produced thermal coal. No outrage about exporting US crap coal that produces 30% more CO2 than oil per ton.

Why your assumption that I'm not concerned about coal exports?   

My stance is that we have to move to greener alternatives, the sooner the better.  We are going to experience lots of effects from climate change, many challenging, but possibly some benefits.  While I think it's really important that we mitigate the damage we've already done, I recognize the difficulty of abruptly turning off the 'fossil fuel' tap.   If we do nothing at all, then I think it will essentially spell the end of our civilization, if not the extinction of humans altogether.   I think there is a middle ground between doing nothing and suddenly implementing "No more fossil fuels of any kind".  We have to get there, but doing so too abruptly is not likely to be successful.


Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #816 on: April 20, 2018, 09:18:16 am »
What is your middle ground because I don't think one exists for many activists.

I see no concern over coal exports being expressed by those who oppose Trans Mountain so vehemently for alleged environmental reasons. I think part of that is because it doesn't fit the agenda of their American supporters.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #817 on: April 20, 2018, 09:24:53 am »
What is your middle ground because I don't think one exists for many activists.
Implementing carbon taxes, additional taxes on heavy users of fossil fuel energy,  investing in green energy technologies, subsidizing consumer purchase of low energy\green products, ensuring any additional extraction and movement of fossil fuels is as earth-friendly as possible and gradually reducing those sources as green alternatives become more available.  It seems to me that this is already occuring, more or less, although I might be pushing a little harder against fossil fuels and for green energy.

What is your middle ground?


Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #818 on: April 20, 2018, 10:22:56 am »
Implementing carbon taxes, additional taxes on heavy users of fossil fuel energy,  investing in green energy technologies, subsidizing consumer purchase of low energy\green products, ensuring any additional extraction and movement of fossil fuels is as earth-friendly as possible and gradually reducing those sources as green alternatives become more available.  It seems to me that this is already occuring, more or less, although I might be pushing a little harder against fossil fuels and for green energy.

What is your middle ground?

Taxes can be self defeating if they make businesses uncompetitive. We don't live in a bubble. Will this tax revenue go into developing sources of alternate energy that are competitive with fossil fuels, or just go into the big pot like BC's carbon tax? I doubt the federal tax will be any different.

BC is in no position to criticize Alberta when it comes to the earth friendly extraction and movement of fossil fuels. Nor is it in a position to preach to others regarding CO2 emissions.

http://www.mining.com/top-10-british-columbias-biggest-mines-87979/


My middle ground doesn't include blocking other Canadians from selling their products to foreign markets while prospering by selling our own to those same markets.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 10:26:24 am by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #819 on: April 20, 2018, 10:25:40 am »
because it doesn't fit the agenda of their American supporters.

The American puppetmasters that are pro KM outweigh the anti KM ones 100:1

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #820 on: April 20, 2018, 10:28:38 am »
The real test is what would happen if Alberta sent synthetic crude instead of dilbit through the pipeline?

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #821 on: April 20, 2018, 10:38:51 am »
The American puppetmasters that are pro KM outweigh the anti KM ones 100:1

You really think all that support is from environmentalists? The US benefits by keeping Canada a captive supplier of oil.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #822 on: April 20, 2018, 10:58:08 am »
You really think all that support is from environmentalists? The US benefits by keeping Canada a captive supplier of oil.

Fair point, 20:1 then

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #823 on: April 20, 2018, 11:11:56 am »
I'm not even against the pipeline, but the enviros starting obsessing because relying on the capitalistic earth rapers meant that
no safeguards and minimal or no clean up would be the goal.  Look at you, as representative: "Move along folks, nothing to see here" as sea levels rise and people relocate due to the effects of climate change.
Why don't you take the time to learn about what the science actual says instead of dismissing my opinions because I don't buy into the endless doom and gloom propaganda. Is is the first of a five part post that goes over the scientific literature and discusses the complexity of the issue: https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/16/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-i-introduction/

As short quote that illustrates the complexity I talk about:
Quote
And in many locations, even if were somehow successful at reducing/eliminating the component of sea level rise associated with anthropogenic global warming, this would address only a small fraction of local sea level rise in many of the most vulnerable locations.

The focus on emissions reductions as some sort of solution to sea level rise (apart from any determination of cause) is distracting from developing better land use policies and coastal engineering practices.
I know you won't even try to read it because you are not interested in understanding the issues.
It is easier for you to simply assume that anyone who disputes the catastrophe narrative is an "earth raping denier".

« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 11:19:13 am by TimG »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #824 on: April 20, 2018, 11:17:10 am »
Fair point, 20:1 then
Americans don't care about Canadian oil anymore because they have enough of their own. The Americans interfering in Canadian politics are overwhelmingly on the environmentalist side because Canada gives them a convenient whipping boy that can be used to "promote their cause" without the political blowback.