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

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #825 on: April 20, 2018, 11:24:50 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??

In fact there are 2.4 MILLION miles of pipeline crisscrossing the US and about 850,000 kilometers of pipeline in Canada.

Why the fuss? Because some years ago the progressive/environmental movement decided Alberta's 'tar sands' were a threat to the planet. Remember that idiot who said if the oil sands continued to go ahead it was 'game over' for the planet? They have been doing their level best since then to stop them anyway they can. That includes hemming in Alberta by paying millions and millions in organizational funding and legal fees to every environmental and native group in Canada willing to oppose them and fight them and fight any pipelines for them to ship their product. Most of that money comes from the US - the same place that stupid 'game over' statement originated.

Meanwhile, Canada's contribution to world CO2 is about 1.7%, and the oil sands contribute, I believe 12% of that.
Meanwile, India increased its CO2 last year by effectively the same as all of Canada's CO2 emissions (or 8 oil sands) and will do the same this year. But facts don't matter to these people.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 11:33:52 am by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #826 on: April 20, 2018, 11:26:15 am »
Americans don't care about Canadian oil anymore because they have enough of their own.

It is not just about oil, money is the dominant factor. There are many Americans invested in Kinder Morgan, along with British, Swiss, German and Japanese

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #827 on: April 20, 2018, 11:31:55 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.

And what percentage of your own income are you willing to sacrifice for all this - bearing in mind it will have NO impact on global warming whatsoever?
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #828 on: April 20, 2018, 11:34:36 am »
It is not just about oil, money is the dominant factor. There are many Americans invested in Kinder Morgan, along with British, Swiss, German and Japanese


KM is in the transportation business, it is not an oil producer.

Canadians invest in foreign and multinational corporations as well.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 11:38:25 am by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4240
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #829 on: April 20, 2018, 11:34:41 am »
In fact there are 2.4 MILLION miles of pipeline crisscrossing the US and about 850,000 kilometers of pipeline in Canada.

Why the fuss? Because some years ago the progressive/environmental movement decided Alberta's 'tar sands' were a threat to the planet. Remember that idiot who said if the oil sands continued to go ahead it was 'game over' for the planet? They have been doing their level best since then to stop them anyway they can. That includes hemming in Alberta by paying millions and millions in organizational funding and legal fees to every environmental and native group in Canada willing to oppose them and fight them. Most of that money comes from the US - the same place that stupid 'game over' statement originated.

notwithstanding you have a mental block on the subject, let the waldo **** on your blockage one more time! The concern is "unfettered" tarsands expansion... up the ying-yang - and what that means for continued reliance on fossil-fuels and resulting climate change impacts. KXL will draw out 890,000 barrels per day... Trans Mountain another 600,000. Of course, BigOil has further aspirations for even more!

Meanwhile, Canada's contribution to world CO2 is about 1.7%, and the oil sands contribute, I believe 8% of that.

Meanwile, India increased its CO2 last year by effectively the same as all of Canada's CO2 emissions (or 12 oil sands) and will do the same this year. But facts don't matter to these people.

the day you start quoting the downstream emissions impact of tarsands sludge within export countries... will be the day you begin to take on any sense of legitimate participation in any of these related discussions.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4240
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #830 on: April 20, 2018, 11:39:58 am »
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.

As short quote that illustrates the complexity I talk about: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".

I trust member 'dia' won't follow your "go-fetch" from 'crazy Aunt Judy'... yet again, your "blog science" does not rule/prevail!  ;D

rather than play 'go fetch' presuming to make members read 5 fricken' doses of that fake skeptic/denier's blog, if you have something relevant to say... then say it - and provide legitimate substantiation to that end.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #831 on: April 20, 2018, 12:23:40 pm »
Quote

the day you start quoting the downstream emissions impact of tarsands sludge within export countries... will be the day you begin to take on any sense of legitimate participation in any of these related discussions.

Maybe you should do the same for BC coal exports. Speaking of legitimate participation.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #832 on: April 20, 2018, 12:32:57 pm »
I trust member 'dia' won't follow your "go-fetch" from 'crazy Aunt Judy'... yet again, your "blog science" does not rule/prevail!
This is a perfect example of how the "consensus" is enforced in climate science. Instead of addressing the carefully reasoned arguments presented by people with scientific credentials in the appropriate fields in question you call them names. Name calling is easy because it does not require thought and means you don't need to deal with uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

I will take climate science seriously when and only when I see evidence that the consensus enforcers take the time to actually read dissenting opinions and acknowledge where the dissenters have valid points even if they disagree with the conclusions. As long as the consensus enforcers insist on vilifying dissenters and focus on "debunking" dissenting claims then nothing they say has any credibility.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4240
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #833 on: April 20, 2018, 12:45:53 pm »
Maybe you should do the same for BC coal exports. Speaking of legitimate participation.

no worries - help a brother out! Start with segmenting out the source of that coal (U.S. versus Canada)... then move on up to distinguish between thermal and metallurgical coal. Let's start there, hey! Please proceed Governor...
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4240
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #834 on: April 20, 2018, 12:52:01 pm »
This is a perfect example of how the "consensus" is enforced in climate science. Instead of addressing the carefully reasoned arguments presented by people with scientific credentials in the appropriate fields in question you call them names. Name calling is easy because it does not require thought and means you don't need to deal with uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

I will take climate science seriously when and only when I see evidence that the consensus enforcers take the time to actually read dissenting opinions and acknowledge where the dissenters have valid points even if they disagree with the conclusions. As long as the consensus enforcers insist on vilifying dissenters and focus on "debunking" dissenting claims then nothing they say has any credibility.

says the guy, you, who ignores the consensus in favour of self-serving agenda driven "blog scientists"! You can't be serious if you actually expect anyone to follow your 'go-fetch'. Like I said, if you actually have something to say, say it... and provide legitimate substantiation. I'm shocked you have such an aversion to peer review... and, of course, peer response challenge. Shocked I tells ya - shocked! (as for the name, that's one well earned/deserved and long-standing - sorry to rain on your (and Republican deniers favourite go-to for U.S. Congressional committee testimoney))

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #835 on: April 20, 2018, 01:05:05 pm »
no worries - help a brother out! Start with segmenting out the source of that coal (U.S. versus Canada)... then move on up to distinguish between thermal and metallurgical coal. Let's start there, hey! Please proceed Governor...

Links have already been posted on BC’s largest mines, their revenues and the fact Vancouver is NA’s largest coal exporting port. To quote someone called Waldo, “go fetch”

"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8466
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #836 on: April 20, 2018, 01:16:30 pm »
This is a perfect example of how the "consensus" is enforced in climate science. Instead of addressing the carefully reasoned arguments presented by people with scientific credentials in the appropriate fields in question you call them names. Name calling is easy because it does not require thought and means you don't need to deal with uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

I will take climate science seriously when and only when I see evidence that the consensus enforcers take the time to actually read dissenting opinions and acknowledge where the dissenters have valid points even if they disagree with the conclusions. As long as the consensus enforcers insist on vilifying dissenters and focus on "debunking" dissenting claims then nothing they say has any credibility.

And in the meantime you will ignore the vast majority of credentialed scientists in the field who conclude AGW is real and man made. Don't worry, it shouldn't take you long to read the dissenting claims.

"Geologist James Lawrence Powell did a similar if less painstaking examination of the abstracts of 24,210 peer-reviewed climate papers published in 2013 and 2014 and found only five (0.021 percent) that "in my judgment explicitly rejected AGW."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #837 on: April 20, 2018, 01:28:55 pm »
the day you start quoting the downstream emissions impact of tarsands sludge within export countries... will be the day you begin to take on any sense of legitimate participation in any of these related discussions.

So those talking about downstream emissions impact of BC coal are right? Of course those are the same ones who ignore downstream emissions of tarsands sludge.

guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #838 on: April 20, 2018, 01:29:09 pm »
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.

That really wasn't your "middle ground", it was a rebuttal about taxes, with some bitching about BC thrown in.  Do you want to try again, ot should we just go with you don't have a middle ground?

guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #839 on: April 20, 2018, 01:44:01 pm »
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.

I think we have had a couple of actual conversations and I did look at some links you provided.  I was not entirely persuaded but some of what I previously believed was modified, mostly towards the notion that climate change is not a guaranteed catastrophe.   However, I still bbeliev it is a very serious issue that we must address.

In the meantime, you have failed to exhibit any desire to meet anyone else even partway; or listen to what they say or any indication that you give any credence to what the majority of scientists say.  You dismiss it all with "alarmists" and "they're all lying to get papers published, only my guys have the right of it."   

So basically I think we've gone as far as we can towards a "meeting of the mind" so to speak.