Author Topic: The Wreck of BC  (Read 9868 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #375 on: March 29, 2018, 03:51:08 pm »
Of course not.  Just like the "deplorables" in the USA don't care that they are deplorable.


Going for a third time charm?  Sorry troll, not gonna work.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #376 on: March 30, 2018, 12:48:28 pm »
I like my fossil-fuel industry champions to be authentic.  What can I say?

Basically it seems like your position is that the NDP are better off being perpetually on the outside than to live in the real world and deal with political realities so that they can take part in setting the agenda. You seem to feel like implementing the carbon tax and emissions cap and phase-out of coal aren't worth having if you can't get your way on pipelines as well.   That's just not a realistic approach. 


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #377 on: March 30, 2018, 03:47:10 pm »
Basically it seems like your position is that the NDP are better off being perpetually on the outside than to live in the real world and deal with political realities so that they can take part in setting the agenda. You seem to feel like implementing the carbon tax and emissions cap and phase-out of coal aren't worth having if you can't get your way on pipelines as well.   That's just not a realistic approach. 


 -k

Partly correct.  NDP used to talk a good game but I think I'm switching to Greens both provincially and federally from here on in.  I used to consider it a waste of a vote but I'm starting to feel the same way about the NDP.  I have huge respect for Elizabeth May for getting arrested protesting KM and Andrew Weaver, as much as I don't like some of the things he says, seems to be the only one serious about the environment and housing.

What I don't like about this attitude of 'half-ass efforts from federal government and provincial NDP's are better than no effort' is that it's procrastinating.  I had a baby a little while ago and needed to get my butt back in shape.  I could say maybe I'll start skipping dessert and down the line I'll eat better and after that I'll start exercising but why wait?  Sure enough, 5 months later I'm there instead of it taking 2 years if I went at it at a slug level. 

No pain, no gain but in the long run it's worth it. 

Lastly, I feel more strongly about KM than I do some of the other projects because of the threat it poses to our waterways.  20 years ago was the time to act on climate change and the more every government mucks around 'waiting' the more I'm starting to give up on any kind of hope that anything will ever come of it.

But as you know, I'm very much for animal rights.  I don't eat them, I respect them and their lives.  We've never had this huge of shipments passing through our waters and we don't even know if we are capable of cleaning up a mess should something happen.

I don't want to risk the lives of all the animals living in this ecosystem just because we're too lazy to start putting some serious efforts (not half baked) into renewable sources of energy. 



Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #378 on: March 30, 2018, 08:51:40 pm »
What I don't like about this attitude of 'half-ass efforts from federal government and provincial NDP's are better than no effort' is that it's procrastinating. 

Yes, but you're a smart lady and you know that people have to get elected before they implement any kind of policy, half-ass or otherwise.   And you know that getting elected by going "whole-ass" (???) on environmental issues without accepting any compromise on economic issues is just not viable.  If angry screeching from people without political power could solve anything, all of the world's problems would have been solved by now.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #379 on: March 30, 2018, 09:30:44 pm »
Lastly, I feel more strongly about KM than I do some of the other projects because of the threat it poses to our waterways.

I see basically 3 pipeline projects to deep water ports as options: Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain, and Energy East. Churchill has been brought up as another possibility, but it is not really deep water and has serious winter challenges.

Northern Gateway seems the absolute worst of those possibilities because of the navigational challenges, especially through the Douglas Channel. I don't know if Prince Rupert was ever explored as an alternative to Kitimat, and what differnt challenges it may pose.

Personally I think Energy East and Trans Mountain face many environmental challenges so it is hard to say which is worse. Energy East is a much longer pipeline, the proposal was to re-purpose an old gas pipeline which I never liked, and does cross many waterways as well. As far as the deep water port, I see Saint John and Vancouver as having similar challenges. I automatically think salmon for BC fisheries, but I am sure there are a lot more. In the Bay of Fundy I think more about shell fish like scallops, clams, mussels. What I liked about Energy East is it could help address our domestic requirements, although that was not really the focus of the project which is part of the reason it failed.

Or are you suggesting no pipeline at all, and what does that imply?

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #380 on: March 31, 2018, 09:34:20 am »
Yes, but you're a smart lady and you know that people have to get elected before they implement any kind of policy, half-ass or otherwise.   And you know that getting elected by going "whole-ass" (???) on environmental issues without accepting any compromise on economic issues is just not viable.  If angry screeching from people without political power could solve anything, all of the world's problems would have been solved by now.

 -k

You're a pretty smart lady too.  One of the smartest I've ever read on the interwebs.

Why don't you tell me why our governments keep making commitments and goals if they're not 'viable'?

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #381 on: March 31, 2018, 09:54:41 am »
I see basically 3 pipeline projects to deep water ports as options: Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain, and Energy East. Churchill has been brought up as another possibility, but it is not really deep water and has serious winter challenges.

Northern Gateway seems the absolute worst of those possibilities because of the navigational challenges, especially through the Douglas Channel. I don't know if Prince Rupert was ever explored as an alternative to Kitimat, and what differnt challenges it may pose.

Personally I think Energy East and Trans Mountain face many environmental challenges so it is hard to say which is worse. Energy East is a much longer pipeline, the proposal was to re-purpose an old gas pipeline which I never liked, and does cross many waterways as well. As far as the deep water port, I see Saint John and Vancouver as having similar challenges. I automatically think salmon for BC fisheries, but I am sure there are a lot more. In the Bay of Fundy I think more about shell fish like scallops, clams, mussels. What I liked about Energy East is it could help address our domestic requirements, although that was not really the focus of the project which is part of the reason it failed.

Or are you suggesting no pipeline at all, and what does that imply?

Sorry Impact, I haven't read enough about the other pipelines like I have about KM.  I was living in Burnaby when talks first started and the protests were going on in one of my hiking/biking spots so I read up to find out what was going on. 

The part that resonated strongly with me was the fact that we don't really know how to clean it up.  I've read literature from proponents, but even they agree to that much; the only rebuttal is that the chances are very low.  I get that two people can read the same article and come up with two different conclusions, but for me 'low chance' is not good enough when considering all that is at stake.

Personally, I'm for scaling back transport of fossil-fuel in any waters, not increasing, but ultimately the people in the affected areas should also have a say.  If the other pipelines have as much local opposition as there is in this area, then I think their voices should be considered as well. 

It's what Trudeau said himself "governments grant permits, but ultimately it's communities that grant permission".

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #382 on: March 31, 2018, 11:27:48 am »
You're a pretty smart lady too.  One of the smartest I've ever read on the interwebs.

Why don't you tell me why our governments keep making commitments and goals if they're not 'viable'?

I think that if you look at the commitments and goals that have been made, you'll find they tend to be long-term and gradual in nature-- "half-ass" and "procrastination" as you put it.

I don't think anybody anywhere has gotten elected based on a "damn the economics, we have to do this RIGHT NOW!" platform.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #383 on: March 31, 2018, 11:36:03 am »
I thought Northern Gateway was always the worse option. Just getting to a spill would be very difficult and maybe even impossible in some places during winter. I seriously wonder if lower mainlanders would have been as vocal in their opposition had it been approved, even though the environmental risks were greater than KM.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #384 on: March 31, 2018, 11:51:46 am »
Scores of tankers transit Rosario Straight between the Gulf Islands and the San Juans every year on their way to Cherry Point WA. Without which, the BC lower mainland would be screwed. Aside from vehicle fuel, 60% of YVR's fuel comes from Cherry Point.

We would also be screwed without the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.

BC's single refinery supplies only 25-30% of the provinces gasoline, 25% of commercial diesel and 40% of YVR's jet fuel. Without pipelines and out of province refineries, Vancouver and its port couldn't exist.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #385 on: March 31, 2018, 12:00:39 pm »
  I have huge respect for Elizabeth May for getting arrested protesting KM and Andrew Weaver,

A cheap stunt which she called all the media about beforehand to make sure they were present and it impresses you?

Wow. Talk about low intellect voters.
"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 BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #386 on: March 31, 2018, 12:42:11 pm »
I think that if you look at the commitments and goals that have been made, you'll find they tend to be long-term and gradual in nature-- "half-ass" and "procrastination" as you put it.

I don't think anybody anywhere has gotten elected based on a "damn the economics, we have to do this RIGHT NOW!" platform.

 -k


The commitments that the government made had dates. 

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #387 on: March 31, 2018, 12:43:27 pm »
A cheap stunt which she called all the media about beforehand to make sure they were present and it impresses you?

Wow. Talk about low intellect voters.

Sure thing Ebenezer (minus the happy ending).

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #388 on: March 31, 2018, 12:50:32 pm »
Scores of tankers transit Rosario Straight between the Gulf Islands and the San Juans every year on their way to Cherry Point WA. Without which, the BC lower mainland would be screwed. Aside from vehicle fuel, 60% of YVR's fuel comes from Cherry Point.

We would also be screwed without the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.

BC's single refinery supplies only 25-30% of the provinces gasoline, 25% of commercial diesel and 40% of YVR's jet fuel. Without pipelines and out of province refineries, Vancouver and its port couldn't exist.

So let's plan for a future without and continue expanding for now?  Hmmm, I'm pretty sure a school grader can figure out the bad mathematics involved in that one.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #389 on: March 31, 2018, 12:53:33 pm »
So let's plan for a future without and continue expanding for now?  Hmmm, I'm pretty sure a school grader can figure out the bad mathematics involved in that one.

Without what? What's the matter with the math?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC