How is it socialism? We are in debt to the big private banks because of socialism. All the social programs cost money and if you give someone enough to live on they feel no need to work for it. If you and I all had 500 people in a commune and we all grew our own food and everyone had a right to it, what do you think would happen? Some of us would work hard, some would work less and some not at all. Yet we all have a right to the harvest. Modern socialism is the same except we go to work, we pay our taxes. Some people work more, and pay more, some work less and pay less and some don't work at all. But everyone has a "right" to a certain standard of living. Do they? Or do they have to work for it?
Victoria is talking about the people who work for it not getting fucked over, not the lazy who do not want to work for it. That's my take anyways.
Here in America, any attempt to analyze, criticize, regulate or control any financial organization is labelled as a socialist action.
We are not that socialist up here in the north, most likely the only other social program we got that you don't have is universal health care. No one is getting wealthy off, welfare, unemployment insurance, there pensions from the government. Our government up here in the north are sly bastards...they gear programs towards certain people that they feel will generate the most likely odds to win the next election...hell of away to run a country, but its been happening like that for far too long.
And what is it about our current majority govt that was so sly to get them in power. What programs have they geared towards people? I hope ABC is not the answer.
Easy...23 billion bribe towards families, target tax cuts to certain income groups...on and on, the current government is conservative light...thats all we do switch between conservatives and liberals, what a fine job they've done.
What I have said all along, it doesn't matter. Politicians are all on the take. Trudeau is making a stronger middle class alright. Of course, not by lifting the lower class into the middle but by dragging the people who have almost clawed their way out of the middle back in by taxing the shit out of them. Brilliant. They said the term "middle class" 113 times in the budget speech. Strive for the middle Canada!!
Not to mention the targeted EI to certain hard hit areas, not here in Southern Ontario, we've been dealing with the collapse of manufacturing for the last 10 years...I did not think he was like our current liberal government, but he's just the same. Like I've said the people who voted him in got what they wanted out of that budget...whats missing your budget deficit by 20 billion, they need to hire accountants at the liberal headquarters.
We need a new national party...imo...one that would represent all Canadians...whether they voted for them or not, but thats just a dream.
well ... he promised within a year some action on electoral reform ... minority gov'ts would probably serve us best ...
yes he did...but he's already ruled out a referendum on the issue. Do you trust him to be the one to guide us through electoral reform? My opinion, it's our country, the politicians can have there little committees on electoral reform, put together 3 plans for electoral reform, let the people decide...simple as that.
ya ... not sure you read the thread on POTUS for a day ... i basically said i would institute some online means of voicing opinions on issues ... maybe not necessarily referendum but a means to poll the public ...
having said that - it's electoral reform ... the proof will be in the pudding ... anything that allows for minority representation and doesn't force us to vote strategically will be a major improvement ...
any electoral reforms should be decided by the people...not the politicians
Well our majority govt was decided by the people, for the people. And our majority govt was voted in with a promise for electoral reform. Our majority is liberal I guess.
This guy makes so much sense. A well written column. If anyone can argue this point I would love to hear how.
what are your thoughts on this article? ...
are you in favour of banning saudi oil? maybe ban trade with Israel, China, Indonesia, etc?
I'm not sure what Israel, China and Indonesia have to do with anything. I'm not in favour of banning Saudi oil. But I am in favour of using our own oil as opposed to theirs. How does this not make sense to people? Why not enrich our own citizens with money from oil as opposed to Saudi princes; a corrupt regime who beheads people daily? While we should look for alternatives to fossil fuels (strictly for economic diversity), isn't it prudent to make money off the resource now while we can? If in fifty years we do not need oil (highly doubt it, but let's just say for arguments sake) then we will have diversified our economy to whatever "clean" energy source the world has moved to.
The article has many more points in it, including Obama's blatant hypocrisy when it comes to Keystone.
I just wish someone could give me one good reason to block an energy east pipeline. Why is it alright to bring a half a million barrels of crude per day from the Middle East when we have our own here? Is it better for the environment to ship it across the ocean (those oil tankers don't have sails)? Is it better for our economy to give our money to Saudi Arabia for oil when we have our own? Is it not obvious our friends in the US are securing their own oil supply (Alaska)?
For some reason, Canadians are so worried about the environment we are willing to bigger up our own economy. Trudeau is pro-oilsands at least. If he would actually do something about that it would be great. He is the next Mr. Dithers. He has done nothing and will not do anything. He is more worried about the populist opinion than doing what is right for all Canadians. He's the homecoming queen.
the article suggests we should ban saudi oil because of their human rights record ... not sure how you missed that ...
if ultimately all you care about is justifying continued extraction of oil from the tar sands - then this article is not really the best to highlight this ...
also, you position that people who are against energy east but are ok importing crude from overseas is also flawed ... pretty sure many who oppose energy east are also opposed to crude imports ... it's pretty simple really - if you consider global warming to be a major crisis like many environmentalists do - then continuing to extract oil from a place that results in massive environmental consequences does not make sense ... milking the oil sands for all its worth for short term gain is short-sighted and is only done by people who do not care for the future ...
I agree that the entire Western world should ban Saudi oil because of their human rights record. Maybe that would force them to jump from the dark ages into the 21st as far as that goes.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
the article suggests we should ban saudi oil because of their human rights record ... not sure how you missed that ...
if ultimately all you care about is justifying continued extraction of oil from the tar sands - then this article is not really the best to highlight this ...
also, you position that people who are against energy east but are ok importing crude from overseas is also flawed ... pretty sure many who oppose energy east are also opposed to crude imports ... it's pretty simple really - if you consider global warming to be a major crisis like many environmentalists do - then continuing to extract oil from a place that results in massive environmental consequences does not make sense ... milking the oil sands for all its worth for short term gain is short-sighted and is only done by people who do not care for the future ...
The article was not suggesting we ban Saudi oil because of their human rights record, but asking why we would economically shoot ourselves in the foot and buy theirs and make them rich despite the awful human rights record instead of producing our own ethically and benefitting our own economy. Not sure how you missed that...
My position is not flawed. If you are against energy east and use oil products (show me someone whose life does not depend on oil and I'm sure they aren't on this forum because they wouldn't own a computer) then you are either blind to the reality of where your oil actually comes from or really do not care about the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia among other OPEC nations.
The oilsands are not the major emitters of the horrible carbon (which is actually carbon dioxide and is natural to the earth). Also, we do produce oil in other ways, it is bizarre the enviro-left immediately brings up the oilsands as they can use the "carbon" argument. In fact Canada is small potatoes when it comes to the "greenhouse gas emissions). The oilsands have become a scapegoat and it is politically motivated. Interestingly, everyone's hero Justax Trudeau is pro-oilsands.
I agree that the entire Western world should ban Saudi oil because of their human rights record. Maybe that would force them to jump from the dark ages into the 21st as far as that goes.
Well said. It is why the US is fracking and will extract that Alaskan oil. They WANT to be energy independent. The Saudis and other OPEC nations are over producing trying to lower the oil to a point where it will kill the North American oil production. It isn't working. Canada should be following the US lead, but of course we lack the courageous leadership required to make unpopular decisions, like the Energy East pipeline.
the article suggests we should ban saudi oil because of their human rights record ... not sure how you missed that ...
if ultimately all you care about is justifying continued extraction of oil from the tar sands - then this article is not really the best to highlight this ...
also, you position that people who are against energy east but are ok importing crude from overseas is also flawed ... pretty sure many who oppose energy east are also opposed to crude imports ... it's pretty simple really - if you consider global warming to be a major crisis like many environmentalists do - then continuing to extract oil from a place that results in massive environmental consequences does not make sense ... milking the oil sands for all its worth for short term gain is short-sighted and is only done by people who do not care for the future ...
The article was not suggesting we ban Saudi oil because of their human rights record, but asking why we would economically shoot ourselves in the foot and buy theirs and make them rich despite the awful human rights record instead of producing our own ethically and benefitting our own economy. Not sure how you missed that...
My position is not flawed. If you are against energy east and use oil products (show me someone whose life does not depend on oil and I'm sure they aren't on this forum because they wouldn't own a computer) then you are either blind to the reality of where your oil actually comes from or really do not care about the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia among other OPEC nations.
The oilsands are not the major emitters of the horrible carbon (which is actually carbon dioxide and is natural to the earth). Also, we do produce oil in other ways, it is bizarre the enviro-left immediately brings up the oilsands as they can use the "carbon" argument. In fact Canada is small potatoes when it comes to the "greenhouse gas emissions). The oilsands have become a scapegoat and it is politically motivated. Interestingly, everyone's hero Justax Trudeau is pro-oilsands.
really!?? ... you're argument for continuing to kill the planet is that carbon dioxide is natural to the earth!? ... how is one supposed to have a discussion when someone says that? ...
these we need oil and therefore we should continue to pollute our air and poison our rivers are so sad ... the argument is so lazy and is devoid of any critical thinking whatsoever ...
China has a horrible human rights record so should we not buy anything that has any connection to China? What about India? I find it laughable that someone wants to support oil sands extraction by using human rights ... did you know there are human rights violations occurring as a result of the tar sands? ... go check out amnesty international and read up on the first nations in alberta ...
- we are not killing the planet, the planet will be fine. It may rid itself of the disease... Humans. But I am not someone who thinks humans will destroy the earth. It's preposterous.
- my argument is not lazy and devoid of critical thinking... Your rants lack fact or any thought provoking points. Those who throw stones in glass houses...
- I try not to buy products from China.. It is difficult however. But you are comparing apples to oranges. China and India produce products we don't necessarily produce. We CAN produce oil, why should we buy it from somewhere else? You continue to argue but do not answer th fundamental question. Whether it's from a human rights violator or the US it doesn't make any sense to not produce our own resources and buy them from ourselves instead of buying them from someone else.
- the human rights violations in the tar sands you are talking about is the high rate of bile duct cancer in the Cree and Chipyewan Indian bands near lake Athabasca. I know more than you about that sir. Why? Because I married a lady from Fort Chipyewan. There are concerns... But many of those First Nations people also appreciate the economic advantages of the oilsands (worked with many of them). I don't need to read amnesty international... I have been to Fort Chip, Fort Smith many times. Know a lot of people in Fort McKay. Don't believe everything that you breed, you'll get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve, so shave your face with some mace in the dark, burnin all your food stamps and burnin down a trailer park.
ok ... so, the fact the planet will ultimately survive while much of life on it suffers is of little consequence to you?
dude ... the "we need oil therefore let's pollute the air and poison our water" is a lazy and fed position ... it lacks any objective thought ... if you use that as your basis of further tar sands development - then it has no merit ...
give me some things china produces that we can't? ... the only reason we buy things from china is we don't want to pay a billion dollars for an iphone ...
to answer your fundamental question - the reason why we shouldn't continue to extract as much oil out of the tar sands is because it is a net negative for us and the world ... it's short term gains for long term losses ... it takes 3 times the emissions to extract tar sands oil than conventional oil ... and that's not even talking about the crazy amounts of water and electricty (which in alberta is often coal) it needs ... extracting oil from the tar sands is like growing mangoes in the yukon ... it can be done but it's not efficient or reasonable ...
as for the human rights stuff ... you may have married someone from there but I also know first hand that relationships with first nations is more complex and that while yes, they appreciate the economic opportunities - it comes with a price and big oil, similar to mining, are just using these opportunities to exploit ... it's the same story across the country ...
It should be obvious to all that the human race does not need oil, we lived thousands of years without oil in great quantities. The problem...people are not willing to give up modern conveniences that using oil has given us, and I believe a great many are not willing to pay a great deal more to use alternatives.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
It should be obvious to all that the human race does not need oil, we lived thousands of years without oil in great quantities. The problem...people are not willing to give up modern conveniences that using oil has given us, and I believe a great many are not willing to pay a great deal more to use alternatives.
Well it's not just about convenience anymore. It's about the entire world's economic stability, namely when it comes to manufacturing. I don't think the goal should be to give up convenience, and in doing so to destroy the global economy. The goal is to find alternatives to using oil so that we don't have to give up either of those two things.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It should be obvious to all that the human race does not need oil, we lived thousands of years without oil in great quantities. The problem...people are not willing to give up modern conveniences that using oil has given us, and I believe a great many are not willing to pay a great deal more to use alternatives.
I'm definitely not interested in giving up modern conveniences. I'm glad we've made medical advances allowing us to eradicate plagues. I'm glad i have a solid roof over my head, and can stay comfortable year around. I'm glad it takes a couple of hours rather than weeks to travel to family. I'm glad I don't have to stockpile a harvest and hunt my own meat, and that I have access to food year around. This seems like some sort of a weird nostalgia trip for a much less hopeful time. Humans may have lived for thousands of years without oil, but it isn't any life I'm interested in.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
It should be obvious to all that the human race does not need oil, we lived thousands of years without oil in great quantities. The problem...people are not willing to give up modern conveniences that using oil has given us, and I believe a great many are not willing to pay a great deal more to use alternatives.
I'm definitely not interested in giving up modern conveniences. I'm glad we've made medical advances allowing us to eradicate plagues. I'm glad i have a solid roof over my head, and can stay comfortable year around. I'm glad it takes a couple of hours rather than weeks to travel to family. I'm glad I don't have to stockpile a harvest and hunt my own meat, and that I have access to food year around. This seems like some sort of a weird nostalgia trip for a much less hopeful time. Humans may have lived for thousands of years without oil, but it isn't any life I'm interested in.
Lol, ditto. And there is no need to. We just need to use advanced technology (a great modern convenience!).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It should be obvious to all that the human race does not need oil, we lived thousands of years without oil in great quantities. The problem...people are not willing to give up modern conveniences that using oil has given us, and I believe a great many are not willing to pay a great deal more to use alternatives.
Well it's not just about convenience anymore. It's about the entire world's economic stability, namely when it comes to manufacturing. I don't think the goal should be to give up convenience, and in doing so to destroy the global economy. The goal is to find alternatives to using oil so that we don't have to give up either of those two things.
I agree...but if those alternative do not offer a competitive price point I just don't see the people giving much care.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
ok ... so, the fact the planet will ultimately survive while much of life on it suffers is of little consequence to you?
dude ... the "we need oil therefore let's pollute the air and poison our water" is a lazy and fed position ... it lacks any objective thought ... if you use that as your basis of further tar sands development - then it has no merit ...
give me some things china produces that we can't? ... the only reason we buy things from china is we don't want to pay a billion dollars for an iphone ...
to answer your fundamental question - the reason why we shouldn't continue to extract as much oil out of the tar sands is because it is a net negative for us and the world ... it's short term gains for long term losses ... it takes 3 times the emissions to extract tar sands oil than conventional oil ... and that's not even talking about the crazy amounts of water and electricty (which in alberta is often coal) it needs ... extracting oil from the tar sands is like growing mangoes in the yukon ... it can be done but it's not efficient or reasonable ...
as for the human rights stuff ... you may have married someone from there but I also know first hand that relationships with first nations is more complex and that while yes, they appreciate the economic opportunities - it comes with a price and big oil, similar to mining, are just using these opportunities to exploit ... it's the same story across the country ...
I didn't say it wasn't of consequence to me. Once again an ideological enviro-left leaning poster puts words in my mouth. All I did was correct what I believe is a misnomer that we will "destroy the planet". Humans are delusional if they believe that.
The fact we need oil and have a resource and should provide what we all use is not "lazy and fed position and it does not lack objective thought". Simply saying we must just stop producing oil completely is. An objective thought is to continue to produce while making the oil producers continue to improve their environmental performance (they are).
Your argument on the efficiency of extracting oilsands is moot. It is profitable (when oil is at a better price). Pipelines are the new enviro-scapegoat. It was tailings ponds, before that clear cutting, fracking, yada yada yada. It's the flavour of the day. It gets old and tiring. I am a health safety and EVIRONMENTAL consultant. I have witnessed several industries (including oil) commitment to the environment.
All industries I've worked in make it a TOP priority to ensure relationships with First Nations is taken seriously. Most have entire business groups devoted to the relationships. Enough with calling all industry "evil" and "exploiters". It is old, tired and an opinion not based in fact.
It should be obvious to all that the human race does not need oil, we lived thousands of years without oil in great quantities. The problem...people are not willing to give up modern conveniences that using oil has given us, and I believe a great many are not willing to pay a great deal more to use alternatives.
I'm definitely not interested in giving up modern conveniences. I'm glad we've made medical advances allowing us to eradicate plagues. I'm glad i have a solid roof over my head, and can stay comfortable year around. I'm glad it takes a couple of hours rather than weeks to travel to family. I'm glad I don't have to stockpile a harvest and hunt my own meat, and that I have access to food year around. This seems like some sort of a weird nostalgia trip for a much less hopeful time. Humans may have lived for thousands of years without oil, but it isn't any life I'm interested in.
^^^^^
Someone who gets it. I don't want to live those thousands of years they had to live without Pearl Jam! Don't think they would have been as good without oil and the products it creates. And it would have been a long walk to see them.
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
ok ... so, the fact the planet will ultimately survive while much of life on it suffers is of little consequence to you?
dude ... the "we need oil therefore let's pollute the air and poison our water" is a lazy and fed position ... it lacks any objective thought ... if you use that as your basis of further tar sands development - then it has no merit ...
give me some things china produces that we can't? ... the only reason we buy things from china is we don't want to pay a billion dollars for an iphone ...
to answer your fundamental question - the reason why we shouldn't continue to extract as much oil out of the tar sands is because it is a net negative for us and the world ... it's short term gains for long term losses ... it takes 3 times the emissions to extract tar sands oil than conventional oil ... and that's not even talking about the crazy amounts of water and electricty (which in alberta is often coal) it needs ... extracting oil from the tar sands is like growing mangoes in the yukon ... it can be done but it's not efficient or reasonable ...
as for the human rights stuff ... you may have married someone from there but I also know first hand that relationships with first nations is more complex and that while yes, they appreciate the economic opportunities - it comes with a price and big oil, similar to mining, are just using these opportunities to exploit ... it's the same story across the country ...
I didn't say it wasn't of consequence to me. Once again an ideological enviro-left leaning poster puts words in my mouth. All I did was correct what I believe is a misnomer that we will "destroy the planet". Humans are delusional if they believe that.
The fact we need oil and have a resource and should provide what we all use is not "lazy and fed position and it does not lack objective thought". Simply saying we must just stop producing oil completely is. An objective thought is to continue to produce while making the oil producers continue to improve their environmental performance (they are).
Your argument on the efficiency of extracting oilsands is moot. It is profitable (when oil is at a better price). Pipelines are the new enviro-scapegoat. It was tailings ponds, before that clear cutting, fracking, yada yada yada. It's the flavour of the day. It gets old and tiring. I am a health safety and EVIRONMENTAL consultant. I have witnessed several industries (including oil) commitment to the environment.
All industries I've worked in make it a TOP priority to ensure relationships with First Nations is taken seriously. Most have entire business groups devoted to the relationships. Enough with calling all industry "evil" and "exploiters". It is old, tired and an opinion not based in fact.
dude ... you are actually on this forum discussing semantics!? ... "jenny's gonna die when she hears the news" ... "well, she won't actually die" ... haha ... I tell you that we are gonna destroy the planet and your response is that the planet will survive - do you not get how that makes you look in presenting any reasonable counter!?
first point ... you are basing oilsands extraction based on profitability ... that's not what we are talking about ... we are talking about sustainability and it's consequences to life on this planet which is not accounted for ... second, tarsands is nowhere near profitable without the massive subsidies the industry gets ... think about it ... a L of gas is like cheaper than 1 L of bottled water ... how is that possible!?? ...
i've heard all the PR surrounding both commitment to environment and first nations ... it's a load of crock ... all the investigative journalists that have gone in have all proven that false ... we know how these industries work ... it's why the harper gov't muzzled scientists ... if it wasn't for a industry friendly conservative provincial and federal gov't - the oilsands would be exposed for what it really is ...
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… asshole.”
- GEORGE CARLIN
sad ... and you're an environmental consultant ... it's no wonder you got the job working with these industries ...
I agree with George Carlin...the earth will likely survive. People might eventually go extinct at some point, does it really matter if we go extinct, let the earth spin uninhabited for another billion years and heal itself. People have such huge ego's thinking they'll ever fix whats wrong with this planet...because people are whats wrong with this planet.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I agree with George Carlin...the earth will likely survive. People might eventually go extinct at some point, does it really matter if we go extinct, let the earth spin uninhabited for another billion years and heal itself. People have such huge ego's thinking they'll ever fix whats wrong with this planet...because people are whats wrong with this planet.
so, all forms of life should suffer for the arrogance and stupidity of people?
Comments
having said that - it's electoral reform ... the proof will be in the pudding ... anything that allows for minority representation and doesn't force us to vote strategically will be a major improvement ...
You can bank on that.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
And our majority govt was voted in with a promise for electoral reform.
Our majority is liberal I guess.
This guy makes so much sense. A well written column. If anyone can argue this point I would love to hear how.
Clearly this article is written by a racist.
are you in favour of banning saudi oil? maybe ban trade with Israel, China, Indonesia, etc?
I'm not in favour of banning Saudi oil. But I am in favour of using our own oil as opposed to theirs. How does this not make sense to people?
Why not enrich our own citizens with money from oil as opposed to Saudi princes; a corrupt regime who beheads people daily?
While we should look for alternatives to fossil fuels (strictly for economic diversity), isn't it prudent to make money off the resource now while we can? If in fifty years we do not need oil (highly doubt it, but let's just say for arguments sake) then we will have diversified our economy to whatever "clean" energy source the world has moved to.
The article has many more points in it, including Obama's blatant hypocrisy when it comes to Keystone.
I just wish someone could give me one good reason to block an energy east pipeline. Why is it alright to bring a half a million barrels of crude per day from the Middle East when we have our own here?
Is it better for the environment to ship it across the ocean (those oil tankers don't have sails)?
Is it better for our economy to give our money to Saudi Arabia for oil when we have our own?
Is it not obvious our friends in the US are securing their own oil supply (Alaska)?
For some reason, Canadians are so worried about the environment we are willing to bigger up our own economy. Trudeau is pro-oilsands at least. If he would actually do something about that it would be great.
He is the next Mr. Dithers. He has done nothing and will not do anything. He is more worried about the populist opinion than doing what is right for all Canadians. He's the homecoming queen.
if ultimately all you care about is justifying continued extraction of oil from the tar sands - then this article is not really the best to highlight this ...
also, you position that people who are against energy east but are ok importing crude from overseas is also flawed ... pretty sure many who oppose energy east are also opposed to crude imports ... it's pretty simple really - if you consider global warming to be a major crisis like many environmentalists do - then continuing to extract oil from a place that results in massive environmental consequences does not make sense ... milking the oil sands for all its worth for short term gain is short-sighted and is only done by people who do not care for the future ...
The article was not suggesting we ban Saudi oil because of their human rights record, but asking why we would economically shoot ourselves in the foot and buy theirs and make them rich despite the awful human rights record instead of producing our own ethically and benefitting our own economy. Not sure how you missed that...
My position is not flawed. If you are against energy east and use oil products (show me someone whose life does not depend on oil and I'm sure they aren't on this forum because they wouldn't own a computer) then you are either blind to the reality of where your oil actually comes from or really do not care about the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia among other OPEC nations.
The oilsands are not the major emitters of the horrible carbon (which is actually carbon dioxide and is natural to the earth). Also, we do produce oil in other ways, it is bizarre the enviro-left immediately brings up the oilsands as they can use the "carbon" argument. In fact Canada is small potatoes when it comes to the "greenhouse gas emissions). The oilsands have become a scapegoat and it is politically motivated.
Interestingly, everyone's hero Justax Trudeau is pro-oilsands.
It isn't working. Canada should be following the US lead, but of course we lack the courageous leadership required to make unpopular decisions, like the Energy East pipeline.
these we need oil and therefore we should continue to pollute our air and poison our rivers are so sad ... the argument is so lazy and is devoid of any critical thinking whatsoever ...
China has a horrible human rights record so should we not buy anything that has any connection to China? What about India? I find it laughable that someone wants to support oil sands extraction by using human rights ... did you know there are human rights violations occurring as a result of the tar sands? ... go check out amnesty international and read up on the first nations in alberta ...
- my argument is not lazy and devoid of critical thinking... Your rants lack fact or any thought provoking points. Those who throw stones in glass houses...
- I try not to buy products from China.. It is difficult however. But you are comparing apples to oranges. China and India produce products we don't necessarily produce. We CAN produce oil, why should we buy it from somewhere else? You continue to argue but do not answer th fundamental question. Whether it's from a human rights violator or the US it doesn't make any sense to not produce our own resources and buy them from ourselves instead of buying them from someone else.
- the human rights violations in the tar sands you are talking about is the high rate of bile duct cancer in the Cree and Chipyewan Indian bands near lake Athabasca. I know more than you about that sir. Why? Because I married a lady from Fort Chipyewan.
There are concerns... But many of those First Nations people also appreciate the economic advantages of the oilsands (worked with many of them).
I don't need to read amnesty international... I have been to Fort Chip, Fort Smith many times. Know a lot of people in Fort McKay. Don't believe everything that you breed, you'll get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve, so shave your face with some mace in the dark, burnin all your food stamps and burnin down a trailer park.
dude ... the "we need oil therefore let's pollute the air and poison our water" is a lazy and fed position ... it lacks any objective thought ... if you use that as your basis of further tar sands development - then it has no merit ...
give me some things china produces that we can't? ... the only reason we buy things from china is we don't want to pay a billion dollars for an iphone ...
to answer your fundamental question - the reason why we shouldn't continue to extract as much oil out of the tar sands is because it is a net negative for us and the world ... it's short term gains for long term losses ... it takes 3 times the emissions to extract tar sands oil than conventional oil ... and that's not even talking about the crazy amounts of water and electricty (which in alberta is often coal) it needs ... extracting oil from the tar sands is like growing mangoes in the yukon ... it can be done but it's not efficient or reasonable ...
as for the human rights stuff ... you may have married someone from there but I also know first hand that relationships with first nations is more complex and that while yes, they appreciate the economic opportunities - it comes with a price and big oil, similar to mining, are just using these opportunities to exploit ... it's the same story across the country ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The fact we need oil and have a resource and should provide what we all use is not "lazy and fed position and it does not lack objective thought". Simply saying we must just stop producing oil completely is. An objective thought is to continue to produce while making the oil producers continue to improve their environmental performance (they are).
Your argument on the efficiency of extracting oilsands is moot. It is profitable (when oil is at a better price). Pipelines are the new enviro-scapegoat. It was tailings ponds, before that clear cutting, fracking, yada yada yada. It's the flavour of the day. It gets old and tiring.
I am a health safety and EVIRONMENTAL consultant. I have witnessed several industries (including oil) commitment to the environment.
All industries I've worked in make it a TOP priority to ensure relationships with First Nations is taken seriously. Most have entire business groups devoted to the relationships. Enough with calling all industry "evil" and "exploiters". It is old, tired and an opinion not based in fact.
Someone who gets it. I don't want to live those thousands of years they had to live without Pearl Jam!
Don't think they would have been as good without oil and the products it creates. And it would have been a long walk to see them.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… asshole.”
- GEORGE CARLIN
first point ... you are basing oilsands extraction based on profitability ... that's not what we are talking about ... we are talking about sustainability and it's consequences to life on this planet which is not accounted for ... second, tarsands is nowhere near profitable without the massive subsidies the industry gets ... think about it ... a L of gas is like cheaper than 1 L of bottled water ... how is that possible!?? ...
i've heard all the PR surrounding both commitment to environment and first nations ... it's a load of crock ... all the investigative journalists that have gone in have all proven that false ... we know how these industries work ... it's why the harper gov't muzzled scientists ... if it wasn't for a industry friendly conservative provincial and federal gov't - the oilsands would be exposed for what it really is ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon