The Earth won't inevitably heal itself. It will eventually become a dead planet and do something along the lines of explode into billions of pieces of space rock, or do whatever planets do when their suns go supernova. But meanwhile, and while we're on it, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to keep it as clean as possible, and not just for ourselves and our descendants. IMO it's more important to keep it in order and under control for all the other animals on the planet, which continue to suffer horribly because of human behaviour.
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
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?
Only people should suffer, but unfortunately it doesn't work that, all life is going to suffer, and yes It would/should not surprise us that we could end up extinct...because people are rotten, always have been...imho far to many people are greedy, selfish and absolutely only give a rats ass about themselves ...and there are not nearly enough people like you. And look at it this way, Canada is somewhat civilized and seemingly a lot of folks agree the environments a problem, but here in Ontario we closed all our coal plants, but what good does it really due with all the pollution pouring in from Michigan, Ohio, New York to Ontario? Unless those folks move away from coal i doubt it makes much difference. The earth is fucked...imo.
Post edited by lukin2006 on
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.
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 ...
- It's not semantics, it is two different things. Destroying HUMANS is far different from destroying a PLANET. - The whole point of the article this discussion was based on was economics. Which involves profitability. As usual, the enviro-left has tried to steer this conversation towards saving the world when my conversation was about using our resources to benefit Canadians, not using Saudi resources to benefit Saudis. Subsidies on oilsands? I had no idea Bombardier was producing oilsands - this third point is an incoherent rant without any facts presented. I have witnessed the importance placed on First Nations negotiations first hand (as well as many other landowners and stakeholders). It is apparent you believe what you believe and will be at the Federal NDP convention voting for Naomi Klein's lunatic Manifesto.
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?
Seems like wildlife is doing ok no matter what we throw at it
CHERNOBYL EXCLUSION ZONE, Belarus (Reuters) - What happens to the environment when humans disappear? Thirty years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, booming populations of wolf, elk and other wildlife in the vast contaminated zone in Belarus and Ukraine provide a clue.
On April 26, 1986, a botched test at the nuclear plant in Ukraine, then a Soviet republic, sent clouds of smouldering radioactive material across large swathes of Europe.
Over 100,000 people had to abandon the area permanently, leaving native animals the sole occupants of a cross-border "exclusion zone" roughly the size of Luxembourg.
In the Belarussian part of the zone, tumble-down villages marked with yellow and red radiation warning signs have become hunting grounds for predators such as wolves and hawks. Birds, including tawny owls and magpies, nest in the roofs and chimneys of abandoned buildings.
"People can never live there - it's impossible - not even for the next 24,000 years," Ukrainian Ecology Minister Hanna Vronska said of the zone, which encompasses 2,600 sq km (1,000 square miles) of forest, marsh and open countryside.
The long-term impact of the radiation on animal populations is a subject of intense debate because scientists have struggled to untangle the positive effects of human absence from the negative effects of living in a poisoned environment.
Despite the radiation, wolf numbers are over seven times higher in the Belarussian part of the zone compared with uncontaminated areas elsewhere, according to a study published in scientific journal Current Biology last October.
Some wolves have taken to straying outside the zone to steal calves from nearby farms, prompting hunters to set traps or shoot them as a deterrent.
International donors have funded the building of a 30,000 tonne "safe confinement" arch to prevent more deadly particles spewing from the stricken nuclear reactor's site for the next 100 years. Nevertheless, nothing can be done to decontaminate trees and soil that suffered the worst of the nuclear fallout within a 30-km radius of the plant.
In March, Vronska said authorities were considering turning the uninhabitable zone into a biosphere to protect and study its native animal populations in what would be the largest nature reserve in Europe. There are also plans to use parts of the area to store nuclear waste and for solar power.
Special government permits, usually valid for a few days, are required for anyone wishing to visit the exclusion zone from the Belarussian side. Roads going into the zone are guarded to prevent any unauthorised person entering.
While the rules of access are also strict on the Ukrainian side, small tour groups can visit sites within the zone, including the "ghost town" of Pripyat.
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 ...
- It's not semantics, it is two different things. Destroying HUMANS is far different from destroying a PLANET. - The whole point of the article this discussion was based on was economics. Which involves profitability. As usual, the enviro-left has tried to steer this conversation towards saving the world when my conversation was about using our resources to benefit Canadians, not using Saudi resources to benefit Saudis. Subsidies on oilsands? I had no idea Bombardier was producing oilsands - this third point is an incoherent rant without any facts presented. I have witnessed the importance placed on First Nations negotiations first hand (as well as many other landowners and stakeholders). It is apparent you believe what you believe and will be at the Federal NDP convention voting for Naomi Klein's lunatic Manifesto.
please tell me you're joking ...
hard to have a discussion when someone's position is destroying humans is different from destroying the planet ...
hard to get through anyone who's already got a hate on for "enviro-lefties" ... typical partisan conservative ... no independent thought ... just railing on the same tired arguments that have absolutely zero credibility ... frig, you actually used the george carlin thing ... clear sign someone just doesn't get it ...
obviously, you feel the same about me ... which is cool ...
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 ...
- It's not semantics, it is two different things. Destroying HUMANS is far different from destroying a PLANET. - The whole point of the article this discussion was based on was economics. Which involves profitability. As usual, the enviro-left has tried to steer this conversation towards saving the world when my conversation was about using our resources to benefit Canadians, not using Saudi resources to benefit Saudis. Subsidies on oilsands? I had no idea Bombardier was producing oilsands - this third point is an incoherent rant without any facts presented. I have witnessed the importance placed on First Nations negotiations first hand (as well as many other landowners and stakeholders). It is apparent you believe what you believe and will be at the Federal NDP convention voting for Naomi Klein's lunatic Manifesto.
Lol.
I thought we agreed to leave Naomi Klein out of the Canadian Politics thread.
A lot of what you say is, sadly reality; however, I agree with PJSoul (as much as it pains me to say so today) that we do need to proceed with as little impact as possible- not just for humans, but for all inhabitants of this planet.
We're delaying the inevitable, but it's worthwhile to do so. A balance is necessary and I'm not sure we have that right now.
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 ...
- It's not semantics, it is two different things. Destroying HUMANS is far different from destroying a PLANET. - The whole point of the article this discussion was based on was economics. Which involves profitability. As usual, the enviro-left has tried to steer this conversation towards saving the world when my conversation was about using our resources to benefit Canadians, not using Saudi resources to benefit Saudis. Subsidies on oilsands? I had no idea Bombardier was producing oilsands - this third point is an incoherent rant without any facts presented. I have witnessed the importance placed on First Nations negotiations first hand (as well as many other landowners and stakeholders). It is apparent you believe what you believe and will be at the Federal NDP convention voting for Naomi Klein's lunatic Manifesto.
please tell me you're joking ...
hard to have a discussion when someone's position is destroying humans is different from destroying the planet ...
hard to get through anyone who's already got a hate on for "enviro-lefties" ... typical partisan conservative ... no independent thought ... just railing on the same tired arguments that have absolutely zero credibility ... frig, you actually used the george carlin thing ... clear sign someone just doesn't get it ...
obviously, you feel the same about me ... which is cool ...
this was not supposed to be a discussion about the environment, it was about economics. You tried to hijack it with your enviro-ideologue. Quite similar to what is happening with the federal NDPers. Yes I used George Carlin, because it's funny. You make so many weak posts so I add comedy to entertain the readers. You aren't going to "get through to me" because you aren't bringing anything to the table. And quite frankly, the tired arguments with zero credibility are coming from you.
The world isn't perfect there hipster. Banks run the world, we are constantly screwed over by the elite, yadda yadda. Yadda. But while we all try to make a go of it and simply closing down an entire industry and putting a whole bunch of Canadians on the street to "save the planet" is an inhumane thing to do. You can stand on your soapbox and scream to the world that we are all heathens because we don't subscribe to your Modern Mother Earth religion, but that is not providing us the modern conveniences we all enjoy, oil is. And you sir, enjoy those conveniences as well.
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 ...
- It's not semantics, it is two different things. Destroying HUMANS is far different from destroying a PLANET. - The whole point of the article this discussion was based on was economics. Which involves profitability. As usual, the enviro-left has tried to steer this conversation towards saving the world when my conversation was about using our resources to benefit Canadians, not using Saudi resources to benefit Saudis. Subsidies on oilsands? I had no idea Bombardier was producing oilsands - this third point is an incoherent rant without any facts presented. I have witnessed the importance placed on First Nations negotiations first hand (as well as many other landowners and stakeholders). It is apparent you believe what you believe and will be at the Federal NDP convention voting for Naomi Klein's lunatic Manifesto.
Lol.
I thought we agreed to leave Naomi Klein out of the Canadian Politics thread.
A lot of what you say is, sadly reality; however, I agree with PJSoul (as much as it pains me to say so today) that we do need to proceed with as little impact as possible- not just for humans, but for all inhabitants of this planet.
We're delaying the inevitable, but it's worthwhile to do so. A balance is necessary and I'm not sure we have that right now.
That's what I am saying thirty. If you have not observed the improvements industry has made over the past thirty years in regards to environmental impact then you haven't been paying attention. They constantly improve and continue to improve. The organization I work for now is pushing for renewable energy sources and supports Notley in closing coal fired electrical generation plants. Why? Because their customers are asking for it. Oil companies included. Just because I am pro oilsands does not make me anti-environment, as polarized would have everyone here believe.
Looks like the NDP will have a new leader, Mulcair lost leadership review vote, only getting 48% of vote...ouch, big time rejection.
The federal NDP seems to be in a bit of disarray right now, cracks are showing. Particularly the Alberta NDP is not happy with this Leap Manifesto. It's shaping up for a west/east split.
My vote is for Nathan Cullen to lead the party forward.
the ndp should focus on making sure the electoral reform goes through ... that way - it will ensure, the party has a voice ...
the party is problematic in that if it tries to move to the centre to gain votes/seats/power - it alienates a good chunk of the party base and is entering into waters dominated by the liberals ...
personally, i hope the ndp moves left ... gets enough seats in a new gov't to be able to influence key issues such as environment ...
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.
Shooting ourselves in the foot is causing pollution and paying a premium for oil when we can get it cheaper from Middle East. And think isn't it better to use their oil and save ours? More we pump the more we subsidize China's cost of oil.
Looks like the NDP will have a new leader, Mulcair lost leadership review vote, only getting 48% of vote...ouch, big time rejection.
The federal NDP seems to be in a bit of disarray right now, cracks are showing. Particularly the Alberta NDP is not happy with this Leap Manifesto. It's shaping up for a west/east split.
My vote is for Nathan Cullen to lead the party forward.
When someone like Jack Layton dies, it does kind of tear a party apart. They still haven't managed to even come close to recovering from that loss. They should have done a much better job with choosing a new party leader after that. Muclair was a dud from the start and it was pretty obvious.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Hats off to Notley and the BC NDP leader for standing up to the Leap Manifesto tripe. That is so far left it is borderline communism. There are only two intelligent things in that document. One is the universal basic annual income, which I have supported in the past. This will save the government billions in administering all the social programs and people will be motivated to earn more. The second is the push for renewable sources of electricity. This is already happening (I work in the electrical industry). Berkshire Hathaway Energy is leading the way in renewable sources for your electricity.
The rest of it is a Commie wet dream.
The NDP has been hijacked by the enviro left. They don't want to be the government, they want to be the 15 seat "conscience" of the House. It is laughable.
the ndp should focus on making sure the electoral reform goes through ... that way - it will ensure, the party has a voice ...
the party is problematic in that if it tries to move to the centre to gain votes/seats/power - it alienates a good chunk of the party base and is entering into waters dominated by the liberals ...
personally, i hope the ndp moves left ... gets enough seats in a new gov't to be able to influence key issues such as environment ...
Looks to me like Ontario and Federal Liberals are going to occupy enough of the left to make the NDP irrelevant in those 2 areas...
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
And with 2 centre of the left parties in Ontario this might open the opportunity for Brown as the new PC leader...as long as he stays away from crazy batshit statements like his predecessors he might be positioning the party as an alternative to the liberals.
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
the ndp should focus on making sure the electoral reform goes through ... that way - it will ensure, the party has a voice ...
the party is problematic in that if it tries to move to the centre to gain votes/seats/power - it alienates a good chunk of the party base and is entering into waters dominated by the liberals ...
personally, i hope the ndp moves left ... gets enough seats in a new gov't to be able to influence key issues such as environment ...
Looks to me like Ontario and Federal Liberals are going to occupy enough of the left to make the NDP irrelevant in those 2 areas...
not with a different electoral system ... the reality is that the ndp's destruction this last election was really based on strategic voting ... once it looked like the best person to prevent harper from coming back was trudeau - the nail was in the coffin ...
in ontario - they just struggle with a really bad leader ...
the ndp should focus on making sure the electoral reform goes through ... that way - it will ensure, the party has a voice ...
the party is problematic in that if it tries to move to the centre to gain votes/seats/power - it alienates a good chunk of the party base and is entering into waters dominated by the liberals ...
personally, i hope the ndp moves left ... gets enough seats in a new gov't to be able to influence key issues such as environment ...
Looks to me like Ontario and Federal Liberals are going to occupy enough of the left to make the NDP irrelevant in those 2 areas...
not with a different electoral system ... the reality is that the ndp's destruction this last election was really based on strategic voting ... once it looked like the best person to prevent harper from coming back was trudeau - the nail was in the coffin ...
in ontario - they just struggle with a really bad leader ...
I have my doubts that any electoral reform will take place, and if it does take place it'll favour the liberals. And I've already maintained that any electoral reform needs to go to people in the form of a referendum...that's already been ruled out. Trudeau like our last PM is not a leader, it's easy to lead when 30+ billion more the Feds take in, and at some point running constant deficits will come back to haunt this country...and in many ways the deficits and debt are haunting us...
As for Ontario, even though I live here is quickly becoming a dump...and the NDP are still suffering from Raeitis (unfairly), but for some reason people are having a tough time turning the page from Rae or Harris years...like the liberals have been any better...
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 won't be smoking it... but this is long overdue.
Very, very progressive thinking.
Only a pothead can gather sense that article. It is mumbo jumbo. Puff, puff, pass. Duuude....in one year we will have a plan dude.....you will see duuude... I love pot mkay.
I won't be smoking it... but this is long overdue.
Very, very progressive thinking.
Only a pothead can gather sense that article. It is mumbo jumbo. Puff, puff, pass. Duuude....in one year we will have a plan dude.....you will see duuude... I love pot mkay.
I'm thinking only a pothead can decipher your post. Or a gas sniffer... but definitely one of the two.
I won't be smoking it... but this is long overdue.
Very, very progressive thinking.
Only a pothead can gather sense that article. It is mumbo jumbo. Puff, puff, pass. Duuude....in one year we will have a plan dude.....you will see duuude... I love pot mkay.
I'm thinking only a pothead can decipher your post. Or a gas sniffer... but definitely one of the two.
I won't be smoking it... but this is long overdue.
Very, very progressive thinking.
Only a pothead can gather sense that article. It is mumbo jumbo. Puff, puff, pass. Duuude....in one year we will have a plan dude.....you will see duuude... I love pot mkay.
I'm thinking only a pothead can decipher your post. Or a gas sniffer... but definitely one of the two.
I won't be smoking it... but this is long overdue.
Very, very progressive thinking.
Only a pothead can gather sense that article. It is mumbo jumbo. Puff, puff, pass. Duuude....in one year we will have a plan dude.....you will see duuude... I love pot mkay.
I'm thinking only a pothead can decipher your post. Or a gas sniffer... but definitely one of the two.
Please tell me what that article surmised....
Legalized dope soon.
Until then, police are in limbo Keep arresting and giving potheads a record. Hang in there potheads, your day will come.
Until then, police are in limbo Keep arresting and giving potheads a record. Hang in there potheads, your day will come.
Police are not in limbo ... the law says unless you got a licence it's still illegal ... however I doubt most police using common sense will not hassle those people who are possessing small amounts...failure for the police to use common sense i suspect many judges will kick the cases.
By the way how many of these cops, crown attorneys and judges have been involved in convicting young people over the years giving them a criminal record ... for what ... a little weed, and how many of those opposed the legalization of an essentially very helpful plant ply themselves with liquor, smoke, eat at fast food restaurants and participate in so many legal, yet cosume these products .. lets not even get into the opiates that are handed out like candy in this country. So do yourself and everyone else a favour ... educate yourself a little, marijuana never was, never will be the harmful plant that some uneducated people's like us to believe ... marijuana is just another example of another distraction the government would like people to focus on instead of the real issues...I support our current liberal government on this 100%...if a little weed legalization bothers you so...thats your problem...
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
Until then, police are in limbo Keep arresting and giving potheads a record. Hang in there potheads, your day will come.
Police are not in limbo ... the law says unless you got a licence it's still illegal ... however I doubt most police using common sense will not hassle those people who are possessing small amounts...failure for the police to use common sense i suspect many judges will kick the cases.
By the way how many of these cops, crown attorneys and judges have been involved in convicting young people over the years giving them a criminal record ... for what ... a little weed, and how many of those opposed the legalization of an essentially very helpful plant ply themselves with liquor, smoke, eat at fast food restaurants and participate in so many legal, yet cosume these products .. lets not even get into the opiates that are handed out like candy in this country. So do yourself and everyone else a favour ... educate yourself a little, marijuana never was, never will be the harmful plant that some uneducated people's like us to believe ... marijuana is just another example of another distraction the government would like people to focus on instead of the real issues...I support our current liberal government on this 100%...if a little weed legalization bothers you so...thats your problem...
I support full legalization and see it as the best way forward from a public health and social policy point of view. Reducing or eliminating criminal sanctions on drugs has been beneficial in every jurisdiction that has gone in that direction, from Portugal to Uruguay, with significant reductions in harmful use and involvement with the legal system, with all the negatives that implies. However, marijuana isn't harmless. Any substance that is physiologically active enough to provide any benefit also has the potential for harm; there's just no reasonable way to deny that. It comes down to each person making a risk-benefit analysis for themselves, like anything else.
Edit - quotes look to be screwed up again - I've italicized my response.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
^^^ For medicinal purposes I support the legalization. Without getting into a giant debate with studies,facts, stats etc I feel that if it is legalized for everyday use we will become an even lazier entitled society. Production and general motivation will decrease. The liberal plan is anything but - there is no iota of anything to come just a blanket statement that is confusing and without direction. Wait a year? For what? They need to tell us something more than this.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
^^^ For medicinal purposes I support the legalization. Without getting into a giant debate with studies,facts, stats etc I feel that if it is legalized for everyday use we will become an even lazier entitled society. Production and general motivation will decrease. The liberal plan is anything but - there is no iota of anything to come just a blanket statement that is confusing and without direction. Wait a year? For what? They need to tell us something more than this.
Why not for recreational purposes too? People want to chill with wine or whatever, why not a nice bowl or three?
I've been smoking daily for a damn long time and while our weekends may be fairly lazy as we choose, neither my husband nor I feel / act entitled, we kick ass at work, and live a comfortable life.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done!
Comments
But meanwhile, and while we're on it, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to keep it as clean as possible, and not just for ourselves and our descendants. IMO it's more important to keep it in order and under control for all the other animals on the planet, which continue to suffer horribly because of human behaviour.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
- The whole point of the article this discussion was based on was economics. Which involves profitability. As usual, the enviro-left has tried to steer this conversation towards saving the world when my conversation was about using our resources to benefit Canadians, not using Saudi resources to benefit Saudis. Subsidies on oilsands? I had no idea Bombardier was producing oilsands
- this third point is an incoherent rant without any facts presented. I have witnessed the importance placed on First Nations negotiations first hand (as well as many other landowners and stakeholders). It is apparent you believe what you believe and will be at the Federal NDP convention voting for Naomi Klein's lunatic Manifesto.
CHERNOBYL EXCLUSION ZONE, Belarus (Reuters) - What happens to the environment when humans disappear? Thirty years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, booming populations of wolf, elk and other wildlife in the vast contaminated zone in Belarus and Ukraine provide a clue.
On April 26, 1986, a botched test at the nuclear plant in Ukraine, then a Soviet republic, sent clouds of smouldering radioactive material across large swathes of Europe.
Over 100,000 people had to abandon the area permanently, leaving native animals the sole occupants of a cross-border "exclusion zone" roughly the size of Luxembourg.
In the Belarussian part of the zone, tumble-down villages marked with yellow and red radiation warning signs have become hunting grounds for predators such as wolves and hawks. Birds, including tawny owls and magpies, nest in the roofs and chimneys of abandoned buildings.
Images of the wildlife can be seen at http://reut.rs/1M9EiFk
"People can never live there - it's impossible - not even for the next 24,000 years," Ukrainian Ecology Minister Hanna Vronska said of the zone, which encompasses 2,600 sq km (1,000 square miles) of forest, marsh and open countryside.
The long-term impact of the radiation on animal populations is a subject of intense debate because scientists have struggled to untangle the positive effects of human absence from the negative effects of living in a poisoned environment.
Despite the radiation, wolf numbers are over seven times higher in the Belarussian part of the zone compared with uncontaminated areas elsewhere, according to a study published in scientific journal Current Biology last October.
Some wolves have taken to straying outside the zone to steal calves from nearby farms, prompting hunters to set traps or shoot them as a deterrent.
International donors have funded the building of a 30,000 tonne "safe confinement" arch to prevent more deadly particles spewing from the stricken nuclear reactor's site for the next 100 years. Nevertheless, nothing can be done to decontaminate trees and soil that suffered the worst of the nuclear fallout within a 30-km radius of the plant.
In March, Vronska said authorities were considering turning the uninhabitable zone into a biosphere to protect and study its native animal populations in what would be the largest nature reserve in Europe. There are also plans to use parts of the area to store nuclear waste and for solar power.
Special government permits, usually valid for a few days, are required for anyone wishing to visit the exclusion zone from the Belarussian side. Roads going into the zone are guarded to prevent any unauthorised person entering.
While the rules of access are also strict on the Ukrainian side, small tour groups can visit sites within the zone, including the "ghost town" of Pripyat.
hard to have a discussion when someone's position is destroying humans is different from destroying the planet ...
hard to get through anyone who's already got a hate on for "enviro-lefties" ... typical partisan conservative ... no independent thought ... just railing on the same tired arguments that have absolutely zero credibility ... frig, you actually used the george carlin thing ... clear sign someone just doesn't get it ...
obviously, you feel the same about me ... which is cool ...
I thought we agreed to leave Naomi Klein out of the Canadian Politics thread.
A lot of what you say is, sadly reality; however, I agree with PJSoul (as much as it pains me to say so today) that we do need to proceed with as little impact as possible- not just for humans, but for all inhabitants of this planet.
We're delaying the inevitable, but it's worthwhile to do so. A balance is necessary and I'm not sure we have that right now.
Yes I used George Carlin, because it's funny. You make so many weak posts so I add comedy to entertain the readers.
You aren't going to "get through to me" because you aren't bringing anything to the table. And quite frankly, the tired arguments with zero credibility are coming from you.
The world isn't perfect there hipster. Banks run the world, we are constantly screwed over by the elite, yadda yadda. Yadda. But while we all try to make a go of it and simply closing down an entire industry and putting a whole bunch of Canadians on the street to "save the planet" is an inhumane thing to do. You can stand on your soapbox and scream to the world that we are all heathens because we don't subscribe to your Modern Mother Earth religion, but that is not providing us the modern conveniences we all enjoy, oil is. And you sir, enjoy those conveniences as well.
They constantly improve and continue to improve. The organization I work for now is pushing for renewable energy sources and supports Notley in closing coal fired electrical generation plants.
Why? Because their customers are asking for it. Oil companies included.
Just because I am pro oilsands does not make me anti-environment, as polarized would have everyone here believe.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
My vote is for Nathan Cullen to lead the party forward.
the party is problematic in that if it tries to move to the centre to gain votes/seats/power - it alienates a good chunk of the party base and is entering into waters dominated by the liberals ...
personally, i hope the ndp moves left ... gets enough seats in a new gov't to be able to influence key issues such as environment ...
Arghhhh.
That is so far left it is borderline communism. There are only two intelligent things in that document. One is the universal basic annual income, which I have supported in the past.
This will save the government billions in administering all the social programs and people will be motivated to earn more.
The second is the push for renewable sources of electricity. This is already happening (I work in the electrical industry). Berkshire Hathaway Energy is leading the way in renewable sources for your electricity.
The rest of it is a Commie wet dream.
The NDP has been hijacked by the enviro left. They don't want to be the government, they want to be the 15 seat "conscience" of the House. It is laughable.
Rex Murphy nailed it tonight
"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
in ontario - they just struggle with a really bad leader ...
As for Ontario, even though I live here is quickly becoming a dump...and the NDP are still suffering from Raeitis (unfairly), but for some reason people are having a tough time turning the page from Rae or Harris years...like the liberals have been any better...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Happy 4/20
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-un-marijuana-legislation-legalize-1.3544554
Very, very progressive thinking.
It is mumbo jumbo.
Puff, puff, pass.
Duuude....in one year we will have a plan dude.....you will see duuude...
I love pot mkay.
Keep arresting and giving potheads a record.
Hang in there potheads, your day will come.
This is kind of the shits for sure.
Until then, police are in limbo
Keep arresting and giving potheads a record.
Hang in there potheads, your day will come.
Police are not in limbo ... the law says unless you got a licence it's still illegal ... however I doubt most police using common sense will not hassle those people who are possessing small amounts...failure for the police to use common sense i suspect many judges will kick the cases.
By the way how many of these cops, crown attorneys and judges have been involved in convicting young people over the years giving them a criminal record ... for what ... a little weed, and how many of those opposed the legalization of an essentially very helpful plant ply themselves with liquor, smoke, eat at fast food restaurants and participate in so many legal, yet cosume these products .. lets not even get into the opiates that are handed out like candy in this country. So do yourself and everyone else a favour ... educate yourself a little, marijuana never was, never will be the harmful plant that some uneducated people's like us to believe ... marijuana is just another example of another distraction the government would like people to focus on instead of the real issues...I support our current liberal government on this 100%...if a little weed legalization bothers you so...thats your problem...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Keep arresting and giving potheads a record.
Hang in there potheads, your day will come.
Police are not in limbo ... the law says unless you got a licence it's still illegal ... however I doubt most police using common sense will not hassle those people who are possessing small amounts...failure for the police to use common sense i suspect many judges will kick the cases.
By the way how many of these cops, crown attorneys and judges have been involved in convicting young people over the years giving them a criminal record ... for what ... a little weed, and how many of those opposed the legalization of an essentially very helpful plant ply themselves with liquor, smoke, eat at fast food restaurants and participate in so many legal, yet cosume these products .. lets not even get into the opiates that are handed out like candy in this country. So do yourself and everyone else a favour ... educate yourself a little, marijuana never was, never will be the harmful plant that some uneducated people's like us to believe ... marijuana is just another example of another distraction the government would like people to focus on instead of the real issues...I support our current liberal government on this 100%...if a little weed legalization bothers you so...thats your problem...
I support full legalization and see it as the best way forward from a public health and social policy point of view. Reducing or eliminating criminal sanctions on drugs has been beneficial in every jurisdiction that has gone in that direction, from Portugal to Uruguay, with significant reductions in harmful use and involvement with the legal system, with all the negatives that implies. However, marijuana isn't harmless. Any substance that is physiologically active enough to provide any benefit also has the potential for harm; there's just no reasonable way to deny that. It comes down to each person making a risk-benefit analysis for themselves, like anything else.
Edit - quotes look to be screwed up again - I've italicized my response.
For medicinal purposes I support the legalization.
Without getting into a giant debate with studies,facts, stats etc I feel that if it is legalized for everyday use we will become an even lazier entitled society.
Production and general motivation will decrease.
The liberal plan is anything but - there is no iota of anything to come just a blanket statement that is confusing and without direction.
Wait a year? For what?
They need to tell us something more than this.
I've been smoking daily for a damn long time and while our weekends may be fairly lazy as we choose, neither my husband nor I feel / act entitled, we kick ass at work, and live a comfortable life.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done!