Canadian Politics Redux

1ThoughtKnown

polaris_x said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

http://resourceclips.com/2016/03/23/from-carbon-tax-to-blood-tax/


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.

polaris_x

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 ...

PJ_Soul

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.

1ThoughtKnown

polaris_x said:

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.

1ThoughtKnown

PJ_Soul said:

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.

polaris_x

1ThoughtKnown said:

polaris_x said:

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 ...

1ThoughtKnown

- 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.

polaris_x

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 ...

lukin2006

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.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

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.

jeffbr

lukin2006 said:

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.

PJ_Soul

jeffbr said:

lukin2006 said:

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!).

lukin2006

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

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.

1ThoughtKnown

polaris_x said:

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.

1ThoughtKnown

jeffbr said:

lukin2006 said:

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.

1ThoughtKnown

“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

polaris_x

1ThoughtKnown said:

polaris_x said:

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 ...

polaris_x

1ThoughtKnown said:

“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 ...

lukin2006

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.

polaris_x

lukin2006 said:

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?