Accountability Now

I've often wondered if this paradigm change would aid Edmonton/Calgary as they would be able to attack the business market as a twin city approach. Businesses could set up headquarters in one city (most likely in Calgary) and have manufacturing or other offices in the other city (most likely Edmonton). Potentially the two airports could start working together to attract more international flights. The reality is that Edmonton or Calgary will probably never compete on their own with a Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal but perhaps together by using a high speed transport like this they could.

Actually a new battery has been invented and is being tested now. Apparently if it works this may actually make wind power more feasible as the cost of the batteries decrease substantially. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/29/technology-water-electrolysis-calalyst-calgary.html) Ironically I know the one of the guys that invented it as we went to University together. Nice guy....glad he may get rich off this.

I saw this on the news today too and was quite fascinated by it. However, it said it could get people from San Fran to La in 30-45 min...not NY. Edmonton and Calgary have always talked about a high speed train but this sure would be nice. I wonder if it needs a further distance for it to make sense though.

I don't think you get it. These comapanies can choose to invest here or elsewhere. If they can make more money elsewhere then they will leaving Canadians and First Nations people with nothing. Nothing meaing no corporate tax, royalies, spin off jobs from the various supporting industries. I trust the government can do a better job of negotiating these subsidies however eliminating them would also eliminate numerous royalties, tax and other benefits that we can see. We can choose to push off developing these products until a time where reserves are low thus forcing the oil companies hands but we may be well into green energy by that point which will then make the oil worth much less...which again equates into much less for everyone. Of course I don't need to argue this point to people of the First Nations as the vast majority of their income is derived from oil and gas. Just look at the 2009 audit... 1% comes from IOGC however we know that resources are controlled by the province and low and behold, 71% of the trust comes from Alberta alone. PS...I never did get a response from you in the CEO Aborginal forum regarding the potential break up of the AFN with the Prairie cheifs looking to go rogue.

The title doesn't say how much money came from the Feds to Alberta companies. The article says the Feds kicked in 1.38 billion to ALL provinces. It also says the Alberta government kicked in 1.05 billion of its own but that's not Federal money so why worry about that. Of the total subsidies, the tar sands got 1.59 billion....of course its very plausible most if not all of that came from the 1.05 that Alberta kicked in. So really the tar sands got 540 million from the Feds. The Alberta goverment is expected to receive 1.2 Trillion in royalties over the next 35 years. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/27/alberta-oil-sands-royalties-ceri_n_1382640.html) which of course easily keeps the provinces hand out of the equalization payment. And I trust the Feds will be seeing a fair share from corporate taxes so really....is $540 million that much? The linked report actually takes it a step further by breaking out the numbers a bit more but it never actaully shows what money the Feds give directly to Alberta. The numbers they use in the report are significantly less than the 1.59 billion cited above as they explain a number of items have been phased out or will be phased out soon. As such the number they have in the report is 861 million of which they state that 100 million goes directly to an Atlantic Canada initiative. Of the remaining 761 million, it is unclear however assumed that Alberta would take up a fair share but again...not all. Perhaps the $500 million mark stated above is in line. So....to answer your question of when did Alberta ever say thank you for the subsidies? It doesn't have to as the money gets paid back every year...and more. The ROC is thanked every year with a fat pay cheque. Its clear that you are not so much against subsides to a given province but rather subsidies to oil companies regardless of where they are. However since you asked I will try to answer. Why are we subsidizing one of the most profitable industries in country? Subsidies are often investments which provide a significant return on investment. I'm no economist but it should be obvious that the money invested gives a huge return on investment which all Canadians benefit from. Now...would that money come from the oil companies regardless of the subsidy? In my opinion no. Do you remember back in 2009 when Tim Hortons (you know...our beloved Canadian company) actually moved BACK to Canada. That's right....it had incorporated in the US because Canada was taxing it too much. Once Canada lowered its tax rates, it moved back. These large companies will not sit idly by and take what ever the government gives them and oil companies are no exception. Do you know how many upgrader projects have been started, then stopped, then started and then stopped in Alberta just because the companies get scared off from politicians trying to push their weight. I hear what you are saying. In theory these rich companies should be able to subsidize themselves but thats not the way business works. They will take their money to the lowest bidder that has oil. Maybe one day all the other oil will run out and they are stuck with us but that same day will also have many other green alternatives. So in the mean time we have to play ball.

Oil companies in CANADA....are you able to differentiate how many of those are in Alberta. You know that oil companies are in other provinces too. Let's assume the 1.38 billion went directly to the Alberta oil companies, then I need to ask how many billions the government gets back?

Citation request. How much does the Feds subsidize the oil sands?

I would agree with that.

So I guess the question is why is Ontario in better shape than Quebec. Did the people make it that way or is it just luck? I think the dissention I see on this board is that most people view Quebec as having the ability to be in better shape but chosing not to. Do you agree with that? The reality is that Newfoundland was a yearly have not province until recently so it shows that it can change with the right adjustments. A change will someday send Alberta back into the have not category if the oil game subsides....unless they are able to develop some other revenue source.

I see what you are trying to say but I don't agree with you. I understand that a province like Quebec will need more because it has more people but then how do you explain why it gets so much more than Ontario with 5.5 million people more than Quebec? Normally Ontario does not receive the payments but this year it will recieve 3.2 billion where as Quebec will recieve 7.8 billion (http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp). So looking at your analogy it acutally flips the roles around. Quebec becomes Red Deer and Ontario becomes Calgary....yet Red Deer is getting more 'cash for their schools' as the analogy goes? I'm not going to say that Albertan's should or shouldn't bitch but I would if I was from Ontario....again...assuiming your point of more money for population is correct. I am intrigued about your comment regarding Tortonto giving up $4B. Is that to other munciipalities in Ontario? I'm curious to learn more on this....do you have any cites you forward.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Ontario has always had more people than Quebec and only very recently slipped into the 'have not' category which is most likely a temporary situation. I have also heard people say that maritimes provinces are always have nots because they don't have enough people. Is there more to it than just population?

I'm not sure how the local taxes work outside the Detroit limit work but I do know that if you are working in Detroit your wages are garnished 3% if you are a resident of Detroit but only 1.5% if you live outside of Detroit. I would almost think it would be the other way in order to allow locals to get that work but maybe the same taxes apply in surrounding communities. Maybe the 1.5% city income tax doesn't really matter too

The taxi cabs are living large with that 45 minute ride! Lol

I agree with you on this one but keep in mind this is why Edmonton is looking to build downtown and not just create an an arena but an entertainment district. Los Angeles did the same thing with theirs which has Staples center, Nokia theatre (where American Idol performs) ESPN zone and a conference center all in one area. Without it I would say there is no reason to go downtown. Conversely Ottawa just put an arena in Kanata. They're lucky that people are willing to make that drive. Phoenix did the entertainment district but put it way out in Glendale which is over an hour away from the snow birds in the east valley. Not too wise on that end. All in all..Deteoit needs to learn from all those lessons.

[quote name="kimmy" post="912122" timestamp=" (in contrast with places like Edmonton, for example, where you can move to the suburbs and still be within the city limits and be paying city taxes. -k Not sure I agree with you here...Edmonton still has this problem as lots of people live in St. Albert, Leduc, Sherwood Park and pay their respective taxes to those municipalities while enjoying the big city benefits. It's not nearly as bad as Deteoit but still an issue that Mandel would love to get rid of! I can't remember the exact numbers but the number of season ticket holders of non-Edmontonians for the Oilers was pretty high. Like you said...most of these people hop in their cars and head back home after the game which leaves no benefit for the city.

Clearly you didn't have the ability to read anything. Ol' AN broke through your sham of studies like I did with your WMO one. Like I said...you keep serving up the flops and I'll keep slamming them down.

Hold on for a second here.....I provided a detailed chart from the NOAA that shows the titles of the chart, units and a LONG term scale and you actually try to insult me because it DOESN'T zone in on your desired period. You don't even mention where you got your chart from and again failed to provide a link for the charts. Wow....how manipulative can you be? And yet you go on to say there is no plateau or no cooling period on the NOAA chart. This explains your reading comprehension and general inabilities.....you obvioulsy can't see. There is an almost flat blue line running across the chart starting around 2000 and goes to the end 2012. I say almost flat because it actually trends slightly downward suggesting a cooling pattern. Keep trying though. But yes...let's look at your hypersensitive chart for a second...shall we. The first chart...which of course is not labelled and doesn't allow anyone to actually know what the hell it is....shows the peak in 1997 and a peak in 2010 with a slight increase from 1997 to 2010. Then your second chart which again has ZERO labels tells us those two same peaks exist but there is a downward trend. Which one is it waldo? Of if you combine them....does the increase cancel out the decrease making.....oh wait for it....a plateau? Yikes....you really aren't good at this. Perhaps a more suited thing would be knitting or a stamp collection? And there it is...a perfect example of your deflection. We have started this entire debate discussion talking about whether man is causing this or not. I have been able to show you a number of times that the frequencies and intensities of past extremes have been the same or outnumbered the current media frenzied extremes. But now you need to me qualify these natural extremes? Of course this is a good thing because it proves that you have accepted the natural causes and are now trying to fight within that realm. I will accept your surrender. As for me....I'm off for a couple weeks so don't be surprised that I'm not responding to you. I will be back to hold you accountable for all of your shortcomings...which is a lot.

So you can't meet any of the challenges. Ok. Dually noted.

Hmmm....how can I dumb this down so that you can understand it? Its kind an athlete doing all sorts of trash talking to the media and then not backing any of it up in the game. The study is the game. I can present countless articles that debunk AGW but you don't give them the time of day because they aren't peer reviewed. Now you actually want me to focus on the non-peer reviewed study. Doesn't surpise me that you would flip flop like this.

How stupid does someone have to be to compare a 2007 study to a 2012/2013 study? Well I guess they would have to be waldo-stupid. Since you can hardly remember what you did this morning, I trust you won't remember when you provided the 2000 study showing the 'reliable period for hurricane data' when I had already provided the 2012 study overriding your claim. Have a look below....how stupid is this????!!! Of course the MAJOR difference being that in the hurricane example we were both comparing apples to apples discussing the 'reliable data' period. Obviously my recent study and data won that fairly easily. The difference in this example regarding the histrorical jet stream patterns is that your 2012/2013 study doesn't even touch on the topic of HISTORICAL trends. The 2012/2013 study is showing reason and data for the CURRENT trend. Seriously....how stupid doese someone have to be to compare apples to oranges. Really? I hate to bust your balloon there waldo but your cronies are bambozzling you once again. I know that you have such a blind trust in these article which of course is your own personal fail but you really should have inspected the footnote a little better. Again...Francis didn't come up with the idea of the widespread warming resulting from GHG....she cites this to Stroeve et al, 2012. So looking at her references we see the title of that article to be "The Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover". So upon inspection of this study....what was actually said was: She does mention this: The comment above says that GHG play a portion in this warming....not all. The quesiton is....how much? Of course there is no answer in this paper, rather the answer may lie in the Serreze et al 2007, a,b from where Stoeve cites this work. And the wild goose chase continues. On a different note....ever notice how closely tied these so called independent researchers are? Francis cites Stroeve, Strove cites Serreze, Serreze cites all of them. I would love to see who actually did the reviews on these to make them 'peer reviewed'. Nice tight little community...aint it?

How many times do you need to fail on this before you just take your licks and move on. The WMO used Katrina in the most convenient way to get their point across. They had other more dominant storms they could have used but they took the low road....a road that you continue to travel by backing it.

And I have already told you that you should replace 'tactic' with 'logic'. Of course I'm still waiting on data showing any of your so called increases in global frequency or intensity or both. But don't let me defer you from your constant deflection from backing up these claims.

Wow...up since the 80s hey? Wouldn't want to include the same chart with data from the Dirty Thirties....would ya?

Yup....this is the fourth time in recent memory that I have had to show him the way. To be honest....its getting a little boring as he doesn't really put up much of fight anymore.

No backpedal here...its just a case of you not being able to keep up! The world has warmed which is something I have NEVER disputed. As per the NOAA chart (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png), it has warmed from 1910 all the way up to 1940s....had a 40 year hiatus there until 1980 and then warmed some more until recently. If you look around 1997-1998 it starts to plateau and it stayed there until 2010 or so. If you look after 2010 you start to see a slight cooling dip downward. Now...unlike you I am not pompous enough to say that it will now continue downward because only time will tell. It may go down but it may very well go back up. But what is certain is that the models and forecasting that the warmies have said based on the CO2 input into the atmosphere will NOT account for this 15 year plateau. How shocking!! Thanks for your compliment. I always knew you were a fan of mine. Perhaps you are actually starting to overcome some of your inabilities to see the light? Of course you have to keep working at it but it will come.....eventually. As for me explaiing why is something 'Natural'...sorry but science doesn't work that way. Science is able to explain why gravity works or why we have seasons because its already been explained and proven by numerous cycles of reoccurance to make it fact. As for the recent changes which are easily mirrored by past events, we are only begining to understand why these cycles happen. Why do we go through ice ages and then warming periods only to revert back to ice ages? We know that these things happened but not certain why. What do these cycles have to do with extreme weather events? The data to truly answer this in a scientific fashion....the same data that can actually make it a scientific fact....is still years away. But don't let me stop you from speculating and wondering just when the sky will fall.