Tories love the oilsands

[Visionseeker]

In a less than stunning turn of events, Minister Prentice suggests that the oil & gas sector deserves special treatment with respect to emission controls and targets.

Prentice won't rule out oilsands emission breaks

Well Mr. Prentice, what about logging? Or mining? Or automotive manufacturing? Or any manufacturing for that matter? What makes the oil & gas sector so special? Oh, right, they're in Alberta.

One wonders what kind of reception the Prime Minister of Alberta Canada will receive when in Denmark. My God when will we be done with these putrid excuses for leaders?

[Vancouver King]

In a less than stunning turn of events, Minister Prentice suggests that the oil & gas sector deserves special treatment with respect to emission controls and targets.

Prentice won't rule out oilsands emission breaks

Well Mr. Prentice, what about logging? Or mining? Or automotive manufacturing? Or any manufacturing for that matter? What makes the oil & gas sector so special? Oh, right, they're in Alberta.

One wonders what kind of reception the Prime Minister of Alberta Canada will receive when in Denmark. My God when will we be done with these putrid excuses for leaders?

The man in the pocket of big oil is about to serve his masters - again. The nation's reputation as a defender of the natural world now lies in ruins. Welcome to the results of Stephen Harper's vision of Canada's rightful place in the environmental firmament - international pyorrhea and laughing stock among nations.

[Riverwind]

Well Mr. Prentice, what about logging? Or mining? Or automotive manufacturing? Or any manufacturing for that matter? What makes the oil & gas sector so special? Oh, right, they're in Alberta.

Prentice was asked about the oil sands because the media obsess over them. He responded by saying that Canada would exempt export sensitive industries like the oil sands. It is reasonable to assume that other industries will be entitled to similar exemptions.

The story that everyone seems to miss here is these kinds of exemptions are in the US bill and that is why most analysts agree the US bill will never deliver the promised emission reductions. IOW, if Canada is an environmental villain then so is the US - so why aren't the NGOs going after Obama and the democrats?

Personally, I am very pleased with Prentice finding a backbone on this issue. The world needs energy and producing energy produces C02 and no amount whingeing on the part of the spoiled rich brats in the environmental movement will change that.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Mr.Canada]

The Oil sands produce 1/10th of 1% of the worlds CO2 emissions, 5% of Canada's total CO2 emissions while Canada produces 2% of the worlds total.

http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=135721 Do a search for emissions in this article. It's a report from Environment Canada. Although I'm sure everyone here will say my source isn't good enough as usual. Because no source is good if it doesn't jibe with the socialist view. I've learned that.

Seems somewhat silly for these protesters to go after Canada given these facts.

[Argus]

The story that everyone seems to miss here is these kinds of exemptions are in the US bill and that is why most analysts agree the US bill will never deliver the promised emission reductions. IOW, if Canada is an environmental villain then so is the US - so why aren't the NGOs going after Obama and the democrats?

Because he's Black and liberal.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If the tree-huggers truly believe in their cause I would expect them to take public transit or ride a bike. I would expect them to have their own organic gardens. I would expect them to be living off the grid. If they are not doing at least these things then they are talking out of their asses.

GHG's, man made global warming, carbon taxes and all other forms of current fertilizer being foisted by these folks are causing all sorts of focus problems for citizens around the world. The wealth transfer being planned is bad enough but the entire package revolves around corporate governance! We will be throwing democracy out the window in favour of a junk science dictatorship of corporate welfare bums supported by politicians.

[Shady]

Well Mr. Prentice, what about logging? Or mining? Or automotive manufacturing? Or any manufacturing for that matter? What makes the oil & gas sector so special? Oh, right, they're in Alberta.

I agree. I don't think any of those industries should be oppressed by emission controls and targets.

I want a vibrant Canadian economy. I want every Canadian who wants a good paying job, to be able to acquire one. I don't want us destroying our standard of living, over junk science manipulated by a small group of dishonest people.

Do Tories love the oilsands? Goddamn right!

[bush_cheney2004]

The man in the pocket of big oil is about to serve his masters - again. The nation's reputation as a defender of the natural world now lies in ruins. Welcome to the results of Stephen Harper's vision of Canada's rightful place in the environmental firmament - international pyorrhea and laughing stock among nations.

Then I have good news for you....Canada was never recognized as a staunch defender of the natural world. Instead, it is recognized as a defender of strip mining, uranium ore, lumber exports, over fishing, and clobbering baby seals with clubs.

Canada doesn't even have a unified policy for environmental protections, air quality, or water quality.

Just sayin'.....

[ToadBrother]

The Oil sands produce 1/10th of 1% of the worlds CO2 emissions, 5% of Canada's total CO2 emissions while Canada produces 2% of the worlds total.

http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=135721 Do a search for emissions in this article. It's a report from Environment Canada. Although I'm sure everyone here will say my source isn't good enough as usual. Because no source is good if it doesn't jibe with the socialist view. I've learned that.

Seems somewhat silly for these protesters to go after Canada given these facts.

There are other concerns, in particular environmental damage in the area and water use. It's a dirty way to get dirty hydrocarbons.

[Riverwind]

There are other concerns, in particular environmental damage in the area and water use. It's a dirty way to get dirty hydrocarbons.

Sure. But we need hydrocarbons whether we like it or not. More importantly, the $2 billion being pissed away on carbon sequestration would go a long way to addressing the real environmental problems created by the oil sands. Unfortunately, a rational discussion of the best way to spend money on environmental issues is impossible as long as the CO2 freaks control the agenda. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[robert_viera]

The Oil sands produce 1/10th of 1% of the worlds CO2 emissions, 5% of Canada's total CO2 emissions while Canada produces 2% of the worlds total.

Canada has 0.5% of the world's population. If we produce 2% of the world's emissons, doesn't that mean we're producing 4x our share?

http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=135721 Do a search for emissions in this article. It's a report from Environment Canada. Although I'm sure everyone here will say my source isn't good enough as usual. Because no source is good if it doesn't jibe with the socialist view. I've learned that.

That's not a report from Environment Canada. It's a report from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Nice try.

This is a report from Environment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_e.cfm

Some excerpts from the Environment Canada report:

"Emissions associated with Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction alone increased by 56.7% (8.4 Mt) between 2004 and 2007, largely due to increased activity at the Alberta oil sands."

"Mining emissions have risen 17.1 Mt or 276% since 1990. While this subsector does include emissions for non-energy related mining, an increasing proportion is represented by those emissions from the activities associated with Canada’s oil sands, which saw four new projects commence operations in 2007."

Edited December 16, 2009 by robert_viera

[ToadBrother]

Sure. But we need hydrocarbons whether we like it or not. More importantly, the $2 billion being pissed away on carbon sequestration would go a long way to addressing the real environmental problems created by the oil sands. Unfortunately, a rational discussion of the best way to spend money on environmental issues is impossible as long as the CO2 freaks control the agenda.

The best way to spend the money is on something other than hydrocarbons, particularly ones that are delirious to the environment. The oil sands are an environmental disaster, and while I suppose one can always justify things with "Well, everyone whose against me is a freak, and we need energy, so wiping out large sections of geography to get it is perfectly alright."

[Riverwind]

Canada has 0.5% of the world's population. If we produce 2% of the world's emissons, doesn't that mean we're producing 4x our share?

Canada's GDP per capita is $39,000/year. Does that mean someone making 80K/year is making 2x their share? The world per capita GDP is about 9,000/year. Does that mean the an average Canadian is making 4x their share?

Demanding equal per capita allocations of CO2 emissions is absurd as demanding equal per capita allocations of wealth.

[Riverwind]

The best way to spend the money is on something other than hydrocarbons, particularly ones that are delirious to the environment.

There are no other options which are techinally and economically feasible. That might change in the future but until then we need the hydrocarbons.

[Hydraboss]

Canada has 0.5% of the world's population. If we produce 2% of the world's emissons, doesn't that mean we're producing 4x our share?

Yup it probably does as long as the math includes all of the populations of barefoot, wild squirrel hunting, never seen a machine, backwards nations on the planet. I wonder what percentage of non-hydrocarbon producing nations still use these same fossil fuels?

If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure Canada eats less than 0.5% of the wild boars consumed on the planet or and clear cuts less than 0.5% of the rainforests on Earth.

[eyeball]

Canada's GDP per capita is $39,000/year. Does that mean someone making 80K/year is making 2x their share? The world per capita GDP is about 9,000/year. Does that mean the an average Canadian is making 4x their share?

It means Canadians are consuming the planet 4 times faster.

Demanding equal per capita allocations of CO2 emissions is absurd as demanding equal per capita allocations of wealth.

Only because of the temerity of the idea to wealthy people. Having more or less equal expectations in life probably comes naturally to people, except to those who think people should know their stations.

[robert_viera]

Canada's GDP per capita is $39,000/year. Does that mean someone making 80K/year is making 2x their share? The world per capita GDP is about 9,000/year. Does that mean the an average Canadian is making 4x their share?

Demanding equal per capita allocations of CO2 emissions is absurd as demanding equal per capita allocations of wealth.

So you're saying it's OK to pollute more if you're wealthier?

[robert_viera]

Yup it probably does as long as the math includes all of the populations of barefoot, wild squirrel hunting, never seen a machine, backwards nations on the planet. I wonder what percentage of non-hydrocarbon producing nations still use these same fossil fuels?

If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure Canada eats less than 0.5% of the wild boars consumed on the planet or and clear cuts less than 0.5% of the rainforests on Earth.

So you're saying that we should be held to a lower environmental standard than "populations of barefoot, wild squirrel hunting, never seen a machine, backwards nations on the planet"?

[Hydraboss]

So you're saying that we should be held to a lower environmental standard than "populations of barefoot, wild squirrel hunting, never seen a machine, backwards nations on the planet"?

Actually I'm saying that simple calculations like yours don't demonstrate a damn thing. We produce oil and gas in this country. We export boatloads of it to places that don't produce it for themselves (directly and/or indirectly) but still use it, and yet we never hear about how some village in Brazil is involved in clear cutting 1000 acres a month (or whatever) of rainforest that does just as much damage to the environment/CO2 numbers as our oilsands. I think we're being held to much, much HIGHER standards than some "barefoot, wild squirrel hunting, never seen a machine, backwards nations".

[robert_viera]

Actually I'm saying that simple calculations like yours don't demonstrate a damn thing. We produce oil and gas in this country. We export boatloads of it to places that don't produce it for themselves (directly and/or indirectly) but still use it, and yet we never hear about how some village in Brazil is involved in clear cutting 1000 acres a month (or whatever) of rainforest that does just as much damage to the environment/CO2 numbers as our oilsands. I think we're being held to much, much HIGHER standards than some "barefoot, wild squirrel hunting, never seen a machine, backwards nations".

So if there are people doing bad things in other parts of the world, we're excused?

Should we get a pass because we chose to get rich by selling fossil fuels instead of developing clean energy sources? Goodness knows our country is blessed with an abundance of both clean and dirty energy sources. I don't see why we should be let off the hook because we've chosen to go mostly the dirty energy route.

[Mr.Canada]

When will these socialists/communists be happy? When will their crying end? That's what I want to know.

It's never enough.

[Riverwind]

So you're saying it's OK to pollute more if you're wealthier?

Wealthier people get more food, better healthcare, better houses, better education, etc. All of these things consume resources and produce pollution. It is mathematically impossible to require that richer people pollute no more than average without requiring that they also earn no more than the average.

IOW, insisting that every country have the same per capita emissions is the same as insisting that everyone have the same per capita wealth.

I realize that some people think this equal wealh distribution is a wonderful economic philosohphy but the overwhelming majority of Canadians would reject it.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Mr.Canada]

Wealthier people get more food, better healthcare, better houses, better education, etc. All of these things consume resources and produce pollution. It is mathematically impossible to require that richer people pollute no more than average without requiring that they also earn no more than the average.

IOW, insisting that every country have the same per capita emissions is the same as insisting that everyone have the same per capita wealth.

That's is what is coming up for the socialist - communist agenda. They don't bother working because they know that a redistribution of wealth is coming. Another reason why I cashed in all my stocks and bonds and all our holdings and turned it into precious metals.

When they try it a civil war will start.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Hydraboss]

So if there are people doing bad things in other parts of the world, we're excused?

Should we get a pass because we chose to get rich by selling fossil fuels instead of developing clean energy sources? Goodness knows our country is blessed with an abundance of both clean and dirty energy sources. I don't see why we should be let off the hook because we've chosen to go mostly the dirty energy route.

You're typing on a computer made from "dirty energy". Why don't you go buy one of those new computers with the circuit boards that are made of hemp or wind energy? We have an abundance of oil and coal. Please tell me what other "clean" energy sources we have that can supply our energy needs.

Are nations like Brazil being forced to pay money to Africa because they're cutting down rainforests?

[Mr.Canada]

No more money should be paid to Africa until they have real leadership. Not the current gangster governments the majority of those nations have.

We've been paying Africa for decades so it's obvious that the money isn't getting to the people. We need a new model for aid.