Has Layton sacrified the NDP chances in Alberta for Quebec?

[Rovik]

You made a blanket statement about nuclear plants in earthquake zones which you now appear to repudiate. The tsuanami is a risk factor that they did account for but not enough (5m expected vs 10m actual). There were two other plants hit by the tsunami that are fine so you can't say this is a problem with all plants.

There are only so many places in the world where a 9.0 earthquake is even remotely likely to occur. California is not one of them.

http://thenewschronicle.com/scientists-magnitude-90-earthquake-hit-locations-2/0323012699/

A nuclear power plant, one would think, would have the strictest risk contingecies. In regards in accounting for the tsumani, one would think they would overcompensate for safety considering how dangerous a nuclear plant accident can be. For example, if they expect 5m then account for more (just in case),like 10-15m, especially considering how geologically active that area is. I would hope that they didn't lowball the risk factors to get the nuclear power station built. And since nuclear can be so dangerous, even compared to oil spills and the like, then one problem with one plant should be unacceptable.

I believe even an earthquake in the 8 magnitude, depending on how close in occurs to a nuclear power plant, can be problematic. Best not to even chance it and build these plants in stable geographical areas.

The article mentions that a 9 magnitude could occur from the northern tip of California to Canada. I wonder if there are any nuclear power plants located between Northern California and Washington State (I truly don't know).

[wyly]

Please get your facts straight. All of the nukes in Japan survived an earthquake that exceeded their design specifications with no problems. It was the tsunami that caused the problems.

yes indeed get the facts straight the earthquake struck 150-200k away it was not a direct hit by 9.0 so it is still untested...test simulations on other similar plants in japan show they would not fair well at 6.5-7.0...

[TimG]

yes indeed get the facts straight the earthquake struck 150-200k away it was not a direct hit by 9.0 so it is still untested...test simulations on other similar plants in japan show they would not fair well at 6.5-7.0.

But there is zero chance of them being directly hit by a 9.0 because the fault that produces those kinds of quakes is in the middle of the ocean.

[Oleg Bach]

Sounds typical for Jack and the NDP.

I believe it was one of the NP columnists who wrote that the Greens were against the Alberta oilsands because they provided oil mixed with too much carbon and groundwater, in favour of mid-East oil which is soaked in blood!

Duck feathers. Our oil is cleaned by duck feathers...it's the beauty of nature at work...soaked in blood? What the heck is that...as BC would say - as long as it is not his blood he is fine with that. Layton is a sick old man now...he has given up.

[TimG]

For example, if they expect 5m then account for more (just in case),like 10-15m, especially considering how geologically active that area is.

There is no obvious connection between earthquakes size and tsunamis. That said, this plant's wall was too low. But other plants in the area were hit by the same tsunami and they are fine so that suggests a problem is specific to this plant rather than a general oversight.

I believe even an earthquake in the 8 magnitude, depending on how close in occurs to a nuclear power plant, can be problematic. Best not to even chance it and build these plants in stable geographical areas.

As I said above: these plants can handle the quakes. They are not a concern. Their ability to deal with tsunamis is at question here and all plants need to have their procedures reviewed. I am sure this will happen.

The article mentions that a 9 magnitude could occur from the northern tip of California to Canada. I wonder if there are any nuclear power plants located between Northern California and Washington State (I truly don't know).

I don't believe there are any plants at risk of tsunami in that region. Edited April 3, 2011 by TimG

[kimmy]

Well the moratorium on the projects would be over once the assessments were complete. And don't have these assessments open-ended; Have a deadline date for these assessments to be complete to prevent them from dragging on. I don't believe he mentioned shutting down existing projects (hard to have assessments on projects that have already started).

Michael Ignatieff talked about tougher environmental regulations for new projects. Jack Layton wants a moratorium until the environmental footprint of the oilsands is better managed. Those aren't the same thing at all.

A moratorium on new projects doesn't mean a new project can proceed once it passes an environmental assessment. A moratorium on new projects means no new projects until the moratorium is lifted.

I searched the NDP website for specifics about their oilsands plan, and there's literally nothing there about it.

However, they've talked about an oilsands moratorium in the past and the moratorium was going to be predicated on greenhouse gas emissions dropping below some threshold that Jack felt was acceptable. So... might as well be permanent.

The tradesmen may not design the solar panels, wind farms and hydrogen cells but they would definately be there in implementing and constructing such endeavours.

So, basically the plan is that we're going to shut down new development and send thousands of tradesmen and laborers back wherever they came from to look for work, but maybe someday a wind-farm will show up in their area and need some construction help for a few months or something.

Meanwhile we're going to pump a billion dollars into research and development in vote-rich urban ridings with established technology industries (meaning Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and maybe Victoria).

That's it in a nutshell, right?

I really can't answer your last question since I don't know why. I would suggest that it's hard to bring up all details in the short time they have at the campaign stops.

Funny, he had time to mention it earlier that day before he left Ottawa...

-k

[RNG]

Please get your facts straight. All of the nukes in Japan survived an earthquake that exceeded their design specifications with no problems. It was the tsunami that caused the problems.

Thank you. Nice to know that at least one person on this forum actually knows something.

[Rovik]

Michael Ignatieff talked about tougher environmental regulations for new projects. Jack Layton wants a moratorium until the environmental footprint of the oilsands is better managed. Those aren't the same thing at all.

A moratorium on new projects doesn't mean a new project can proceed once it passes an environmental assessment. A moratorium on new projects means no new projects until the moratorium is lifted.

I searched the NDP website for specifics about their oilsands plan, and there's literally nothing there about it.

However, they've talked about an oilsands moratorium in the past and the moratorium was going to be predicated on greenhouse gas emissions dropping below some threshold that Jack felt was acceptable. So... might as well be permanent.

So, basically the plan is that we're going to shut down new development and send thousands of tradesmen and laborers back wherever they came from to look for work, but maybe someday a wind-farm will show up in their area and need some construction help for a few months or something.

Meanwhile we're going to pump a billion dollars into research and development in vote-rich urban ridings with established technology industries (meaning Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and maybe Victoria).

That's it in a nutshell, right?

-k

The NDP released a report back in Sept of 2010.

Toughen oilsands environment protection: NDP

This was released after the

standing committee on environment and sustainable development failed to reach a consensus after a two-year study into the effects the oilsands industry has on water in Alberta and the Northwest Territories

It also mentions:

The report says additional oilsands projects should not be approved until environmental assessments do a better job of outlining cumulative impacts.

It also recommends Environment Canada dispatch inspectors to Fort McMurray to keep on top of environmental law violations.

Such a monitoring system should be paid for by public and the oilsands industry, Duncan said.

The report released by Liberal members of the committee came to similar conclusions.

Therefore to me this means that new projects should not be approved until improved environmental assessments are complete. In my mind, this should be done by an informed third party, not by the oil industry, different levels of govt. or environmental groups (in which I believe would represent a conflict of interest.) I'm sure the final say would not be from Jack Layton and the NDP but by an independant third party. I'm also sure this independant third party won't make the moratorium permanent and to suggest otherwise would be alarmism.

Well in regards to these projects, I was thinking along the lines on where they would work the best and not the vote rich urban areas. For example, wind power in Newfoundland and tidal power in New Brunswick.

I don't believe that economics should trump environment at any cost. If we believe it does, well then the environment has no chance and I for one wouldn't want to be around in several hundred years (the Earth won't be a pretty place). Once these projects can procede with minimum invasiveness to the environment then by all means they should procede.

Here in Newfoundland, our workforce is fluid so they will go to where the work is, no matter it be Alberta or Ontario or wherever. I believe that even is there is a minor blip in the number of jobs in the oilsands, these people will find work elsewhere. And I expect with new technologies and processes, that blip won't be for long.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Rovik

[TimG]

I don't believe that economics should trump environment at any cost. If we believe it does, well then the environment has no chance and I for one wouldn't want to be around in several hundred years (the Earth won't be a pretty place).

The earth is a big place. What is so special about a barren wasteland in northern alberta that it needs to preserved in pristine condition? There is an argument to minimize the damage done but it generally impossible to eliminate it. That is something we need to live with.

Also, the oilsands jobs are different from windmill jobs because they actually bring wealth into the country instead of exporting it. So there is no way you can claim a windmill job is equivalent.

[ToadBrother]

The earth is a big place. What is so special about a barren wasteland in northern alberta that it needs to preserved in pristine condition? There is an argument to minimize the damage done but it generally impossible to eliminate it. That is something we need to live with.

Also, the oilsands jobs are different from windmill jobs because they actually bring wealth into the country instead of exporting it. So there is no way you can claim a windmill job is equivalent.

Apart from the potential risks to wildlife, which even the Alberta government seems to care about, is the amount of water required. Strangely enough, Alberta does have other important industries that also need the water.

[YEGmann]

The earth is a big place. What is so special about a barren wasteland in northern alberta that it needs to preserved in pristine condition?

Actually, the pristine conditions are not very good in the oil sand country. Oil naturally seeps into rivers. Extracting oil from the ground level cleans the environment in certain sense.

This is not to argue that caution is required when developing the oil sands.

[TimG]

Apart from the potential risks to wildlife, which even the Alberta government seems to care about, is the amount of water required. Strangely enough, Alberta does have other important industries that also need the water.

The industry does not want to use any more water than they have to. It is naive to assume that an environmental assessment is going magically make that need go away. If the government thinks the companies need more incentive than they already have the government can put a price on the water. Edited April 4, 2011 by TimG

[Rovik]

There is no obvious connection between earthquakes size and tsunamis. That said, this plant's wall was too low. But other plants in the area were hit by the same tsunami and they are fine so that suggests a problem is specific to this plant rather than a general oversight.

As I said above: these plants can handle the quakes. They are not a concern. Their ability to deal with tsunamis is at question here and all plants need to have their procedures reviewed. I am sure this will happen.

I don't believe there are any plants at risk of tsunami in that region.

I don't know about any obvious connection between earthquake sizes and tsunamis (is this proven or conjecture?) but in the last ten years we have had two big earthquakes (one in the Indian Ocean and one off the coast of Japan) and we have had two devastating tsumanis. Therefore, that leads me to believe that it's not an automatic given that we will have a large tsumani after a large Earthquake but the chances are much higher than a lower level earthquake.

I truly don't believe when it's said that all reactors can survive large earthquake and tsunamis unscathed; especially if you read articles like this: More than one in 10 nuclear power plants at risk from earthquakes And if there is an accident 1 in every 20 earthquake events (for example), well that's one too many.

Again, I suggest it's best not to build nuclear power plants in earthquake and tsumani zones.

[Rovik]

The earth is a big place. What is so special about a barren wasteland in northern alberta that it needs to preserved in pristine condition? There is an argument to minimize the damage done but it generally impossible to eliminate it. That is something we need to live with.

Also, the oilsands jobs are different from windmill jobs because they actually bring wealth into the country instead of exporting it. So there is no way you can claim a windmill job is equivalent.

Yes what's so special about some barren wasteland in Alberta? Every part of this world is interlinked through a global ecosystem; so what happens in one place can effect other places in the world. Look at the nuclear disaster that is happening in Japan; radiation being released there is travelling around the world though the jet stream.

Yes, I agree we can't stop oil production (as the world today can't survive without it,) but we have to be absolutely sure that we do everything in our power to minimize the damage. And that is the question. Are we doing all we can? If it means money to develop systems to minimize the damage then we should do it, even if it impacts the bottom line. After what came out of oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and what's going on in Japan, one has too wonder if these companies are willing to do what has to been done to minimize damage (even if it means a cut in profits.)

And regards to oil jobs being different from windmill jobs, we have to consider this. Are we willing to put more weight in making money or more weight in doing something that may been beneficial to the planet in the long run. I would suggest a careful balance between the two (if possible).

[TimG]

Yes what's so special about some barren wasteland in Alberta? Every part of this world is interlinked through a global ecosystem; so what happens in one place can effect other places in the world. Look at the nuclear disaster that is happening in Japan; radiation being released there is travelling around the world though the jet stream.

Yet that radiation barely exceeds the background levels as soon as it travels a few kms beyond the site. You picked a bad example. You could have made better arguments using the river systems and tailing ponds, however, new technology has been developed that can recycle the tailings ponds for a profit - technology that would have never been developed if environmentalists were allowed to block the development of the oil sands because they did not have a good way to deal with those tailings ponds at the time.

IMO, there needs to be oversight to ensure the river systems are not getting polluted because the river systems can carry waste a long way. But I have no problems with them ripping up mile upon mile of sub-artic tundra to get at the oil.

And regards to oil jobs being different from windmill jobs, we have to consider this. Are we willing to put more weight in making money or more weight in doing something that may been beneficial to the planet in the long run. I would suggest a careful balance between the two (if possible).

What I am saying is there is only one type of job which is useful: a job which increases the wealth of the country. Windmill jobs are nothing but wealth destroyers and serve no purpose other than fooling a misinformed public. Edited April 4, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

I truly don't believe when it's said that all reactors can survive large earthquake and tsunamis unscathed

Every reactor needs to have its earthquake and tsunami resistence reviewed. There are lessons to be learned here. But the message that we should be taking away is that it is possible to build reactors that can handle the worst case disaster and survive. That should give us confidence in nuclear moving forward. Edited April 4, 2011 by TimG

[Bryan]

Actually, the pristine conditions are not very good in the oil sand country. Oil naturally seeps into rivers. Extracting oil from the ground level cleans the environment in certain sense.

OIlsands are an environmental reclamation project. The fact that we end up with fuel from it is just a nice bonus.

[bloodyminded]

OIlsands are an environmental reclamation project. The fact that we end up with fuel from it is just a nice bonus.

Yeah, okay. I used to scoff at the local signs that proclaimed: "Irving: the Tree-Growing Company"; but now I realize it was perfectly sincere in promoting their very reason for being.

[WIP]

Layton knows that a lot of people who are concerned about the environment don't want any more expansions of the tar sands industry, but instead want them phased out. He lost a lot of credibility during the last election for his attack on the Liberal's carbon tax proposal. If the NDP has finally calculated that losing whatever votes their are in favour of burning the dirtiest, most toxic sources of petroleum have to be sacrificed in favour of being on the right side of the environment debate, then there's still hope for the NDP!

For what it's worth, how do all of you pro-pollution advocates justify subsidizing the petrochemical industries with our tax dollars, as opposed to using them to support clean and renewable energy sources?

[RNG]

Layton knows that a lot of people who are concerned about the environment don't want any more expansions of the tar sands industry, but instead want them phased out. He lost a lot of credibility during the last election for his attack on the Liberal's carbon tax proposal. If the NDP has finally calculated that losing whatever votes their are in favour of burning the dirtiest, most toxic sources of petroleum have to be sacrificed in favour of being on the right side of the environment debate, then there's still hope for the NDP!

For what it's worth, how do all of you pro-pollution advocates justify subsidizing the petrochemical industries with our tax dollars, as opposed to using them to support clean and renewable energy sources?

Yet again, what subsidy? Show me where any oilsands producer has gotten a cent of tax dollars. You can't. The fact that the government isn't stealing as much of a companies money as they could is not a subsidy.

[ToadBrother]

Yet again, what subsidy? Show me where any oilsands producer has gotten a cent of tax dollars. You can't. The fact that the government isn't stealing as much of a companies money as they could is not a subsidy.

How are paying royalties to the jurisdiction you're getting oil from stealing?

[RNG]

How are paying royalties to the jurisdiction you're getting oil from stealing?

How is realizing that certain industries have cashflow issues, or very large capital outlay issues and therefore decreasing the amount of their money the government takes a subsidy? How did our railroads get built?

[Jack Weber]

How is realizing that certain industries have cashflow issues, or very large capital outlay issues and therefore decreasing the amount of their money the government takes a subsidy? How did our railroads get built?

Big Oil and Gas has cash flow issues????

Libertarian...Or corporate slurper????

[ToadBrother]

How is realizing that certain industries have cashflow issues, or very large capital outlay issues and therefore decreasing the amount of their money the government takes a subsidy? How did our railroads get built?

I'm not actually debating that some industries need a helping hand from Government, for the greater good. Railroads, telegraph, telephone, all of these one way or the other, even if it was perpetual right-of-way agreements, have been key in the growth of their industries, and in the enrichment of general society. It is, of course, a massive argument against most forms of Libertarianism, but that's a separate issue. Suffice to say governments investing in multiple ways in key industries and technologies has lead to a monumental amount of wealth creation.

I would think defending any kinds of grants, cheap mineral rights, whatever, for oil companies as part of that. Energy security is nothing to sneeze at, and killing any kind of subsidy to oil companies before you in fact have alternative energy sources that can meaningfully compete with it is rather like throwing out your old pair of shoes before you've bought new ones.

That being said, those oil companies are by and large working on Crown land, the land, and more specifically what lies below the land, has never belonged to private companies. Common law has long seen that that which lies below the surface is property of the Crown, and the Crown has long had the right to say how it may be accessed (ie. see treasure trove laws in Common Law countries).

Edited April 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[GWiz]

Yet again, what subsidy? Show me where any oilsands producer has gotten a cent of tax dollars. You can't. The fact that the government isn't stealing as much of a companies money as they could is not a subsidy.

- "I will immediately eliminate all of Stephen Harper's subsidies to fossil-fuel producers. We'll stop the flow to the tarsands, every single penny," Layton said at a campaign stop at a company that recycles computer equipment.

"And I'll redirect the savings into Canada's most promising clean energy."

Research by the International Institute of Sustainable Development has pegged the value of federal and provincial government subsidies for fossil fuels at $2 billion a year. The subsidies mostly come in the form of tax measures and investment incentives.

The federal share amounts to about $1.4 billion a year, according to the institute. -

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110331/ndp-layton-110331/