UK secretly helping Canada (Harper) with oil sands

[waldo]

take the blustering Levant out of the equation... you express a discriminating concern favouring the import of tarsands oil as compared to what you labelled as "dictator oil". I'm simply asking if you're just as discriminating in terms of selling that same tarsands oil, particularly to a country you expressed reservations over (China). Just how distinct is your own distinction?

Well what I'm saying is now that China has been a growing part of the world market system for almost 20 years, it's too late for questions like whether we should sell oil to China. We have no choice, we have to sell to whomever will buy it.

good on ya for admitting to a self-serving distinction.

as for your questioning on my views... well, one of my views is one particularly optic and timing focused. One where we now realize the Harper Conservatives have been ensconced in a lengthy duplicitous tarsands lobbying campaign with the UK to attempt to influence the EU (while free-trade talks have been ongoing). On another level/scale, we see a tarsands public relations undertaking of another kind, where Conservative party 'staffer' Alykhan Velshi conveniently leaves a senior Conservative ministerial staff position to suddenly reappear leading the tarsands 'ethical oil' media blitz... to, in turn, in recent days announcement, return to the Harper Conservative PMO as Harper's Director of Planning... media revelations (ala FOIA) and the "winding down" of the current Canada-EU Free Trade talks are only coincidental timing aspects!

[sharkman]

Perhaps I should be more specific.

What are your views on trade with China? On selling tar sands oil to China? On China's human rights record?

[blueblood]

whoever "uncle Kevin" is... he (or you) can't tag this issue as a free-trade bargaining chip. For several years, the EU has had an ongoing initiative to upgrade it's significantly dated Fuel Quality Directive standards. The EU standards changes would simply reflect upon the very nature of the tarsands bitumen-derived fuel extraction process that has a higher carbon-emissions value than conventional oil. As for "freezing in the dark", perhaps you're unaware the EU presently imports none of it's oil from Canada... in any case, your isolationist bent is noted.

Umm in case you haven't noticed, oil trades on the world market. When you don't develop the oilsands, that restricts the price of oil causing the price to rise, and given European finances, that's something they really can't afford. By restricting oilsands developing, it makes middle eastern oil more expensive.

If the eu wants to go broke paying for oil they can't afford, they can have at it. Like I said, they can go freeze in the dark.

[waldo]

Perhaps I should be more specific.

What are your views on trade with China? On selling tar sands oil to China? On China's human rights record?

separate from a tarsands aspect, prevailing rationalism in trading with China presumes upon either self-serving ethics... or... accepts it in terms of unfettered globalization with a view that participating in the modernization and increasing prosperity of China moves its society in a welcomed direction. Your described distinction between purchasing and selling to China would appear to place you in the self-serving ethics camp.

in terms of tarsands proper, my view is no non-conventional sources should be developed, whether it's shale oil, tarsands or liquid coal... that so long as we remain principally tethered to a wholesale fossil-fuel addiction, it should principally remain a conventional source addiction.

the tarsands isn't being singled out; rather the proposed new EU standards encompass greenhouse gas (GHG) default value designations for a grouping of described unconventional sources such as:

- oil shale with a proposed GHG value of 131.3 grams CO2 equivalent per megajoule (CO2eq/MJ)

- coal-to-liquid with a proposed GHG value of 172 CO2eq/MJ

- bitumen derived (tarsands) with a proposed GHG value of 107 CO2eq/MJ

as compared to crude oil with a GHG value of 87.5g CO2eq/MJ

[sharkman]

separate from a tarsands aspect, prevailing rationalism in trading with China presumes upon either self-serving ethics... or... accepts it in terms of unfettered globalization with a view that participating in the modernization and increasing prosperity of China moves its society in a welcomed direction. Your described distinction between purchasing and selling to China would appear to place you in the self-serving ethics camp.

in terms of tarsands proper, my view is no non-conventional sources should be developed, whether it's shale oil, tarsands or liquid coal... that so long as we remain principally tethered to a wholesale fossil-fuel addiction, it should principally remain a conventional source addiction.

Okay then, when you have some views on the questions I raised concerning China I'll be interested to hear them. I already know your views on the oil sands, you've been clear on that.

[waldo]

Okay then, when you have some views on the questions I raised concerning China I'll be interested to hear them. I already know your views on the oil sands, you've been clear on that.

per this threads topic, with significant detail/emphasis, I've answered your tarsands related questions. If you have a burning desire to extend upon other interests and concerns you have of/for China, separate and distinct from this threads tarsands related theme, find or create an appropriate thread.

[sharkman]

That's a major dodge in this thread while you continue trolling in the other one. You must be bored.

[waldo]

That's a major dodge in this thread while you continue trolling in the other one. You must be bored.

buddy, as I've now stated previously (twice) in two separate threads, this one and another concurrently running thread, I took the time to engage you and answer your questions relevant to this thread. If you have a burning need to discuss your other expressed concerns over China, take them to an appropriate thread... or create a new thread. I won't enable your brazen predilection for distraction.

[sharkman]

When dodging an issue, using excuses like it's not in the thread topic(as if subject matter doesn't wander all over the place) is too obvious, friend. You need a delicate touch to pull it off successfully, otherwise you come off sounding weak. Just a heads up.

[waldo]

When dodging an issue, using excuses like it's not in the thread topic(as if subject matter doesn't wander all over the place) is too obvious, friend. You need a delicate touch to pull it off successfully, otherwise you come off sounding weak. Just a heads up.

your obsession with charging China with human rights abuses or comparing Canada-China food/safety standards, have no relationship with this thread. Again, I bothered to give you time/attention... time/attention you surely don't deserve... time/attention to answer your tarsands related questions... the questions with relevance to this thread. I could give a rats-ass whether or not you continue to beak-off about "dodging" you. As I said, as I'll continue to say - if you have such a burning need to discuss China human rights and/or food/safety standards, take that up in an appropriate thread.

[sharkman]

See, now that was much better. Sometimes you just have to work at it a little!

[waldo]

See, now that was much better. Sometimes you just have to work at it a little!

so... my simply mentioning the two off-topic points was enough to have you, 'cease and desist'. So... it doesn't even matter to you that I didn't offer comment on those two out-of-scope, off-topic points... and that I still haven't. You just wanted me to state what the two points were, hey? Like I said, like I say, if you have such a pent-up burning urge to discuss Chinese human rights, or Chinese food standards, or Chinese safety standards, please continue on... find or create an appropriate thread. While you're doing that, don't hesitate to speak to your own rationalization that would see you accepting Canada selling tarsands product to a country, China, you have such grave concerns over.

separate from a tarsands aspect, prevailing rationalism in trading with China presumes upon either self-serving ethics... or... accepts it in terms of unfettered globalization with a view that participating in the modernization and increasing prosperity of China moves its society in a welcomed direction. Your described distinction between purchasing and selling to China would appear to place you in the self-serving ethics camp.

[sharkman]

Yes, it doesn't matter that you didn't offer comment on those two out-of-scope topic points(that shall never be named), because you're not trying to answer anything now, remember? You're just trying to more artfully dodge issues you don't have an answer for at the moment, and this latest attempt is your best yet! You are making me proud, my friend!!

[waldo]

Yes, it doesn't matter that you didn't offer comment on those two out-of-scope topic points(that shall never be named), because you're not trying to answer anything now, remember? You're just trying to more artfully dodge issues you don't have an answer for at the moment, and this latest attempt is your best yet! You are making me proud, my friend!!

points that shall never be named? You mean the ones I've stated now, several times - those? Since you won't slither away, let's have at it. Let's start with you stating why you believe those points, the ones you keep harping on, have relevance within this thread... waiting...

[sharkman]

Perhaps I should be more specific.

What are your views on trade with China? On selling tar sands oil to China? On China's human rights record?

I simply wanted to know your points of view on these questions above, which you have repeatedly called out of scope of the thread, as if thread discussions do not wander to and fro. Dodge or answer, what's it gonna be?

[waldo]

no biggee... I accept you acknowledging that a discussion of Chinese human rights and food/safety standards is not relevant to this thread. I equally acknowledge your personal quandary and ultimate rationalization in accepting the sale of tarsands product to China... it must not have been an easy decision for you given your expressed reservations/concerns.

[waldo]

... well, one of my views is one particularly optic and timing focused. One where we now realize the Harper Conservatives have been ensconced in a lengthy duplicitous tarsands lobbying campaign with the UK to attempt to influence the EU (while free-trade talks have been ongoing). On another level/scale, we see a tarsands public relations undertaking of another kind, where Conservative party 'staffer' Alykhan Velshi conveniently leaves a senior Conservative ministerial staff position to suddenly reappear leading the tarsands 'ethical oil' media blitz... to, in turn, in recent days announcement, return to the Harper Conservative PMO as Harper's Director of Planning... media revelations (ala FOIA) and the "winding down" of the current Canada-EU Free Trade talks are only coincidental timing aspects!

it just keeps getting better! Cozy Ties: Astroturf 'Ethical Oil' and Conservative Alliance to Promote Tar Sands Expansion ... adding to the growing list of 'Ethical Oil' connections to the Conservative Party of Canada.

with the 'Ethical Oil' group losing it's official spokesperson Alykan Velshi back to the PMO as Harper's Director of Planning, a new 'Ethical Oil' spokesperson has surfaced, Kathryn Marshall... clearly, as can be seen from this video, she'll need a big more "grooming" - starting at around the 4:50 point, she is asked no less than 9 times by CBC's Solomon to clarify if Enbridge is financing 'Ethical Oil'. Why, her patent refusal to even acknowledge the question, begs another one: is 'Ethical Oil' the astroturf arm of Enbridge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toR3Tt9fS2E

[sharkman]

Gasp.

[waldo]

Gasp.

good on ya - yes, certainly, covert Harper Conservative actions, vis-a-vis attempting to influence the European Union's fuel quality standards, coupled with active participation (& sponsoring (?)) in the 'Ethical Oil' sham, is worthy of your heartfelt and sincere "Gasp".

[CPCFTW]

with the 'Ethical Oil' group losing it's official spokesperson Alykan Velshi back to the PMO as Harper's Director of Planning, a new 'Ethical Oil' spokesperson has surfaced, Kathryn Marshall... clearly, as can be seen from this video, she'll need a big more "grooming" - starting at around the 4:50 point, she is asked no less than 9 times by CBC's Solomon to clarify if Enbridge is financing 'Ethical Oil'. Why, her patent refusal to even acknowledge the question, begs another one: is 'Ethical Oil' the astroturf arm of Enbridge?

She probably thought it was off-topic and would address the question during the appropriate interview.

Come on Sharkman, how could you miss that softball?

[waldo]

She probably thought it was off-topic and would address the question during the appropriate interview.

Come on Sharkman, how could you miss that softball?

softball? 9 times, she, the official spokesperson for the 'Ethical Oil' group avoids answering the question - 9 times. A simple 'yes' or 'no' was all that was required. She simply would not answer whether or not, Enbridge provided funding to her 'Ethical Oil' organization.

let me lay this softball up for you... the essence of the discussion centered on influences affecting the environmental review process - domestic or foreign. The 'Ethical Oil' spokesperson quite easily and quite readily stated her organization, "took no foreign money". She refused to answer, 9 times, whether it was funded by Enbridge... presumably under the auspices that Enbridge wasn't a foreign entity - duh! She kept up this ridiculous mantra that they were simply a, "small grassroots organization". As I said, by refusing to answer the simple question - 9 times, is her self-described, "small grassroots organization", in fact, the astroturf arm of Enbridge? Notwithstanding the direct ties between her, 'small grassroots organization' and Harper Conservatives. Batter up!

[CPCFTW]

softball? 9 times, she, the official spokesperson for the 'Ethical Oil' group avoids answering the question - 9 times. A simple 'yes' or 'no' was all that was required. She simply would not answer whether or not, Enbridge provided funding to her 'Ethical Oil' organization.

let me lay this softball up for you... the essence of the discussion centered on influences affecting the environmental review process - domestic or foreign. The 'Ethical Oil' spokesperson quite easily and quite readily stated her organization, "took no foreign money". She refused to answer, 9 times, whether it was funded by Enbridge... presumably under the auspices that Enbridge wasn't a foreign entity - duh! She kept up this ridiculous mantra that they were simply a, "small grassroots organization". As I said, by refusing to answer the simple question - 9 times, is her self-described, "small grassroots organization", in fact, the astroturf arm of Enbridge? Notwithstanding the direct ties between her, 'small grassroots organization' and Harper Conservatives. Batter up!

I guess she's got you beat. You only dodged a question in this thread 5 or 6 times. I guess that's why she gets paid the big bucks!

[waldo]

I guess she's got you beat. You only dodged a question in this thread 5 or 6 times. I guess that's why she gets paid the big bucks!

why drive by... you can always step up and take your chances