Alberta Oil Sands

[waldo]

Well, take your response, for instance. The first words that came to your mind were to marginalize my opinion. What does that make you? Stubborn.

marginalize your opinion? C'mon, man-up! Accept your self-avowed AGW/CC denier status, loud & proud! In any case, it most certainly wasn't a marginalization tact; rather, it clearly acts to establish a measuring reference to help gauge the answer to the question you're avoiding.... you know, "what determiners are used to qualify a stubborn environmentalist from a reasonable environmentalist?"

[jbg]

The environmental people need to open their eyes to reality.... they cant stop anything... regardless of which celebrity they have on their team, Big Oil has deep pockets.

The enviros will let things through providing Desmaires and Power Corp. get their tribute.

[LonJowett]

Everyone is an environmentalist. Some just take longer to realize they are than others.

[sharkman]

Now that's a perfectly good response, and pretty much true. It's just that people have differnet definitions of what one is. Some take it so far to think that the earth is going to die and they become activists. I don't belong to that school of thought.

[cybercoma]

David Suzuki on the tarsands "Screw the Environment!"

[jbg]

David Suzuki on the tarsands "Screw the Environment!"

You really think I'm going to take anything Al Gore North says seriously?

[Guest Peeves]

I have a couple of questions that I'm sure a few of the wise people who frequent this forum can answer.

Let's say the David Suzuki/Al Gore types, along with dubious organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace got their wish and the Alberta Oil sands were permanently shut down. What impact would shutting the oil sands down have on the Canadian economy? How would shutting the oil sands affect the average Canadian? Simple questions I need answered.

If the oil sands were shut down, how would it effect the average oil user might be a better question.

So long as there are those wishing for more and more from our governments, oil sands- and any other product will be exploited at whatever cost. The answer to your question lies in what we demand from the nanny state.

If we cut back on demands, more circumspect decisions might be made as to the ecological consequences.

But we won't. Give me more. Unfortunately that's today's mantra to government. That's what happened to Greece, to city operations, to the EU economy.

Let's say 'WE' affect the average Canadian by our demands,the oil sands are the result, not the cause.

[stamps]

If the oil sands were shut down, how would it effect the average oil user might be a better question.

So long as there are those wishing for more and more from our governments, oil sands- and any other product will be exploited at whatever cost. The answer to your question lies in what we demand from the nanny state.

If we cut back on demands, more circumspect decisions might be made as to the ecological consequences.

But we won't. Give me more. Unfortunately that's today's mantra to government. That's what happened to Greece, to city operations, to the EU economy.

Let's say 'WE' affect the average Canadian by our demands,the oil sands are the result, not the cause.

Are you saying that if we all lowered our standard of living, thus lowering what we expect from our government in services like health care, building and maintaining roads, education... there would be no need to develope the oilsands?