The Harper Government, Sun Media and EthicalOil.org

[cybercoma]

any particular reason the Enbridge sponsored poll failed to mention anything to do with tanker shipments?

in any case, some interesting 'tactics' are just beginning to surface:

These polls don't matter in the slightest, but if you're going to argue about this one, don't forget this gem in the original article that TimG posted:

55 per cent were "not very" or "not at all" aware ... They were then asked: "Based on what you know to date, would you say that you generally support or oppose the Northern Gateway pipelines project?" [emphasis mine]

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/residents+support+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+project+poll/5948076/story.html#ixzz1kHvKlItx

SO the majority of respondents had no clue what the hell the poll was talking about, then the question was posed based on what they know to date. So based on a group of people that know jack about the pipeline, the majority support it. Who cares?

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/residents+support+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+project+poll/5948076/story.html#ixzz1kHv23g8a

[waldo]

This is entirely do to the change in political narrative triggered by Climategate.

all that's happened is a reinforcement of the denier narrative that U.S. Republican politicians held. The rest of the thinking world quickly realized there was no there... there, in Hackergate. I suggest you take your BS to the existing MLW threads that have exposed Hackergate for the denier sham it was/is.

Again - you need to leave your lefty echo chambers and see what is happening in the world.

From the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm

The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.

And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made".

like I said, Hackergate proved to be a non-issue in the minds of the general public (who even know what it is)... again, absolutely reinforced by the total lack of attention given to it's recent failed spawn, 'son-of-Hackergate'... which got and gets no play (other than in the denialsphere!). Your cited poll is now ~2 years old. Anything more current, say... the Jan,2011 UK ICM poll:

Public belief in climate change weathers storm, poll shows - Events of past 18 months have little effect on Britons' opinion, as 83% view climate change as a current or imminent threat

Asked if climate change was a current or imminent threat, 83% of Britons agreed, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat.

A large majority of people think that humanity is causing climate change, with 68% agreeing and 24% choosing to blame non-man-made factors, which again is very close to the August 2009 response, with figures of 71% and 23% respectively.

The bottom line is the narrative has changed everywhere and no matter how much you fume and sputter, Climategate played a role in that change in narrative because it undermined the credibility of climate science by exposing climate scientists as political partisans.

only in your denialTown, not in the real world.

Edited January 23, 2012 by waldo

[waldo]

Of course, polls are one thing. The actions speak louder than words. Germany choose to mothball its nuclear reactors despite the fact that it will need more coal to replace it.

already dealt with your ongoing tirade against Germany's leading renewable deployments:

Oops. A dozen new coal plants? I wonder why they are doing that? Perhaps because the government knows renewables are a scam that cannot meet the energy requirements of a modern technological society?

oh my! Clearly, the 'oops' is yours. In another of your disingenuous posts, somehow... even though your own linked article concerns the German decision to totally replace nuclear (to close all 18 of its nuclear power plants), somehow you can't make the connection! Of course what you purposely ignore is that the new coal plants are all new higher efficiency designs... and are being built in conjunction with a parallel decommissioning of older style, less efficient coal plants. Oops! Of course, you avoid the salient point; i.e., what's the net GW coal-fired electricity capacity effect by replacing old inefficient plants with these design plants... and, of course, how does that all fit within the overall German national CO2 emissions reduction strategy? Care to go there, hey?

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)... it is most certainly set on a path to meet its next target... to scale renewable deployment to supply 40% of its 2020 electricity demand as part of its national CO2 reduction goals... with some projections indicating Germany could quite easily attain a 50% overall renewable sourced electrical supply by 2020.

And Germans are paying dearly for their renewable obsession:

In other words, renewables are a costly option that is not even worth considering unless you have an extremely wealthy society that is willing to 'make sacrifices' to the green religion. This excludes 90% of the world's population and means you have provided zero evidence to refute my claim that global reductions in CO2 are technically possible.

nice try! Historically, German nuclear has reaped the same hugely significant subsidy gains that BigOil has garnered... acting to, similarly, keep electricity costs artificially low. In the past 40 years, the German nuclear industry received more than $230 billion in

direct subsidies

(distinct from tax break subsidy)... almost 5 times the dollar subsidy amount directed toward renewable energy technology/industry. Care to pony up a number that shows the historical edge that German subsidies to hard coal, lignite and oil & gas have held over subsidies to renewables... sure you have those figures, right?

come back with real numbers next time... numbers that show the true cost of electricity to Germans... without the current nuclear, hard coal, lignite, oil& gas direct subsidies (notwithstanding the hugely significant tax relief based subsidies)... come back with numbers that reflect the true cost of electricity, not the numbers that exclude the hidden costs of direct and tax based subsidies... that act to keep electricity costs artificially lower, hey?

[TimG]

already dealt with your ongoing tirade against Germany's leading renewable deployments:

Ah yes. The waldo trademark response: tonnes of verbiage that has nothing to do with point being made. Germany has made a conscious decisions to go with coal rather than nukes. The government may wish that the unicorns and fairies could provide the power but that is just political rhetoric.

Here is a good paper on the reality of wind power in Germany:

http://windfarmrealities.org/wfr-docs/dw-world-article-110326.pdf

In 2006, when wind farms were few and far between, coal, gas and nuclear power plants

produced just the amount of energy needed in eastern Germany at the time, but also

created large amounts of nuclear waste and carbon dioxide emissions. The system was

relatively stable. One average, engineers took action to stabilize the eastern German grid

roughly 80 times a year.

Today, as the amount of electricity generated by the region's 8,000 wind turbines rises

and falls by the hour, engineers have to intervene every second day to maintain network

stability.

...

A 2005 study conducted by the German Energy Agency found that 850 kilometers of new

"electricity highways" were needed to improve the eastern supergrid - 90 kilometers of

which were eventually installed. Five years later, in its most recent study in 2010, the

agency said demand was expected to increase fourfold over the next 10 years.

[waldo]

Ah yes. The waldo trademark response: tonnes of verbiage that has nothing to do with point being made. Germany has made a conscious decisions to go with coal rather than nukes. The government may wish that the unicorns and fairies could provide the power but that is just political rhetoric.

the point being made? You mean where you presumed to drop links to speak of public polling results influenced by Hackergate? And from there you made the grandiose leap to Germany and Japan energy policy, vis-a-vis decommissioning nuclear reactors. Was that your "cohesive" point? Are you really making a link between Hackergate and Germany/Japan energy policy revisions?

in any case, your repeat cycling schtick is an easy one for MLW search to deal with:

Yep. They need to replace nuclear with coal cause renewables are crappy sources of power.

and yet in a relative short period of time, as shown during the first half of 2011, Germany has managed to have renewable energy sources meet 20% of its total energy mix... and is well positioned to meet it's next 40% by 2020 target.

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)... it is most certainly set on a path to meet its next target... to scale renewable deployment to supply 40% of its 2020 electricity demand as part of its national CO2 reduction goals... with some projections indicating Germany could quite easily attain a 50% overall renewable sourced electrical supply by 2020.

nice to see you dodge any discussion of Germany's historical, most significant subsidy disparity that nuclear/BigOil holds over renewables. Most certainly, let's not have you continue to ignore the effective result of Germany's shift/change... a significant reduction in its carbon emissions!

in working to help reduce CO2 emissions, should one surmise that, as you say, based on politics, economics, values and technology,

Germany is showing that it is technically possible to reduce it's carbon emissions

?

[huh]

I just said that I believe the majority supports the pipeline. I believe that the majority who oppose the pipeline are far left wing environmentalists. There are certainly bound to be people of every political affiliation who oppose it though. But how could we ever measure the effect that the pro-ethical oil lobby has on the opinion of these marginalized individuals?

You don't really make much sense.

Well, if the left can get it's funding for environmental causes from outside the country, why is it that every time the gun debate flares up the far left trots out the outside influence of the NRA, even though no actual proof of funding or connection can be found? In fact the NRA isn't allowed to send money our way, but hey, when it's a liberal cause, it's righteous, anything goes.

[guyser]

...gun debate flares up the far left trots out the outside influence of the NRA, even though no actual proof of funding or connection can be found? In fact the NRA isn't allowed to send money our way, but hey, when it's a liberal cause, it's righteous, anything goes.

A connection can be found, and even linked in this thread. No they cannot send money, but support in all manner of things is not only encouraged but spoken of publicly.

Nice try anyhow.

[cybercoma]

Well, if the left can get it's funding for environmental causes from outside the country, why is it that every time the gun debate flares up the far left trots out the outside influence of the NRA, even though no actual proof of funding or connection can be found? In fact the NRA isn't allowed to send money our way, but hey, when it's a liberal cause, it's righteous, anything goes.

Are you saying that the Right doesn't care about the environment?

[The_Squid]

Well, if the left can get it's funding for environmental causes from outside the country, why is it that every time the gun debate flares up the far left trots out the outside influence of the NRA, even though no actual proof of funding or connection can be found? In fact the NRA isn't allowed to send money our way, but hey, when it's a liberal cause, it's righteous, anything goes.

The NRA constitution doesn't allow them to give money outside of the USA, apparently.

But, here you go... the "smoking gun": http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html

The NRA provides the Canadian gun lobby group with "tremendous amounts of logistical support," and while the NRA's constitution prevents them from providing money, "they freely give us anything else," Tony Bernardo, an Ontario gun advocate and CILA's executive director, said in Canadian Firearms Digest in July 2001.

In 2000, the NRA paid $100,000 for an infomercial about what it called "the Canadian situation" that aired on The National Network in the U.S., according to Bernardo, who appeared in the video.

DOCUMENTS

Read the collection of documents the CBC gathered for this story.

It cautioned gun owners the registry was a government plot to find out how many guns there were in order to seize them and leave citizens helpless to defend themselves.

Bernardo, a frequent guest on NRA chat shows updating U.S. gun owners on the fight to kill the Canadian registry, said the NRA was instrumental in helping him set up his Canadian lobby group, CILA, the lobbying arm of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), and a mirror group of the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA's lobbying arm.

[cybercoma]

Speaking of documents, the leader of the Haida nation is a bit pissed at the lies coming from Enbridge.

"Enbridge has provided deliberately misleading and false information claiming that [it] has built relationships with the Haida Fisheries Program, Haida Development Corporation and Haida Child and Family Services,” Guujaaw said in an email to the Joint Review Panel dated Dec. 20.

Read more: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2012/01/10/haida-nation-leader-outraged-over-“libelous”-enbridge-documents

Edited January 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Speaking of documents, the leader of the Haida nation is a bit pissed at the lies coming from Enbridge.

Enbridge is really scrambling, skulking around trying to get some Aboriginal person ... ANYONE! ... to not overtly oppose the pipeline, and attaching some official name to them to make it look like official support ... which it definitely is not. None of them are Band Councils or Traditional Councils and it's highly unlikely that they even represent the agencies named.

Unbelievable deceit by Enbridge.

If the NEB does its job right, it will find Enbridge's actions highly suspect to downright fraudulent.

And why would people trust the safety and environmental integrity of a corporation already known to use deceit to try to get its way?

Also, since the integrity of the supposedly independent NEB has already been brought into disrepute by being identified as "an ally" of the oil industry, the NEB will be under considerable pressure to prove its independence and objectivity, and divorce itself from the industry and from the Harper government.

For these reasons, I see the whole process falling apart, as far as Enbridge's pipeline is concerned. I'd say their actions and those of the Harper government are backfiring on them badly.

They're basically sabotaging themselves.

Makes our job easier.

I'm waiting for the lawsuit that will shut the whole process down, since the 'independence' of the NEB is now entirely compromised by government interference, and Enbridge's documents appear fraudulent.

Take a lesson oil industry, Harper ... don't try to steamroll the Canadian public: We push back.

HARPER WORKS FOR US!

Not for the oil industry.

Edited January 27, 2012 by jacee

[eyeball]

The story of Humpty Dumpty comes to mind.

[waldo]

lil' remix of the earlier nonsense spewed by the "Ethical Oil" spokesperson, Kathryn Marshall:

[jacee]

Eyeball said

The story of Humpty Dumpty comes to mind.

Edited January 27, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

A good article outlining the sources and nature of Aboriginal rights pertaining to the proposed pipeline.

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=6066744

So do aboriginals have the legal ability to stop a major energy megaproject that the Harper government touts as the key to creation of numerous jobs and billions of dollars in new wealth. They probably don't, legal experts said this week, though uncertainty remains about how courts might deal with a legal challenge. Atleo's claim was made at a news conference after this week's Crown-first nations summit in Ottawa.

"The notion of first nations having free, prior and informed consent means exactly that," he said.

...

Atleo's notion of "consent" comes directly from wording sprinkled throughout United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 and endorsed, after considerable hesitation, by the Harper government in 2010.

The declaration says states should obtain from ndigenous peoples "their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources." mineral, water or other resources." But the declaration is not a treaty ...

...

Of greater relevance is Canadian case law that has required governments in Canada to"consult" and "accommodate" first nations on and-use decisions But common-law precedents don't say aboriginals with established title to the land in question have a blanket veto on land-use decisions. The law specifically contemplates allowing title to be "justifiably infringed."

...

The court made it clear infringement couldn't take place without meaningful consultation that could, in certain cases, open the door to the requirement of consent.

"This consultation must be in good faith, and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of the aboriginal peoples whose ands are at issue. In most cases, it will be significantly deeper than mere consultation," the court stated. "Some cases may even require the full consent of an aborigina nation, particularly when provinces enact hunting and fishing regulations in relation to aboriginal lands."

...

"The peoples that would have the strongest argument for consent being required are those whose lands would be heavily affected - those, for example, where the pipeline would cut through the heart of their lands, where it would endanger some resource or interfere with their use of the land, or where there was a risk of heavy damage from spills, etc.," Webber wrote in an email.

"I am not an expert on the technical aspects of this project, but I would think that the Haisla would have to be one of the nations with the biggest potential impact - the largest risk of spills, on land and in both fresh and salt water; the greatest intrusion on their traditional territory."

Bankes said a legal case would most likely be aunched at the Federal Court of Appeal leve after an NEB go-ahead.

So ... the NEB hearings are only part of the process, since some First Nations would also have recourse to the courts to address the Crown's duty to consult with them, and to accommodate their rights.

Though not mentioned and perhaps only a remote possibility, the international courts can also be used when legal options in Canada are exhausted, where judgements are based on the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[cybercoma]

The fact that the government is using aggressive rhetoric about resistance, such as groups being labelled "enemies of the state" for having environmental concerns, goes to show that any talks with aboriginal groups will not be in "good faith" as required by law.

[fellowtraveller]

Of course what you purposely ignore is that the new coal plants are all new higher efficiency designs... and are being built in conjunction with a parallel decommissioning of older style, less efficient coal plants. Oops! Of course, you avoid the salient point; i.e., what's the net GW coal-fired electricity capacity effect by replacing old inefficient plants with these design plants... and, of course, how does that all fit within the overall German national CO2 emissions reduction strategy? Care to go there, hey?

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)... it is most certainly set on a path to meet its next target... to scale renewable deployment to supply 40% of its 2020 electricity demand as part of its national CO2 reduction goals... with some projections indicating Germany could quite easily attain a 50% overall renewable sourced electrical supply by 2020.

Of course, what you ignore is substantial and revelatory:

-The main reason Germany is switching back to coal is financial, not environmental. Coal plants are much chaepr to build than replacing aging nuclear

- No matter how efficient 'new coal' might be, the net carbon footprint of coal plants is much higher than net footprint of nuclear. Not just in the operation of the plant for decades, but in the acquisition of fuel for the plant which in itself is a carbon producing nightmare.

- Germany easily meets and exceeds their Kyoto targets without lifting a finger or spending a penny. Why? Because their industrial carbon output was measured with the horrifically polluting East German heavy industry outputs included. Those industries ran for political reeasons, not economic, so they all shut down on reunification. Presto chango, all targets met for a long time! Same thing in Russia, which is why they had billions in carbon credits for sale, which Canada though of buying several years ago.

[fellowtraveller]

So ... the NEB hearings are only part of the process, since some First Nations would also have recourse to the courts to address the Crown's duty to consult with them, and to accommodate their rights.

Though not mentioned and perhaps only a remote possibility, the international courts can also be used when legal options in Canada are exhausted, where judgements are based on the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What international court has jurisdiction in Canada on the federal govt?

[waldo]

Of course, what you ignore is substantial and revelatory:

-The main reason Germany is switching back to coal is financial, not environmental. Coal plants are much chaepr to build than replacing aging nuclear

I didn't ignore anything... so no revelations, hey? There is no "switching back", per se. Of course, the initial reaction was one several countries took; i.e., Fukushima fallout. Some semblance of "less urgency"... and reality... has crept back into the German government. The initial timeline suggested for the shutdown of nuclear wasn't tied specifically with a correlated shift to renewables; again, see Fukushima fallout. Those timelines were distinct and separate. What Germany has done is shut down 8 of it's oldest reactors and issued a law that the remaining 9 must be closed 'asap'... all remaining by 2021.

- No matter how efficient 'new coal' might be, the net carbon footprint of coal plants is much higher than net footprint of nuclear. Not just in the operation of the plant for decades, but in the acquisition of fuel for the plant which in itself is a carbon producing nightmare.

is this one of your own, uhhh, revelations? Cause, like... thanks scoop! Any initiatives to replace aging less efficient coal plants with newer efficient coal plants (with or without considerations toward CCS) is a balanced emissions reduction win.

- Germany easily meets and exceeds their Kyoto targets

whatever significance you think your unsubstantiated claims concerning Kyoto have, the graphic I showed had no bearing on or relation to the Kyoto Accord...

in working to help reduce CO2 emissions, should one surmise that, as you say, based on politics, economics, values and technology,

Germany is showing that it is technically possible to reduce it's carbon emissions

?

in any case, what you're ignoring from my post is, as you say, substantial and revelatory:

and yet in a relative short period of time, as shown during the first half of 2011, Germany has managed to have renewable energy sources meet 20% of its total energy mix... and is well positioned to meet it's next 40% by 2020 target.

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)... it is most certainly set on a path to meet its next target... to scale renewable deployment to supply 40% of its 2020 electricity demand as part of its national CO2 reduction goals... with some projections indicating Germany could quite easily attain a 50% overall renewable sourced electrical supply by 2020.

[jacee]

What international court has jurisdiction in Canada on the federal govt?

Long way to go before that ... NEB ... Federal Court ... Supreme Court ... and Aboriginal rights are protected by the laws, courts and Constitution of Canada, so solutions are likely. The Supreme Court makes reference to International laws and conventions as well, perhaps to avoid referrals to International courts.

Canada is also actively involved in the International Court of Justice:

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/prmny-mponu/canada_un-canada_onu/overview-survol/ICJ-CIJ.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=19&view=d

Despite the desire of various governments to confine the governments to confine the question of Aboriginal issues to a domestic context, certain fundamental Aboriginal rights have been recognized in international law and practice since the 15th century.

http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter5.html#10

Edited January 28, 2012 by jacee

[waldo]

for those that followed the aftermath of the CBC Power & Politics interview with 'Ethical Oil' spokesperson Kathryn Marshall... initial video => here... remix video => here

and now, the reprise!!! beauty!

[Jack Weber]

for those that followed the aftermath of the CBC Power & Politics interview with 'Ethical Oil' spokesperson Kathryn Marshall... initial video => here... remix video => here

and now, the reprise!!! beauty!

Bow to your master,cranks!!!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

There's threads about the oil lines already. This thread is about the Conservative propaganda machine that has been uncovered.

It was effective enough to have almost every single newspaper endorse Steve dog.

He was the ONLY pro-oil prime minister candidate.

How much money was spent by external interest groups covertly to ensure his victory? We'll never know...

There is nothing ethical about the current conservative government and how they conduct themselves.