Harper takes over 'energy projects' decisions

[Wilber]

I don't think telling someone to "piss up a rope and hang themselves with it" is particularly constructive either.

[eyeball]

I don't think telling someone to "piss up a rope and hang themselves with it" is particularly constructive either.

Probably not but you should try being shoved around by DFO for years. Self-restraint is not as easy as it looks.

[TimG]

Furthermore, the situation is not helped when those concerns are belittled by those who will suffer no consequences if they are wrong.

What about people who think they face no consequences by turning down an important economic development and the tax revenue that comes with it? What about people who accuse anyone who supports the project of being a stooge of the oil companies?

The problem in this debate are environmentalists that have succeeded in brainwashing people into believing that any human caused change to the natural environment is a catastrophe and no expense should be spared to avoid it. This rhetoric makes it impossible to have a rational discussion of the benefits vs. risks.

Edited April 27, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

Probably not but you should try being shoved around by DFO for years. Self-restraint is not as easy as it looks.

Don't know about the DFO but if it operates like our "energy policy", I can see why.

Problem is, this country has no real energy policy, never has, we just make it up as we go along. Trudeau's NEP was nothing more than a dismal price fixing scheme. It's only real achievement was to divide the country and it did nothing to address Canada's energy needs.

So where are we now? We produce more oil than we need but import more than half of what we consume. The proposed "plan" is to suck imported oil in on one coast while we pump domestic oil out the other coast ensuring that we remain dependent on imported oil and have tankers running up and down both coasts to keep it that way. How f*#^ed up is that? This country should be ashamed of itself, swimming in oil and it can't even look after its own needs. What a joke.

Maybe the we need the public to put its foot down on a few of these projects because if we leave it to the same old actors, we'll get the same old crap.

[jacee]

Don't know about the DFO but if it operates like our "energy policy", I can see why.

Problem is, this country has no real energy policy, never has, we just make it up as we go along. Trudeau's NEP was nothing more than a dismal price fixing scheme. It's only real achievement was to divide the country and it did nothing to address Canada's energy needs.

So where are we now? We produce more oil than we need but import more than half of what we consume. The proposed "plan" is to suck imported oil in on one coast while we pump domestic oil out the other coast ensuring that we remain dependent on imported oil and have tankers running up and down both coasts to keep it that way. How f*#^ed up is that? This country should be ashamed of itself, swimming in oil and it can't even look after its own needs. What a joke.

Maybe the we need the public to put its foot down on a few of these projects because if we leave it to the same old actors, we'll get the same old crap.

Such a voice of sanity!

So true.

The 'industry' voice will always speak to whatever maximizes private profit. That's their job. I get that. However, it is an incomplete picture and an unacceptable, myopic solution UNTIL the voices of the public and independent experts are included. The industry can't be expected to anticipate all of the impacts: That's why public hearings are held - to complete the picture.

Disrespect of the public process is counterproductive, and will backfire on those who try to manipulate or control the outcomes.

Democracy is messy ... but it beats all of the alternatives.

Edited April 28, 2012 by jacee

[waldo]

That leaves us with plenty o' oil and nowhere to send it. We have an urgent need to get on with it, not in ten years when the bewildered blubbering at the collapse of our economy by 'progressives' gets deafening, but now.

Does that fit in with your comprehensive awareness of political and economic strategy in Canada?

speaking of... not... getting on with it! Do the following revelations fit in with your comprehensive awareness of political and economic strategies in Canada? I expect so... since Harper Conservatives are playing the short game, hey?

Energy Diversity in Canada? What Energy Diversity?... per secret but declassified internal Harper Conservative government documents released under access to information legislation

A dependence on fossil fuel resources is making the country vulnerable to a planetary “mega trend” toward low-carbon energy that will affect the whole of Canada’s economy.

Noting that Canada was last among G8 nations in terms of clean energy investments... other countries were getting ahead of Canada in a new market, estimated to be worth $6.5 trillion in 2007-2008, for green products and services aimed at lowering carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

Over the medium term, the world is being shaped by another mega trend — the beginning of a transition towards a lower-carbon economy... While fossil fuels will remain a dominant source of global energy for decades to come, leading economies, including the US and China are making major investments to position themselves as low-carbon leaders.

Following Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s election in 2006, his minority government actually cancelled billions of dollars in climate change and clean energy programs prompting public criticism. One year later, it started announcing the billions of dollars worth of new investment programs with similar features but different names.

But it ended most of the programs, such as stimulus funding in support of wind, solar and other renewable energy, after forming a majority government in 2011.

Growing demand for natural resources and the long-term transition towards a low-carbon economy will affect the whole of Canada’s economy, especially given energy’s role as a key input... How Canada develops and uses its assets, from its resource base through to its skilled workforce and emerging clean tech sector, will be a deciding factor in strengthening its overall competitiveness in today’s uncertain world.

[WWWTT]

Hidden in the budget, Harper gives himself the power to make unilateral decisions about major energy projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline, overriding the National Energy Board's review process.

Also hidden in that mega bill/budget,the minister responsible for EI can now make changes without the approval of parliament!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I'm still not sure how Conservatives and Albertans can be on board with Harper having the final say on energy projects. Are they too stupid to see that you need to take the individual out of it and look at the position he gave the power to? He gave it to PM. What happens when the Liberals get back into power with an environmental guy at the helm? What happens if the NDP happens to make it in? This shows that Harper cares more about his own power and staying in power than actually making wise decisions for Canada. He doesn't care about Canada. He cares about himself and this should make it patently obvious. Sadly, his base is stupid enough to buy into it. This should be something that infuriates them, given the ramifications of it.

[GostHacked]

I seriously can't stop laughing right now. This makes for awesome political entertainment.

Well, it's not entertainment. This stuff directly affects you as a consumer of energy. A democratic leader does not take over decision making that affects the whole country's energy policies and ignore the environmental policies and/or concerns.

And you wonder why Harper has cut funding to things like Oceans and Fisheries and forest management departments. All environmental agencies. Get rid of any oppositional force that would go against the decision making of Harper.

[PIK]

Funny how TimG only cares about community, working together, and "bortherhood" when it comes to already rich people making more money, but doesn't give a crap when it actually comes to helping those in need.

So there it is, you don't care about pipelines or accidents ,it is all about you being pissed about people making money. It seems every argument the left has , it all boils down to the hatred of someone making money. Anyways to hell with BC , go north.

Edited August 7, 2012 by PIK

[PIK]

Well, it's not entertainment. This stuff directly affects you as a consumer of energy. A democratic leader does not take over decision making that affects the whole country's energy policies and ignore the environmental policies and/or concerns.

And you wonder why Harper has cut funding to things like Oceans and Fisheries and forest management departments. All environmental agencies. Get rid of any oppositional force that would go against the decision making of Harper.

It is about time we cut down some of these outfits. Waaaay to many, no wonder it takes for ever to get things done in this country.

[Canuckistani]

GostHacked, on 06 August 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Well, it's not entertainment. This stuff directly affects you as a consumer of energy. A democratic leader does not take over decision making that affects the whole country's energy policies and ignore the environmental policies and/or concerns.

And you wonder why Harper has cut funding to things like Oceans and Fisheries and forest management departments. All environmental agencies. Get rid of any oppositional force that would go against the decision making of Harper.

It is about time we cut down some of these outfits. Waaaay to many, no wonder it takes for ever to get things done in this country.

Forest management is a provincial responsibility. In BC it's certainly not time to get rid of the Forest Service, in fact it should have been beefed up to prevent the loss of merchantable wood we're experiencing now with the govt considering logging in forests. That's not all due to the mtn pine beetle, but due to allowing forest companies to mow down trees in an unsustainable way.

And Fisheries and Oceans may be ineffectual, but it also needs to be beefed up to prevent us doing to the salmon what Nfld did to the cod. That would include enforcing fishing regulations against First Nations and stopping them from selling fish caught under the ceremonial and food fisheries agreement.

[waldo]

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Science not politics!!!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says science — not politics — will ultimately determine whether the Northern Gateway pipeline proceeds, and he is refusing to get into an argument with British Columbia about how to share “hypothetical revenues” from the project.

Speaking Tuesday on the issue for the first time since B.C. outlined its demands, Harper said the project is being independently assessed by the National Energy Board joint review panel and that his government “does not pick and choose particular projects.”

Yet, the Conservative government announced in the spring that cabinet, and not the National Energy Board, will now make the final decision on pipeline projects in the “national interest” — including the Northern Gateway.

Harper insisted Tuesday that a

decision on major projects such as the Northern Gateway will be made independently by scientists examining the “economic costs and risks”

associated with the project.

“The only way that governments can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis scientifically, and not simply on political criteria,” Harper told reporters at a news conference in Vancouver.

The issue is politically dicey for a Harper government that holds 21 seats in British Columbia and is looking to fend off Tom Mulcair’s NDP, which opposes the Northern Gateway pipeline and has been surging in the polls.

But comments by Harper and his senior B.C. minister James Moore suggest the federal government is increasingly uneasy about being politically tied to the Northern Gateway pipeline project

“We may be witnessing the beginnings of the Harper government backing away from the project,” said University of B.C. political scientist George Hoberg, a specialist on environmental and resource management policy.

“C-38 unquestionably shifts the final say on pipeline approvals from the NEB to the cabinet. But what I hear Harper saying today is that, for the Northern Gateway pipeline, he will respect the findings of the joint review panel if they find against the project. To me, that is a very important clarification of position.”

oh my! Will the usual MLW suspects who so vehemently state scientists aren't qualified to speak on matters of economics/policy/risk assessment... step forward... and challenge the comments of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

Edited August 8, 2012 by waldo

[bleeding heart]

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Science not politics!!!

oh my! Will the usual MLW suspects who so vehemently state scientists aren't qualified to speak on matters of economics/policy/risk assessment... step forward... and challenge the comments of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

I think there's a somewhat transparent play at hand here: first of all, as is speculated in the article, Harper might wish to distance the government from the decision itself.

Second, he's implying that "I really don't hate science! See?"

[TimG]

I think there's a somewhat transparent play at hand here: first of all, as is speculated in the article, Harper might wish to distance the government from the decision itself.

This is EXACTLY what is a happening. I suspect Harper has looked at the political landscape and is now willing to let this project die. He is hiding behind the skirts of scientists to avoid officially changing his position.

That does not change the fact that scientists have absolutely no business making economic decisions. They can comment on the possible consequences of different options but the cost benefit calculation is decision political and their opinion is quite irrelevant. The fact that politicians of all stripes like to use scientists for political cover when convenient does not change that.

Edited August 8, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Cost-benefit analysis is political, eh?

[TimG]

Cost-benefit analysis is political, eh?

Do you have any idea what a cost benefit analysis is? It involves trying to assign value to all sorts of intangible things. These kinds are of assumptions are purely value based and have no basis in science. Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Do you have any idea what a cost benefit analysis is? It involves trying to assign value to all sorts of intangible things. These kinds are of assumptions are purely value based and have no basis in science.

So science is completely divorced from values?

[TimG]

So science is completely divorced from values?

Values are not about science. Values affect how science is used within a culture but values are not determined by science. Scientists have no qualifications that make them a better judge of choices based values than politicians. If anyone is going to make choices based on values it should be the people elected to make those choices. Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So is there such things as universal benefits? Or are they all value based?

[dre]

There already is a proposal to build a pipeline east instead of west, and I read that it would only cost about a billion dollars more, or about 25% more. If thats the case its a no brainer to build it east.

[TimG]

So is there such things as universal benefits? Or are they all value based?

The issue is not identifying benefits. The issue is assigning a value to them. For example, let's say a project brings jobs and economic development but will lead to extinction of a species. The only way to do a cost benefit analysis on this project is to place a value on the species. If the species value is low the project benefits exceed the costs and if the species value is high then the costs exceed the benefits.

A scientist has no special qualifications to make decisions like that. The 'value' of a species stems for the moral values of the people living in the society. A question that is made complicated because different people in the same society have very different opinions. It is the politician's job to arbitrate between these different opinions therefore it is politician's job to make the final decision on these kinds of cost benefit analyses.

Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So you believe in moral relativism then?

[TimG]

So you believe in moral relativism then?

You are evading the point. I said that scientists have no special qualifications that allow them to resolve questions of values and the people who are supposed to be resolving these issues are politicians. What does this have to do with that point? Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Science not politics!!!

oh my! Will the usual MLW suspects who so vehemently state scientists aren't qualified to speak on matters of economics/policy/risk assessment... step forward... and challenge the comments of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

That does not change the fact that scientists have absolutely no business making economic decisions.

Scientists have no qualifications that make them a better judge of choices based values than politicians. If anyone is going to make choices based on values it should be the people elected to make those choices.

thankee!

this is so confusing... now you want politicians to make the decisions? I thought you were the guy who has posted a brazillion times that economists... that poly-sci guys... that engineers... and not scientists, are the "qualified decision makers". Now you're advocating for politicians! I trust the Pielkesphere can survive your shift... that Lomborg, that Toll, that Goklany can all survive you abandoning them!