Mulcair blames Harper for East-West divisions

[Argus]

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you engage in hyperbole. Calling corporate accountability "extreme environmentalism" does nothing for your argument.

If you had read the article you'd know they're talking about shutting down what sounds like a large part of the oil sands. You can use whatever innocuous sounding words you like, but if you want to take it to the extreme you're refusing to allow pipelines to go forth, and slapping such huge fees on business it can't operate, that's pretty extreme.

[Argus]

Operating without taxpayer handouts and cleaning up after themselves is "extreme environmentalism"?

As I see it, those are basic civic responsibilities.

If private sector oil sands development can't post a profit sustainably and independently, then it needs rethinking.

Right. No more oil industry No more mining industry. No more forestry industry. Gee, where are we going to get all the welfare money? Because you know that Mulcair will want a huge increase in welfare spending, not to mention a huge increase in transfer payments for Quebec. Maybe from the huge increase in third world immigrants Mulcair will bring in?

[CPCFTW]

Perhaps the primary matter that you've missed is the irony of a poster called "CPCFTW" mocking the very notion that he might be a wee bit partisan.

The defensiveness goes without saying.

At any rate, the trajectory of this discussion will doubtless shortly head in the same direction you elsewhere like to take them: eventually, you will agree with me....but say that it doesn't matter, because "blacks and women" are priveleged over white males in the left imagination, or whatever other point you'ver plagiarized from this or that reactionary. Or perhaps you'll be inventive enough to ultimately answer with some other non sequiter, which isn't necessarily a terrific improvement. We'll see what happens, I guess.

Sweet dodge. I think I'll stick to masturbation, it's slightly more intellectual than your idea of "honest debate".

[bleeding heart]

Sweet dodge. I think I'll stick to masturbation, it's slightly more intellectual than your idea of "honest debate".

The dodge is your own...repeatedly, here and elsewhere.

I think you're miffed, but I think it's misplaced: you think you've been exposed as a defensive partisan...when you scream it in your own moniker! I did little more than agree with your self-assessment.

Or is that something only black people and women would say?

Edited June 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[mentalfloss]

Right. No more oil industry No more mining industry. No more forestry industry. Gee, where are we going to get all the welfare money? Because you know that Mulcair will want a huge increase in welfare spending, not to mention a huge increase in transfer payments for Quebec. Maybe from the huge increase in third world immigrants Mulcair will bring in?

I reject the premise of this argument. Mulcair appears to be a fairly moderate and centrist leader. I don't think the extreme measures you're peddling will actually take effect.

[bleeding heart]

I reject the premise of this argument.

No wonder. It's an extremist opinion, implying the discredited "commie" themes, which are belied by the NDP's broad and broadening public support.

Mulcair appears to be a fairly moderate and centrist leader. I don't think the extreme measures you're peddling will actually take effect.

I can't see it, either.

[mentalfloss]

I can't see it, either.

I tend to upset some of my politico buddies by comparing him to Mitt Romney - but if you look at how he reflects the modern NDP voter, it makes sense. Socialism is not the main dish anymore for this party.

[jacee]

Canada needs a national strategy that ensures benefits are spread across the country, environmental concerns are addressed, first nations are consulted as full partners and renewable energy industries are included in the push for Asian access, according to the report, which Mr. Lynch co-authored with CAPP chair Kathy Sendall, a former Petro- Canada executive

It envisages the kind of effort being pursued by Alberta Premier Alison Redford, who is pushing for a vaguely defined Canadian energy strategy.

“We need more of an effort by governments, the private sector and others to have that kind of broad-based conversation, including the upsides, the challenges and how you balance them off,” Mr. Lynch said.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-producers-urged-to-solve-pipeline-constraints/article4233736/?service=mobile

I think those are all valid points. Question is ... is it too late?

And have Harper's attacks on environmentalists scuppered Alberta's chances of having a national discussion? Have Harper's $60m fraudulent handouts of taxpayer money for oil sands promotion (via Bruce Carson) soured the discussion?

Will Harper and the oil boys figure out that hitting us with a hammer just might have been the wrong approach when legitimate concerns and impacts exist in other provinces?

I do believe that Harper's overbearing attitude has been the biggest disaster yet for oil sands development and has created division and severely reduced or destroyed chances of success.

Harper may have a technical majority in the House, but that dioesn't translate into he-who-can-make-us-do-his-bidding. He hasn't really got a knack for getting public support, because he's really clear that he doesn't give a crap about the public if they don't toe his line. All in all ... he hasn't been a very good 'ambassador' for the oil sands as he's created more opposition than allies.

Edited June 6, 2012 by jacee

[Spiderfish]

If private sector oil sands development can't post a profit sustainably and independently, then it needs rethinking.

I agree, fortunately for Quebec (and the rest of Canada), this is not the case.

[Spiderfish]

Will Harper and the oil boys figure out that hitting us with a hammer just might have been the wrong approach when legitimate concerns and impacts exist in other provinces?

I do believe that Harper's overbearing attitude has been the biggest disaster yet for oil sands development and has created division and severely reduced or destroyed chances of success.

I see it as trying to counter some of the extreme positions that many opponents of the oil sands has taken. Sometimes it takes a hammer to deliver the blow, and the bigger the nail, the bigger the hammer required.

And when you say "us", who are you referring to, because I'm pretty sure you don't speak on behalf of myself or many Canadians who may not share your opinion (you know, the thousands of people who rely on Alberta oil for a living, and maybe even some of the students in Quebec who realize the importance of transfer payments to pay for the free education they are protesting for).

Harper may have a technical majority in the House, but that dioesn't translate into he-who-can-make-us-do-his-bidding. He hasn't really got a knack for getting public support, because he's really clear that he doesn't give a crap about the public if they don't toe his line. All in all ... he hasn't been a very good 'ambassador' for the oil sands as he's created more opposition than allies.

Harper has made it fairly clear that his mandate is to protect the Canadian economy. It was a main plank he ran on in the last election and helped him get his "technical" majority. I think maybe he has it in his mind that to shut down one of the biggest drivers of the economy right now may in fact not be good for the economic state of the country.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Spiderfish

[Topaz]

Shut down the oil sands? It will never happen until the sands run out of oil. The only problem with the oil sands is its environmental problems and until the giant oil companies do a better job of cleaning the environment of the pollutions it makes people around the world are going to say negative things about it. So, the West and the government had better grow a thicker -skin to the negative remarks or do a better job of cleaning. Yes, the oil sands is helping Canada economy, to a certain degree but it also could be hurting some manufacturing also.

[Spiderfish]

Shut down the oil sands? It will never happen until the sands run out of oil. The only problem with the oil sands is its environmental problems and until the giant oil companies do a better job of cleaning the environment of the pollutions it makes people around the world are going to say negative things about it. So, the West and the government had better grow a thicker -skin to the negative remarks or do a better job of cleaning. Yes, the oil sands is helping Canada economy, to a certain degree but it also could be hurting some manufacturing also.

You and I know that will never happen, but that doesn't stop some of the environmental groups from wishing it so, and doing what they can to make it so.

There's perception, then there's reality. The reality is that safety has become the number one item on the agenda of ALL oil sands projects, followed very closely to environmental sustainability and improvement. These two aspects of development have become the dominate focus over even the actual bitumen recovery. They have become an industry all their own.

There have been great strides toward improving both the size of environmental impact, and the image or perception of what is happening. Unfortunately, no matter how many resources or how much money companies in Fort Mac put into the matter of environmental sustainability, there are many out there that will never see it as doing enough.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Spiderfish

[mentalfloss]

You and I know that will never happen, but that doesn't stop some of the environmental groups from wishing it so, and doing what they can to make it so.

Which ones?

[Fletch 27]

VHEMT! “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.”

These nut-jobs have funneled THOUSANDS of dollars to the "Environmentalists" and "First Nations" in the past year. You "really" think that a group that endorses the extinction of all human life is lets say..."SANE"???

The effort to stop the exploration in the sands is simply run by a bunch of yes, hippy tree hugging leftist nut-jobs who do not understand how a shovel is used. Yup, Mulcairs type and target audience... the dumb

Which ones?

[mentalfloss]

The effort to stop the exploration in the sands is simply run by a bunch of yes, hippy tree hugging leftist nut-jobs who do not understand how a shovel is used. Yup, Mulcairs type and target audience... the dumb

[Spiderfish]

Which ones?

Really?

Corporate Ethics International

Tides Canada

David Suzuki Foundation

Greenpeace

Ecojustice

The Sierra Club

Water Matters

World Wildlife Fund

The Oak Foundation

Forest Ethics

...to name a few.

[mentalfloss]

Really?

Corporate Ethics International

Tides Canada

David Suzuki Foundation

Greenpeace

Ecojustice

The Sierra Club

Water Matters

World Wildlife Fund

The Oak Foundation

Forest Ethics

...to name a few.

They all want the oilsands shut down?

[Spiderfish]

They all want the oilsands shut down?

Yes.

[mentalfloss]

Yes.

PROOFS?

I demands them.

Edited June 6, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Fletch 27]

As per Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club: “The effort to stop Keystone is part of a broader effort to stop the expansion of the tar sands,” Brune said. “It is based on choking off the ability to find markets for tar sands oil.”

Maybe its the layperson in me but i read that as "choking off Jobs", or "Choking off the economy".. Or maybe they want to put a "Disney North" in its place?

PROOFS?

I demands them.

[Spiderfish]

PROOFS?

I demands them.

A little research on your own into any one of these organizations would go a long way to answering your own question. But since it's always easier to have someone else do the leg work, here you go:

Corporate Ethics International – has put up anti oil sands billboards comparing the oilsands to the gulf oil spill. Their campaign title is “Rethink Alberta”.

Tides Canada – “The Tides Canada Energy Initiative is bringing together a diverse array of mainstream organizations, businesses and others to build support for a bold and credible vision of a near-zero-carbon future.”

David Suzuki Foundation – Stop the Tar Sands! How exactly?

Greenpeace – taken from their web page:” Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands and end the industrialization of a vast area of Indigenous territories, forests and wetlands in northern Alberta.” Pretty self explanitory, no beating around the bush with them.

Ecojustice – Is fighting against all movement of oil through pipelines and tankers. No movement of oil means no oil production.

The Sierra Club – “Our team is working together to accomplish the following:

1) Educate our communities about the tar sands

2) Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions

3) Promote laws and regulations that will move America away from dirty fuels and onto cleaner transportation options.

Join us and let’s tell the tar sands industry "thanks, but no thanks."

Water Matters – Being an Alberta initiative, is a little more subtle about their messaging. Their concern is more about the negative impact on Alberta watershed, something I can agree and side with. Though their overall message is mainly negative about the oilsands, their message is tempered.

World Wildlife Fund – “The answer isn’t just about taking cars off the road; it’s also about taking cars—and everything else we use—off the carbon. And there is no better place on Earth for this to happen than Canada.”

The Oak Foundation – Has issued grants to Tides Canada, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense Canada for various stop tar sands campaigns. Grant Database

Forest Ethics - Stop the tar sands

Hope this clears it up for you.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Spiderfish

[bleeding heart]

Water Matters Being an Alberta initiative, is a little more subtle about their messaging.

Yes, Albertan politics and ideologies are famous for their subtleties.

Edited June 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[PIK]

A little research on your own into any one of these organizations would go a long way to answering your own question. But since it's always easier to have someone else do the leg work, here you go:

Corporate Ethics International has put up anti oil sands billboards comparing the oilsands to the gulf oil spill. Their campaign title is Rethink Alberta.

Tides Canada The Tides Canada Energy Initiative is bringing together a diverse array of mainstream organizations, businesses and others to build support for a bold and credible vision of a near-zero-carbon future.

David Suzuki Foundation Stop the Tar Sands! How exactly?

Greenpeace taken from their web page: Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands and end the industrialization of a vast area of Indigenous territories, forests and wetlands in northern Alberta. Pretty self explanitory, no beating around the bush with them.

Ecojustice Is fighting against all movement of oil through pipelines and tankers. No movement of oil means no oil production.

The Sierra Club Our team is working together to accomplish the following:

1) Educate our communities about the tar sands

2) Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions

3) Promote laws and regulations that will move America away from dirty fuels and onto cleaner transportation options.

Join us and lets tell the tar sands industry "thanks, but no thanks."

Water Matters Being an Alberta initiative, is a little more subtle about their messaging. Their concern is more about the negative impact on Alberta watershed, something I can agree and side with. Though their overall message is mainly negative about the oilsands, their message is tempered.

World Wildlife Fund The answer isnt just about taking cars off the road; its also about taking carsand everything else we useoff the carbon. And there is no better place on Earth for this to happen than Canada.

The Oak Foundation Has issued grants to Tides Canada, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense Canada for various stop tar sands campaigns. Grant Database

Forest Ethics - Stop the tar sands

Hope this clears it up for you.

What you posted are facts, facts and the left do not go together, you are wasting your time. All they will do is come out with the same talking points as the fools do when they bring up the 15 yr old firewall around alberta. Edited June 6, 2012 by PIK

[Spiderfish]

Yes, Albertan politics and ideologies are famous for their subtleties.

Ever heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you?" Its hard to sit in the heart of Alberta and criticize the main source of their prosperity. These silly messages and tactics play well in Ontario, not so much in AB.

[bleeding heart]

Ever heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you?" Its hard to sit in the heart of Alberta and criticize the main source of their prosperity.

The same point could be extrapolated to Canadians criticizing Canadian behaviour wholesale. But that's silly. When your own deserves criticism, it is a moral and democratic responsibility to criticize it.

I guess we're too busy critiquing who we're told to critique--enemies of the state (including environmentalists, evidently)...a beautiful deflection, in the Orwellian tradition.