Mulcair blames Harper for East-West divisions

[Spiderfish]

The same point could be extrapolated to Canadians criticizing Canadian behaviour wholesale.

I agree. Don't people in this country who criticize Alberta oil realize where the bulk of the transfer payments come from (as they are driving their SUV to work in the morning)?

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.

I don't have a problem with environmental movements as a whole. I think the environment needs to be protected and development needs to be weighed from a balanced approach to environmental impact. But when you label an inert gas such as CO2 as a toxic substance, blame all your problems on it, try to tax it, and put your whole environmental effort into controlling the release of something that is naturally occurring, I see it as more than just environmentalism.

By the way, the bitumen is trapped in the sand and has been for a long time, the oilsands projects are extracting the bitumen from the sand. One could say that the oil sands is a massive clean up of the contamination, making it one of the largest environmental initiatives on the planet (to me, this line of thinking would fall in the same logic as demonizing co2.)

[bleeding heart]

I agree. Don't people in this country who criticize Alberta oil realize where the bulk of the transfer payments come from (as they are driving their SUV to work in the morning)?

Are you saying everyone should say only nice things about Alberta, because it's Big Daddy Money?

Not really a sound principle in a democratic society.

[Spiderfish]

Are you saying everyone should say only nice things about Alberta, because it's Big Daddy Money?

Not really a sound principle in a democratic society.

No, I'm saying there's some people who need to dispense with the hypocrisy, Mulcair included.

[eyeball]

They all want the oilsands shut down?

No, but I also don't want the ecosystems I depend on for my living shut down by Alberta's oil. Take all the salmon habitat that's in the path of their proposed tar-pipe for starters.

What I would like to see shut down is the sort of political/governing system that allows our PMO to gut environmental protection as a prelude to destroying a good chunk of it. If there is anything that could make real the sort of threats Harper would like Canadians to believe are arrayed against his economic vision this is probably the way to do it.

[mentalfloss]

Spiderfish, none of those environmental organizations actually want the oil sands shut down completely. Most of them don't want pipelines, or development in environmentally sensitive areas, but none have really expressed to completely shut down development.

Read your own links.

Edited June 7, 2012 by mentalfloss

[madmax]

I agree. Don't people in this country who criticize Alberta oil realize where the bulk of the transfer payments come from (as they are driving their SUV to work in the morning)?

The bulk of the transfer payments come from the Federal government ONLY.

The BULK of Taxes come from the Province of Ontario Residents and have so for over 100years and will continue to be this way for many decades forward as long as it has the highest population.

Until the 2009-2010 fiscal year, Ontario was the only province to have never received equalization payments; in 2009-2010 Ontario received $347 million

The alternative is no Federal Transfer payments to regions.

This change would not affect Alberta. It would continue to pay the same rate of tax as the taxes are collected from the population not the province.

Here is Ontarios Projected Contribution toward Equalization for 2012

61,180,000,000

Here is Albertas

25,200,000000

So if Ontario Receives 3 Billion (projected for 2012) in Federal Transfer Payments its still contributed $58 Billion.

Its a formula based on Means.

I think there are those who put way to much weight falsely on their shoulders.

Edited June 7, 2012 by madmax

[Spiderfish]

Spiderfish, none of those environmental organizations actually want the oil sands shut down completely. Most of them don't want pipelines, or development in environmentally sensitive areas, but none have really expressed to completely shut down development.

Read your own links.

How can you misinterpret the bold headline "Stop The US Demand For Canada's Toxic Tarsands"? How about "Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions." Maybe you prefer "Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands" Either you can't read, or you're in such denial about what these organizations stand for that you can't comprehend the facts.

[madmax]

How can you misinterpret the bold headline "Stop The US Demand For Canada's Toxic Tarsands"? How about "Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions." Maybe you prefer "Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands" Either you can't read, or you're in such denial about what these organizations stand for that you can't comprehend the facts.

I expect an environmental group to defend the environment. I expect corporations to have lobbiests in Ottawa to make sure they get their entitlements.

I expect the government to provide good government that defends the interests of Canada and Canadians verses the sole positions of these groups.

I do not see that with the Current federal government. It does appear to be of one mindset.

That said...

Interesting that 4 Provincial Premiers, 2 Conservatives, 1 NDP and 1 Liberal are uniting against current federal policy.

Seems the government in power is creating an East divide while claiming the opposition is creating a west divide.

One is real and is the government of the day.

[waldo]

I don't have a problem with environmental movements as a whole. I think the environment needs to be protected and development needs to be weighed from a balanced approach to environmental impact. But when you label an inert gas such as CO2 as a toxic substance, blame all your problems on it, try to tax it, and put your whole environmental effort into controlling the release of something that is naturally occurring, I see it as more than just environmentalism.

citation request: in what terms/contextual regard are you referencing to the, as you say, "labeling of CO2 as a toxic substance"?

your all encompassing, "blame all", is misguided. Anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal link to GW/CC; it is not the only link... these 'breakout link' associations are well understood and well recognized by those with an appropriate foundation/understanding.

your "naturally occurring" reference speaks to your naivety in emphasizing natural occurrence over harmful non-natural sources raising the level of atmospheric CO2. Surely... you're not one of those, "CO2 is simply plant food", guys - are you?

By the way, the bitumen is trapped in the sand and has been for a long time, the oilsands projects are extracting the bitumen from the sand. One could say that the oil sands is a massive clean up of the contamination, making it one of the largest environmental initiatives on the planet

that seems to play well in denier bizzaro world. But hey now, would you say the release of melting permafrost methane is akin to your type of "environmental cleanup"?

[mentalfloss]

How can you misinterpret the bold headline "Stop The US Demand For Canada's Toxic Tarsands"? How about "Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions." Maybe you prefer "Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands" Either you can't read, or you're in such denial about what these organizations stand for that you can't comprehend the facts.

Expansion != shutting down.

Sierra recently made comments in a similar vein to Mulcair's aspirations to make development sustainable.

Edited June 7, 2012 by mentalfloss

[cybercoma]

The bulk of the transfer payments come from the Federal government ONLY.

The BULK of Taxes come from the Province of Ontario Residents and have so for over 100years and will continue to be this way for many decades forward as long as it has the highest population.

Until the 2009-2010 fiscal year, Ontario was the only province to have never received equalization payments; in 2009-2010 Ontario received $347 million

The alternative is no Federal Transfer payments to regions.

This change would not affect Alberta. It would continue to pay the same rate of tax as the taxes are collected from the population not the province.

Here is Ontarios Projected Contribution toward Equalization for 2012

61,180,000,000

Here is Albertas

25,200,000000

So if Ontario Receives 3 Billion (projected for 2012) in Federal Transfer Payments its still contributed $58 Billion.

Its a formula based on Means.

I think there are those who put way to much weight falsely on their shoulders.

Nowadays, I just ignore people that criticize federal transfer payments without actually understanding how they work and what they're for.

[waldo]

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"???

citation request: showing the stated 'funding funnel' from the most fringe "group", VHEMT.

[Topaz]

Shouldn't the MAIN topic and concern be the environment in Alberta and the affects of the oil sands on Canada and the rest of the world. IF the oil companies do their job and clean up their mess, there's no need for a division in Canada, right? Then there's no need to talk about west vs east topic. Let's just see how the NDP handle this now and what the A/T's react to it.

[cybercoma]

The Conservatives are losing. They're saying this is East vs West and the NDP has painted it as an issue with corporate responsibility and having oil companies clean up after themselves, rather than externalizing the costs of their production to the taxpayers. It's quite the twist.

[eyeball]

How can you misinterpret the bold headline "Stop The US Demand For Canada's Toxic Tarsands"? How about "Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions." Maybe you prefer "Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands" Either you can't read, or you're in such denial about what these organizations stand for that you can't comprehend the facts.

How do you interpret the PM gutting environmental protection and fast-tracking the construction of a pipeline through 600 fish bearing watersheds?

What do you say to people who are concerned this will impact their livelihoods; don't worry, be happy or you must be a left-wing eco-terrorist?

[Moonbox]

How do you interpret the PM gutting environmental protection and fast-tracking the construction of a pipeline through 600 fish bearing watersheds?

What do you say to people who are concerned this will impact their livelihoods; don't worry, be happy or you must be a left-wing eco-terrorist?

I'd say that the safety records of pipelines are pretty good and that the alternative is to not drill the oil at all, or transport it by truck. I don't like the alternatives.

As far as the environmentalists are concerned, the oil sands shouldn't exist at all. In terms of pipeline location, the goal for them, it seems, is to delay the process as long as possible and hope that eventually people give up altogether. If the goal was to actually find the most practical (both environmentally and economically), then perhaps people would take their concerns more seriously.

[Argus]

The bulk of the transfer payments come from the Federal government ONLY.

This statement makes no sense. The federal government has no money. All of the transfer payments come from people and organizations the federal government taxed.

The BULK of Taxes come from the Province of Ontario Residents and have so for over 100years and will continue to be this way for many decades forward as long as it has the highest population.

Yes, Ontario has a large population. That's beside the point. The reckoning of who pays what for equalization is made in terms of how much the federal government collects from the people and individuals in a province vs how much the federal government returns to that province in the form of services and goods for the people in that province.

As far as I know, and I live in Ontario, the disparity is by far the greatest in Alberta.

[Spiderfish]

citation request: in what terms/contextual regard are you referencing to the, as you say, "labeling of CO2 as a toxic substance"?

I'm referring to this labeling of co2 as toxic in the contextual regard of the EPA and Environment Canada adding it to the list of toxic substances.

Environment Canada - Carbon Dioxide

"CEPA 1999 Schedule 1 - List of Toxic Substances- This substance has been added to the List of Toxic Substances."

Toxic Substances List - Schedule 1

EPA Declares Greenhouse Gases Hazardous

"The EPA administrator ruled that six greenhouse gases constitute toxic air pollution and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. "

that seems to play well in denier bizzaro world. But hey now, would you say the release of melting permafrost methane is akin to your type of "environmental cleanup"?

No more than I would say co2 is toxic.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Spiderfish

[madmax]

This statement makes no sense. The federal government has no money. All of the transfer payments come from people and organizations the federal government taxed.

You are correct. And therefore Alberta pays nothing....

Yes, Ontario has a large population. That's beside the point. The reckoning of who pays what for equalization is made in terms of how much the federal government collects from the people and individuals in a province vs how much the federal government returns to that province in the form of services and goods for the people in that province.

As far as I know, and I live in Ontario, the disparity is by far the greatest in Alberta.

Again, the Feds could simply keep all monies and give nothing to any provinces.

And no Ontarios contribution is not Besides the point.

Its a heck of alot of money and you can add it up over the past 70 years or 100 years if you so wish.

As if Alberta receives nothing in terms of federal investments in services and infrastructure.

Again in 2009 Alberta was within a hair of being a have not Province under Stelmach.

I simply don't buy into the argument the west pays the east, it doesn't and that is pure politics of divsion to suggest such Bunk.

[Spiderfish]

How do you interpret the PM gutting environmental protection and fast-tracking the construction of a pipeline through 600 fish bearing watersheds?

What do you say to people who are concerned this will impact their livelihoods; don't worry, be happy or you must be a left-wing eco-terrorist?

Hey Eyeball, do you guide in BC (envious if you are).

I hear what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to your message. For me, I'm torn between what's good for the environment (including BC's world renowned salmon rivers), and what's good for the economy of our country. I do a lot of fishing and spend a great deal of time paddling, and the thought of a pipeline running through BC is not appealing. On the other hand, I see what the US and Europe is going through right now with their economies in the tank, and think that if this was our position, guiding and the hospitality industry as a whole would likely be the first industry to feel the hurt.

I agree that caution needs to be taken when making decisions such as this one. When I heard that there was talk of running the pipeline up the Skeena River into Kitimat, the first thing I thought is that this idea needs to be scrapped, that would be the worst place to run a pipeline. I've only driven the Skeena river valley once, but I'm quite sure the experience would not have been the same if there was an oil pipeline runnig through it.

You ask what I would say...to be honest, I'm not sure. As I said I'm torn. We have such an abundance of resources that has quite frankly been a big influence on the prosperity of our country in very trying economic times globally. Fast tracking these decisions is not prudent, but if we can find a compromise that ensures the continued prosperity of our natural resource sector but minimizes the impact on our environment, I think I'd be okay with that. I realize this isn't an easy task, and it will require balance and some compromise.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Spiderfish

[Claudius]

I dunno, maybe saying crap like he wants to build a wall around Alberta might give people that impression.

Uh yeah except that was Klein not Harper.

[Claudius]

It is Harper who is inflaming British Columbians against those damned easterners in Alberta by letting them threaten our salmon rivers with their filthy tar pipe.

Yeah right. BC is destroying the salmon, as well as the rest of the province all by themselves. Don't let the oil pipelines from Alaska or Washington state that run to Vancouver (where oil tankers have been coming in and out of for 50 years without a spill) hold you back from your anti-Alberta hate.

[Fletch 27]

I have seen an oil-pipelile bitch-slap a tuna once.. It was ugky.. The bitch slap reverberated all the way to Shinegawa japan.. My other hoem.. Then I woke up.

Why do we candy ass canadian sweat our little girly panties on this,, I suggest shipping the oil in wind-powered balloons accross the east coast as that the way the wind blows... Its clean, its cheap, and if shit hits the fan, a bb-gun can dump it on QC...

Let's not kill the environment. Put it in pipes and get the shit outa here cleanly... Strap bags of the shit onto bunnies and poke em south? Wake up.

[Claudius]

Shouldn't the MAIN topic and concern be the environment in Alberta and the affects of the oil sands on Canada and the rest of the world. IF the oil companies do their job and clean up their mess, there's no need for a division in Canada, right? Then there's no need to talk about west vs east topic. Let's just see how the NDP handle this now and what the A/T's react to it.

0.01% of the worlds GHG emissions.

1/44th of the GHGs emitted from US coal alone.

Californian heavy is dirtier.

Nigerian light is dirtier.

Coal is dirtier.

In other words while US citizens just love to wag their fingers at other countries if even just one(1) coal burning US state shifted to here-today alternatives like geothermal or nuclear (as opposed to the solar powered 18-wheelers of our dreams) that alone would address more GHG's than the entire oil sands from wells-to-wheels.

Just sayin', you know?

I think people have a hard time understanding that while global warming is not a scam (I'm not going to argue this) world conferences designed to "save the world" like Kyoto and Copenhagen most definitely are political scams; a circus of political jousting and maneuvering, and the Alberta oil sands are the favorite scape-goat/bandwagon for any European MP or US congressman to jump on to avoid dealing with their own messy businesses (i.e. their own voters) or attacking anyone else with too much political clout, a commodity Alberta has very little of compared to powerhouses like the US, China, Venezuela, etc.

What's most disheartening is watching the effect it has on Canadians as so many fall prey to this myth that somehow Canada, a tiny nation barely 150 years old is somehow responsible for mankinds reconciliation with the entire Industrial Age. Europeans were polluting with coal before Canada even had a road. They were polluting with pure horse manure before we even had a city.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Claudius

[waldo]

your all encompassing, "blame all", is misguided. Anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal link to GW/CC; it is not the only link... these 'breakout link' associations are well understood and well recognized by those with an appropriate foundation/understanding.

your "naturally occurring" reference speaks to your naivety in emphasizing natural occurrence over harmful non-natural sources raising the level of atmospheric CO2. Surely... you're not one of those, "CO2 is simply plant food", guys - are you?

what!... no comment, hey?

citation request: in what terms/contextual regard are you referencing to the, as you say, "labeling of CO2 as a toxic substance"?

I'm referring to this labeling of co2 as toxic in the contextual regard of the EPA and Environment Canada adding it to the list of toxic substances.

Environment Canada - Carbon Dioxide

"CEPA 1999 Schedule 1 - List of Toxic Substances- This substance has been added to the List of Toxic Substances."

Toxic Substances List - Schedule 1

EPA Declares Greenhouse Gases Hazardous

"The EPA administrator ruled that six greenhouse gases constitute toxic air pollution and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act."

no!

- re:

Environment Canada

: from your own provided link: "This substance is

not classified as toxic

but remains managed under Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999."

- re:

EPA

: your media link reference quote is incorrect. The

related EPA findings under the Clean Air Act

do not classify CO2 as a toxic substance

. Specifically:

=> On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

-

Endangerment Finding

: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

-

Cause or Contribute Finding

: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

By the way, the bitumen is trapped in the sand and has been for a long time, the oilsands projects are extracting the bitumen from the sand. One could say that the oil sands is a massive clean up of the contamination, making it one of the largest environmental initiatives on the planet

that seems to play well in denier bizzaro world. But hey now, would you say the release of melting permafrost methane is akin to your type of "environmental cleanup"?

No more than I would say co2 is toxic.

well... since you incorrectly did say that CO2 has been classified/labeled a toxic substance, I expect the same question asking if you equate the two... remains for you to answer - here, or in denier bizarro world. Your choice.