NDP support Alberta pipeline!

[madmax]

Where would said "refineries" land?

Apparently, Alberta, One other Prairie Province if they want it (Not sure they do) Ontario. I have also heard NS mentioned.

What are the chances Mulcair favors Quebec?

You do realize Mulcair is no more from Quebec, then Harper is from Alberta.

Regardless any refineries would be within Canada.

Seems you would prefer them to be in China.

Edited October 1, 2012 by madmax

[CPCFTW]

Not at all.

Keeping the oil within Canada will lower foreign investment which lowers upward exertion on the Canadian dollar.

WWWTT

Except that keeping the oil within Canada means we won't have to import as much oil anymore = less buying foreign currency = strong Canadian dollar.

There's no reason to believe foreign investment would decrease either.

Mulcair's flip flopping.

Edited October 1, 2012 by CPCFTW

[TimG]

Except that keeping the oil within Canada means we won't have to import oil anymore = less buying foreign currency = strong Canadian dollar.

Complete and total nonsense. If Canada's oil imports balanced its exports then it would be impossible for Alberta oil exports to affect the dollar even today. Sending the oil to Ontario would not change that math.

[CPCFTW]

Apparently, Alberta, One other Prairie Province if they want it (Not sure they do) Ontario. I have also heard NS mentioned.

Cite? Afaik the refineries would be existing Suncor refineries in ON and QC.

You do realize Mulcair is no more from Quebec, then Harper is from Alberta.

Regardless any refineries would be within Canada.

Except Harper has broad support from across he country (and is virtually guaranteed to regain all his seats in AB regardless of what he does). Mulcair's support (in terms of seats) is almost entirely segregated to Quebec and is by no means guaranteed.

[madmax]

Complete and total nonsense. If Canada's oil imports balanced its exports then it would be impossible for Alberta oil exports to affect the dollar even today. Sending the oil to Ontario would not change that math.

I disagree with the comment about the oil affecting the dollar. I just can't ignore previous comments over the past 15 years regarding the rise and fall of the dollar being tied to oil pricing.

If this was true 15 years ago, its true today....

1.Since oil is an internationally traded commodity and since Canada is so small relative to the United States and the EU, price changes in oil are caused by international factors outside of Canada.

2.Since the demand for both oil and gas are quite inelastic in the short run, a rise in oil prices causes the dollar value of the oil sold to rise.

I do agree with the premise that sending oil to Ontario won't change the math/price.

[WWWTT]

I do agree with the premise that sending oil to Ontario won't change the math/price.

I disagree.

I believe that if the oil remained in Canada it would reduce upward pressure on our dollar.

Either way,the benefits of an eastbound pipeline are to hard to easily dismiss!

WWWTT

[CPCFTW]

Complete and total nonsense. If Canada's oil imports balanced its exports then it would be impossible for Alberta oil exports to affect the dollar even today. Sending the oil to Ontario would not change that math.

Ontario currently imports billions of dollars of oil every year. That requires selling CAD for the foreign currency. If Ontario and the other eastern provinces don't have to sell CAD anymore than the CAD will be stronger.

However, the alternative is to export more oil to other countries (causing other countries to buy more CAD), so either way the CAD becomes stronger.

The point is that moving the oil from AB to ON instead of AB to foreign markets will not reduce Canada's alleged (by Mulcair) dutch disease.

[WWWTT]

Ontario currently imports billions of dollars of oil every year. That requires selling CAD for the foreign currency. If Ontario and the other eastern provinces don't have to sell CAD anymore than the CAD will be stronger.

However, the alternative is to export more oil to other countries (causing other countries to buy more CAD), so either way the CAD becomes stronger.

The point is that moving the oil from AB to ON instead of AB to foreign markets will not reduce Canada's alleged (by Mulcair) dutch disease.

This makes sense.

I humbly agree.

However,there are many other advantages that should not be dismissed.

WWWTT

[TimG]

---

Edited October 1, 2012 by TimG

[WIP]

blah blah. With logic as convoluted as that you will soon be arguing that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans 6000 years ago. The fact is the climate picture is extremely complicated and we know at less that you claim. You can rationalize away contradictory data but the it does not change the reality.

By your standards, we won't know enough about climate change until it is too late to do anything...which is of course the strategy of those who take sides with the industries that want to make obscene profits, while they dump the costs of environmental damage onto the public...in the case of rising CO2 levels the public is the entire population of the planet.

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

And this is why I don't trust global warming deniers! Your rebuttal is just a link to a published report done four years ago in some journal I have no way of knowing if it is even a legitimate publication with all of the fake oil-funded research that's being dumped out there for public consumption, by scientists I never heard of - maybe you can provide a little background of what their credentials are and what else they've written on the subject; and the report, while acknowledging recent rapid melting of the Arctic Ocean (something you have not done), is focused on a narrow region of the Arctic - between Siberia and Alaska. Is this a regional anomaly, like the medieval warming of Greenland and Iceland, or are there other geologists making similar findings in other sites around the Arctic Ocean? They're stated purpose says:

The primary objective of this paper is to investigate the natural variability of sea-ice cover in the western Arctic during the Holocene

What about the rest of the Arctic? And would the rapid disappearance of sea ice shortly after the thawing of the last ice age be similar to the reasons for rapid loss now, or is it due to factors associated with the beginning of the interglacial period? So, don't just dump a research report on my desk with no context; how does it apply to what's happening to the world today?

[waldo]

So, don't just dump a research report on my desk with no context; how does it apply to what's happening to the world today?

x2... as I stated/asked a few posts back:

... what does your distraction have to do with the climate and Arctic sea ice conditions of today?

[WIP]

Here's a thought about tar sands oil, and oil and natural resources in general that nobody seems to ask themselves with our live-for-the-moment attitude: do we have obligations to future generations that will have to inherit the earth we leave behind? And, I'm not specifically talking about environmental damage here...I'm asking if you believe that people living today have an obligation to leave something for those coming after us in the near and distant futures? If oil is so important today, that it is needed for making fertilizers to feed our oversized world population, and to make essential plastics and other synthetics, pharmaceuticals and other products, why are we squandering it to fill gas tanks now if a continued rate of consumption means even this dirtier, more expensive to produce oil will be gone in a matter of decades?

[WIP]

x2... as I stated/asked a few posts back:

You're right! This is not providing information to inform the public, but instead to confuse and cloud the issues. Tim G keeps coming back to the point that the earth's climate is too complex to completely understand today....which is only true in the sense that climatologists and meteorologists are only now trying to get a handle on what the likely effects on our weather are caused by an Arctic Ocean with lots of open water. But that side of the debate has no interest in furthering any understanding of the climate forces acting in our world. It's similar to the games that the Discovery Institute and other creationist groups do with the subject of evolution. They only provide information that will confuse their church-going audience, and prefer to keep that state of confusion rather than lead to any greater understanding.

[TimG]

Your rebuttal is just a link to a published report done four years ago in some journal I have no way of knowing if it is even a legitimate publication with all of the fake oil-funded research that's being dumped out there for public consumption

More classic symptoms of a religious fanatic. When faced with evidence that undermines your alarmist drivel you look to rationalize and explain it away. From paper you are so desperate to dismiss:

Received 28 April 2008. Accepted 10 September 2008. Published on the NRC Research Press Web

Yep NRC - a hotbed of a oil company shills. I am sure. Of course, you should have noticed that before composing your reply - but you were busy screaming "no no no - it can't be true!".

As for the distinction between the western and eastern arctic: why would the eastern arctic be any different? Do you have any historical evidence to suggest that it would be different?

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

By your standards, we won't know enough about climate change until it is too late to do anything...

Bingo.

By TimG's standards, we wouldn't vaccinate children from a disease until it was proven to be a sufficient problem and not a hypothetical one. He would be hanging onto the vaccine until every last child was dead.

Actually, he wouldn't hang onto the vaccine, he would be on message boards saying there is no vaccine and that there never will be one. He would go on to argue as long as there are children walking the earth, the "hypothetical" disease isn't a problem.

[cybercoma]

More classic symptoms of a religious fanatic. When faced with evidence that undermines your alarmist drivel you look to rationalize and explain it away. From paper you are so desperate to dismiss:

Resorting to ad hominems just shows that you really have nothing intelligent to offer.

[TimG]

By TimG's standards, we wouldn't vaccinate children from a disease until it was proven to be a sufficient problem and not a hypothetical one. He would be hanging onto the vaccine until every last child was dead.

A more accurate analogy is one where the government wants to mandate a vaccine with serious side effects based on studies on rats despite the fact that no human has ever actually caught the disease. Would you really take a vaccine under such circumstances? Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Resorting to ad hominems just shows that you really have nothing intelligent to offer.

Really? I provided a link to a peer reviewed paper that supports the claims I made and WIP refused to acknowledge it and instead claimed it was a phony paper produced by oil company shills despite the fact that the first page of the paper says it was published by the NRC. And you say I have nothing to say? I think that says more about you that me.

[madmax]

why are we squandering it to fill gas tanks now if a continued rate of consumption means even this dirtier, more expensive to produce oil will be gone in a matter of decades?

One might ask why we are squandering it to make all that unnecessary packaging.

In the meantime, I don't see you living a lifestyle like a Mennonite, who walk the walk........

You personally could cut back on Oil 100% today, but would you?

Yes you can cut back on plastic bags... (And if there ever was an argument to ELIMINATE SINGLE USE WASTEBAGS made from OIL) this is a good time.

Meanwhile, do you really need that computer? Do you need your Iphone,android, blackberry.

Truth is WE DON'T. They are LUXURY items that we BELIEVE we need to communicate.

If you are worried about a Gas guzzling car, are you just as concerned to the move to PLASTIC CARS, all made of OIL.

An Electric Car , Battery and all is encased in OIL.

I am sure you shop and purchase consumer goods, all dressed in PLASTIC and made of Plastic.

When the oil is GONE, your life is going to be very different.

And since it is "inevitable" Mr Anderson..... treating it like a Resource required for economic Nationalism makes far more sense then a resource to be tossed over to China to meet their growing consumption requirements.

In a nutshell,

Some naive people beleive a Carbon Tax reduces consumption.

In Reality, as the 2nd world war demonstrated.

LIMITS on resources was required to get through times of Scarce resources.

A day will come when people will be limited to 1 tank of gas per week.

If you think this could NEVER happen.

China has limited families to ONE CHILD per lifetime.

Perhaps you might want to purchase your horse and buggy in advance

Edited October 2, 2012 by madmax

[madmax]

By your standards, we won't know enough about climate change until it is too late to do anything...

Many have argued that it is already "too late"

That said, if Canada went as dark as North Korea, it wouldn't make a Dent in the Climate. You could stop ever car, eliminate all home heating, close down all the stores and roads, no lights. And the effect on the Global temp would be unchanged.

Now, what if Canada didn't export Oil to Foreign nations who consume the majority of Canadian Oil?

How much effect would this have?

[WIP]

More classic symptoms of a religious fanatic. When faced with evidence that undermines your alarmist drivel you look to rationalize and explain it away. From paper you are so desperate to dismiss:

Yep NRC - a hotbed of a oil company shills. I am sure. Of course, you should have noticed that before composing your reply - but you were busy screaming "no no no - it can't be true!".

Well, first of all, I've never claimed to be a scientist (I've never claimed to have a college education either for that matter), and I don't waste my time wading through the swamp trying to read research papers that are intended for the community of scientists in a particular field. I do know enough about how this peer review process works to know that getting a research paper published is just the first step, and it's put out there for their peers to either agree with or try to knock down...and that's the part that you have not bothered to provide here! What do their peers think of this research and does it have any bearing on what's happening right now up in the Arctic?

As for the distinction between the western and eastern arctic: why would the eastern arctic be any different? Do you have any historical evidence to suggest that it would be different?

You are asking me to prove a negative! I do know that back when the subject was the Medieval Warming, that there were some detractors published a paper arguing that the Pacific, especially the southern Pacific Ocean was much colder during that period, and the warming that we have assumed was worldwide, may have only been a local effect that Europeans would find great significance in.

[TimG]

I do know enough about how this peer review process works to know that getting a research paper published is just the first step, and it's put out there for their peers to either agree with or try to knock down...and that's the part that you have not bothered to provide here! What do their peers think of this research and does it have any bearing on what's happening right now up in the Arctic?

It past peer review and was published so it met the usual minimum criteria. Therefore, it adequately shows that the hype about the "record" arctic melt is just hype. I suspect people in the AGW industry don't like the paper and will find things to complain about it but it still establishes that I have a scientific basis for the opinions I have - a point that you have refused to acknowledge.

You are asking me to prove a negative!

I am saying your suggestion that the eastern arctic would be different than the western arctic is not plausible and you need to provide evidence that it is plausible. No need to prove a negative. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

It past peer review and was published so it met the usual minimum criteria. Therefore, it adequately shows

!!!!

Your long-term argument--ad nauseum--has been precisely and explicitly the opposte.

[WIP]

One might ask why we are squandering it to make all that unnecessary packaging.

In the meantime, I don't see you living a lifestyle like a Mennonite, who walk the walk........

You personally could cut back on Oil 100% today, but would you?

Yes you can cut back on plastic bags... (And if there ever was an argument to ELIMINATE SINGLE USE WASTEBAGS made from OIL) this is a good time.

Meanwhile, do you really need that computer? Do you need your Iphone,android, blackberry.

Truth is WE DON'T. They are LUXURY items that we BELIEVE we need to communicate.

If you are worried about a Gas guzzling car, are you just as concerned to the move to PLASTIC CARS, all made of OIL.

An Electric Car , Battery and all is encased in OIL.

I am sure you shop and purchase consumer goods, all dressed in PLASTIC and made of Plastic.

When the oil is GONE, your life is going to be very different.

Well, you don't know me and I don't know you or your lifestyle. I do know that my worldview started to shake up 10 years ago when the loss of a 2nd income forced us out of the suburbs and into an old house in older neighbourhood. Where you live does have an effect on a lot of your attitudes about people and life in general.

Now, the problem with your little diatribe here is that it is the typical strategy that all of the pro-growth, pro-greed, pro-capitalist libertarians argue: that all of our decisions come from personal wants and desires, is that we do not have control over the technologies we use today. I'm not even sure if a Mennonite can completely live free of technology in their traditional life any more (there sure seem to be a lot of them moving from farming to the furniture-making business in my area). Technologies are produced by industries looking for products to make a profit on, and supported by political infrastructure looking to gain from new technologies. The system of developing and applying new technologies is undemocratic and profit-driven. And profits can be made even when new technologies provide little, if any real benefit....exhibit A would be new drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies that do not even have to demonstrate any greater efficacy than existing drugs, since the testing is only done against placebo.

Even when it comes to that damn plastic packaging that makes it necessary for me to carry a pocket knife just to open the packaging for a cheap watch I bought a few days ago. Do I have any choice about that packaging? Especially when ever other watch is similarly encased in the same layers of plastic! As for electronics products: I have a computer...that's obvious! But, just a desktop; no cell phones, tablets or other portable devices except of an e-book reader. And even though I have tried to avoid having to buy my own cell phone, I may not even have that option much longer, as I notice pay phones disappearing right and left....new plazas, malls and big box stores don't even bother installing pay phones. So, a cell phone is one more technology that everyone living in a city will be forced to buy and use in the near future.

Now, when it comes to cars, I had two or three at all times in my old neighbourhood in a suburb way out in farm country because everyone living in such places is stranded without one. When we moved to the city, we once again had access to public transit, I'm close enough to work that I don't need either a car or transit, and we just keep one car that usually only gets used on the weekend. But, this is the limit to what I can do as an individual! A society of people who were really thinking as a community about their future and the needs of future generations, would be asking why we are not transforming our society now, while there is still time, to make the shift to life without cars, massive highway and roadbuilding projects, that will all be a fact of life some day...just slightly out of the timeline of most people living today. But a really ethical society would consider the needs of future generations and start the shift now, instead of wasting resources and leaving a barren, degraded world for those who have the misfortune of coming along a hundred or two hundred years from now!

[WIP]

It past peer review and was published so it met the usual minimum criteria.

NO, that is just the beginning of the peer review process! You either know this and just want to misrepresent the facts, or you're not even aware that getting a paper published just means that the referees of that journal were satisfied that the research meets their standards for publication. Now that it's published, what did their peers have to say about it, and more importantly, did their findings have anything to say on the subject of what's happening now with the climate. From what I read of that paper, they didn't even make such a claim that there was a link between the two.