NDP support Alberta pipeline!

[TimG]

I don't care where the pipeline goes - as long as it gets built.

It appears that the NDP has realized that demonizing the oil sands was not a winning strategy so they came up with a 'alternative' that covers their flip flop.

[PIK]

I don't care where the pipeline goes - as long as it gets built.

It appears that the NDP has realized that demonizing the oil sands was not a winning strategy so they came up with a 'alternative' that covers their flip flop.

I have a pipeline 2 miles from my place since the 80's, it was a great boon for area and has never caused any problems

[cybercoma]

Obviously Mr. Mulcair recognizes that Canada needs the pipeline, as does Ontario, he is seeing the error of his ways ( or seeing where the votes are LOL )

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/09/20120927-205705.html

Or trying to find a solution to Dutch Disease, which OECD recognized as a problem in Canada.

[Mr.Canada]

They spent decades condemning the oil sands. Layton flew over them and was disgusted, apparently. Now they are suddenly in love with the oil sands. I'm happy they are on side finally but I still ind it funny at the total 180 on the subject overnight.

[cybercoma]

How is it a 180 overnight?

The only time the NDP "hated" the oil sands was when they were the fake NDP that conservatives made up in their heads.

The NDP has been and still is about sustainable development.

[Mr.Canada]

How is it a 180 overnight?

The only time the NDP "hated" the oil sands was when they were the fake NDP that conservatives made up in their heads.

The NDP has been and still is about sustainable development.

Are you serious?

The NDP has been calling the oil sands the "tar sands" for ages now. A major plank of Laytons election campaign was to stop subsidies of the "tar sands" he also spoke badly of the oil sands when he flew over them a few years ago.

They demanded the oil sands be shut down a few years ago.

They have a long record of being hostile towards the oil sands.

[Guest]

I don't understand why everyone's so down on the oil sands.

Just look at them as a massive oil spill, that we here in Aberta have volunteered to clean up.

No, don't thank us.

[cybercoma]

Are you serious?

The NDP has been calling the oil sands the "tar sands" for ages now. A major plank of Laytons election campaign was to stop subsidies of the "tar sands" he also spoke badly of the oil sands when he flew over them a few years ago.

They demanded the oil sands be shut down a few years ago.

They have a long record of being hostile towards the oil sands.

None of the examples you give are the NDP saying the "tarsands" should be shut down. Stopping government subsidies to a thriving sector of the economy is not hostility, it's common sense. Layton's talk about the environmental damage being done in the oilfields is a reality of the industry and I wouldn't call trying to find better ways to extract bitumen from the dirt hostility. The talk has always been about finding a sustainable way to tap the resource.

[madmax]

I don't care where the pipeline goes - as long as it gets built.

It appears that the NDP has realized that demonizing the oil sands was not a winning strategy so they came up with a 'alternative' that covers their flip flop.

It has been a constant in NDP policy/thinkers, to have a pipeline from West to East. That concept has been attacked, debunked and challenged by governments and Western Oil Producers for decades.

Mulcair also campaigned on expansion and control within Canada during his leadership run.

That also includes sound environmental stewardship as well as refining.

The reasons stated before about the economic reasons behind NOT bringing a pipeline east remain status quo.

The only things that changed is that Eastern Canada, see Pipelines going to the US (a normal occurance) and to CHINA, an abnormal occurance. And while market forces along with a Chinese National Security directive to invest and control Canadian Oil as the US does, it now stands out like a sore thumb that something is wrong with allowing the market be trumped by Nationalism of China.

So yes, refining of Bitumen would occur in China and once again, only Oil Companies are going to be the true beneficiaries for Chinas Economic Security and Resource Stability.

Currently buying oil off the market is more affordable for Easterners. That makes sense.

However, if governments allowed markets to drive everything, the ST. Lawrence Seaway would never have been built, nor a railline to Western Canada....

So, the only reason for a West East pipeline is the same reason that the railways were established to Western Canada. National Security and stability.

I believe pipelines are coming, particularly towards BC and the US regardless of the government in power.

The only difference may be the wrecklessness of the approach and the size of the Chinese Migrant Labour Workforce doing the job.

[WIP]

Okay, since I felt the need to drop in with a comment for the first time in months, let's get a few things straight:

1. That shit is called Tar sands because that's what it is! It is not oil, and hasn't been petroleum in any real sense of the word for at least 100 million years ago when it was formed. The fact is that that these deposits, as with other tar sands and shale deposits, stayed too close to the surface over the millenia, where they were fed on by microbes and ended up as badly degraded bitumen today. It's not like Albertans didn't know the tar sands were there all along. But, as long as there was still oil being pumped out of the ground, the only thing these deposits were considered useful for was paving roads! Turning this crap into something that can be called "oil" and mixed with water and a bunch of undisclosed chemicals so it can flow through special pipelines, does not make it oil!

2. The NDP is mostly filled with opportunistic douchebags, just like every other political party! This should be a prime example, since even if your political views are on the left, or the far left as myself, any political party that is willing to coopt the tar sands industry in an attempt to grab the Prime Minister's Office is hardly worth the effort. Because, by having all of the political parties in Canada except for the tiny Green Party, lining up in support of tar sands exploitation, they are effectively guaranteeing that atmospheric CO2 levels will be greater than 1000 ppm or 1% of atmospheric gas contents by the end of this century. Along with the effects of killing off ocean life as we know it, this will guarantee a 6 degree C+ increase in global average temperatures, and will likely seal the fate of the coming generations to eventual extinction.

So, how important was beating Harper again? I can't say I'm completely surprised that the NDP doesn't want to take on the tar sands industry. Before Jack Layton got sick, he was floating trial balloons indicating that his Party was changing course or at least the NDP approach to tar sands development. I knew the NDP would be useless when it came to environment issues a few years back when Stephan Dion, as Liberal leader, made the bold move to support a tax on carbon emissions -- which is the only real strategy that will reduce carbon emissions in a capitalist market economy. What did the NDP do? First, they attacked Dion and the Liberal Party for proposing a carbon tax, and then they came up with some mealy-mouthed cap and trade scheme virtually identical to the one that the Harper Conservatives claimed that they were going to propose.

The unfortunate history of events showed us why politicians avoid political risks at all costs and are more interested in doing what will get them elected rather than doing the right thing, because Dion's bold action got him stabbed in the back and dumped out as Liberal leader, and politicians who love their jobs will never mention a carbon tax again no matter what the future brings.

[TimG]

Turning this crap into something that can be called "oil" and mixed with water and a bunch of undisclosed chemicals so it can flow through special pipelines, does not make it oil!

You do realize that 'oil' is a very broad term that covers any number of substances. Bitumen is a type of heavy oil whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Along with the effects of killing off ocean life as we know it, this will guarantee a 6 degree C+ increase in global average temperatures, and will likely seal the fate of the coming generations to eventual extinction.

Nonsense. The outputs of unverifiable climate models are not facts. Science fiction is a better description.

[WIP]

You do realize that 'oil' is a very broad term that covers any number of substances. Bitumen is a type of heavy oil whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

That interpretation should not be broad enough to include substances that burn through ordinary pipelines. And the carbon emissions emitted from the extraction and upgrading processes means tar sands and shales are too carbon intensive, and would be left in the ground by a sane, rational species of animals who had even a slight concern for the survival of future generations. If there's not enough oil to supply gas for cars, then get rid of the damned cars! Maybe the rapid pace of climate change, environmental degradation and natural resource depletion is a notification that it is our economies and our entire way of life that needs to change...not sources of energy!

Nonsense. The outputs of unverifiable climate models are not facts. Science fiction is a better description.

Well, I see that an Arctic Ocean with 25% ice cover is still not enough to convince you that global warming is real, so I guess you'll be denying reality right to the bitter end. If the climate models were overestimating changes you might have a case; But climate models so far have underestimated the increases in temperatures and CO2 levels because they do not incorporate the positive feedback effects of open water in the Arctic Ocean and melting permafrost. A prime example is the fact that modellers never even thought about 6 degree warming scenarios until very recently. It was assumed that four degrees would be the upper limit until the last couple of years.

[Guest]

That interpretation should not be broad enough to include substances that burn through ordinary pipelines. And the carbon emissions emitted from the extraction and upgrading processes means tar sands and shales are too carbon intensive, and would be left in the ground by a sane, rational species of animals who had even a slight concern for the survival of future generations. If there's not enough oil to supply gas for cars, then get rid of the damned cars! Maybe the rapid pace of climate change, environmental degradation and natural resource depletion is a notification that it is our economies and our entire way of life that needs to change...not sources of energy!

Well, I see that an Arctic Ocean with 25% ice cover is still not enough to convince you that global warming is real, so I guess you'll be denying reality right to the bitter end. If the climate models were overestimating changes you might have a case; But climate models so far have underestimated the increases in temperatures and CO2 levels because they do not incorporate the positive feedback effects of open water in the Arctic Ocean and melting permafrost. A prime example is the fact that modellers never even thought about 6 degree warming scenarios until very recently. It was assumed that four degrees would be the upper limit until the last couple of years.

I'm coming very late to this thread as I only joined the site yesterday, so please excuse me if I cover points brought up by others.

You say: If there's not enough oil to supply gas for cars, then get rid of the damned cars!

There is enough oil to supply gas for cars. There will be for many years to come. Some of it will come from the oil sands in northern Alberta. Getting rid of cars is not an option, it's a left wing pipe dream. Like everyone warming their homes with tide power.

That global climate change is occurring is a given, IMHO. The questions that arise are, how much of it is naturally occurring, and how much are we causing? These questions lead to a much more important one. What can we do about it?

Let's say we are not causing climate change at all. It's totally occurring naturally. Then we can do nothing about it.

Let's say we are causing it. 100%. Then , given that our contribution comes from the emissions caused by a population that has grown from somewhere around a billion and a half to over 7 billion since they started serious greenhouse gas emissions (industrial revolution)it appears we can do nothing about it.

Does anyone really think another couple of windfarms is going to replace all that ice?

Better to spend all those billions of dollars on preparing for the world to come.

(Note: This is not to say that I do not believe that curbing pollution from industrial processes is not a laudable goal that should be on every agenda. It's just that I don't believe we should follow left wing knee jerk impulses that are more about basic anti-industry politics than they are about the environment, and which would have no effect other than to put people out of work anyway.)

[wyly]

Are you serious?

The NDP has been calling the oil sands the "tar sands" for ages now. A major plank of Laytons election campaign was to stop subsidies of the "tar sands" he also spoke badly of the oil sands when he flew over them a few years ago.

They demanded the oil sands be shut down a few years ago.

They have a long record of being hostile towards the oil sands.

tars sands is what they were originally called, "oil" sands is just the energy industries attempt to put a clean spin on it...

[wyly]

Better to spend all those billions of dollars on preparing for the world to come.

damage from climate change is already estimated in the trillions so we're falling behind...and if worst projections are realized there is no preparing for what will come...

[Guest]

damage from climate change is already estimated in the trillions so we're falling behind...and if worst projections are realized there is no preparing for what will come...

Well, there's no stopping it either, then. Might as well just spend the money on smarties and go out with a smile on our faces.

Seriously though, is there anything you feel we are capable of that will halt, or even slow appreciably, AGW?

[wyly]

Well, there's no stopping it either, then. Might as well just spend the money on smarties and go out with a smile on our faces.

Seriously though, is there anything you feel we are capable of that will halt, or even slow appreciably, AGW?

it could be slowed and even halted but it would take a huge gobal effort...but even if that were possible it's going to get worse before it gets better, what we do today is felt decades even centuries from now...one climatologist(I can never recall his name, I'll have to look it up someday) gave up pushing for emission control because in his opinion it's too late, our civilization is doomed a mass extinction is inevitable...for the sake of my kids and unborn grand kids I hope he's wrong...

[TimG]

That interpretation should not be broad enough to include substances that burn through ordinary pipelines.

You are delusional. Here is more formal definition of 'petroleum' (a.k.a. oil) that makes it clear that the oils sands are just one type of oil:

Crude oil varies greatly in appearance depending on its composition. It is usually black or dark brown (although it may be yellowish, reddish, or even greenish). In the reservoir it is usually found in association with natural gas, which being lighter forms a gas cap over the petroleum, and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it. Crude oil may also be found in semi-solid form mixed with sand and water, as in the Athabasca oil sands in Canada, where it is usually referred to as crude bitumen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

Well, I see that an Arctic Ocean with 25% ice cover is still not enough to convince you that global warming is real

We also have a record antarctic ice extent so it appears that "global" warming is only affecting one of the poles.

But climate models so far have underestimated the increases in temperatures and CO2 levels because they do not incorporate the positive feedback effects of open water in the Arctic Ocean and melting permafrost.

Not very likely given the fact that the arctic ice cap was 1/2 what it is today in the early Holocene. If run away feedback did not occur then it is not going to occur now. Edited September 30, 2012 by TimG

[Guest]

it could be slowed and even halted but it would take a huge gobal effort...but even if that were possible it's going to get worse before it gets better, what we do today is felt decades even centuries from now...one climatologist(I can never recall his name, I'll have to look it up someday) gave up pushing for emission control because in his opinion it's too late, our civilization is doomed a mass extinction is inevitable...for the sake of my kids and unborn grand kids I hope he's wrong...

Lovelock? I quite like reading his stuff.

Forced sterilization of all new borns might do something to help. Reversible, so a couple could have a child if they applied for permission and passed all the criteria.

Then see what happens when we drop the population back to a couple of billion.

Other than that, just head for higher ground in a spot that will benefit from a few more degrees of heat.

[punked]

Not very likely given the fact that the arctic ice cap was 1/2 what it is today in the early Holocene. If run away feedback did not occur then it is not going to occur now.

You do know the "Early Holocene" is a change that occurred over a 5000 year period not a 150 year period right? It is the rate of change which is alarming.

[TimG]

You do know the "Early Holocene" is a change that occurred over a 5000 year period not a 150 year period right? It is the rate of change which is alarming.

So what? It does not affect the nature of any feedbacks and since the planet was much warmer in the early Holocene and the arctic ice was less we can pretty much rule out 'run away feedback loops due to melting arctic'.

[punked]

So what? It does not affect the nature of any feedbacks and since the planet was much warmer in the early Holocene and the arctic ice was less we can pretty much rule out 'run away feedback loops due to melting arctic'.

How so? A process that took 5000 years (which was one of the fastest warming periods in the history of the world), now is on a trajectory to take 200 years and you think that rules out that there is a feedback loop? If I look at those two numbers I think to myself there might be a problem here that is a different one that took place 13000 years ago. That is just me.

[TimG]

How so? A process that took 5000 years (which was one of the fastest warming periods in the history of the world), now is on a trajectory to take 200 years and you think that rules out that there is a feedback loop?

You obviously don't understand what a feedback loop is. If such a thing existed it would have been triggered by slow warming and that slow warming would have accelerated rapidly. That did not happen therefore there are no run away feedback loops triggered by melting arctic ice.

As for the current warming: we are measuring a change over a blip in the historical record. We cannot know if similar rates of warming occurred in the past because we have no data. However, the data from the Greenland ice cores strongly suggests that periods of rapid warming and cooling are the norm for the climate. The dumbest thing any can ever do is extrapolate on a graph and assume current trends will continue forever. After all we do know that CO2 response is logarithmic which means the more we add the less effect it will have - that is why the catastrophists keep spinning these yarns about 'run away feedbacks' because CO2 on its own is not much of a concern.

[wyly]

So what? It does not affect the nature of any feedbacks and since the planet was much warmer in the early Holocene and the arctic ice was less we can pretty much rule out 'run away feedback loops due to melting arctic'.

ya and there weren't 7 billion people along with their cars and industry spewing out 6 billion tons of CO2 were there tim?

[punked]

You obviously don't understand what a feedback loop is. If such a thing existed it would have been triggered by slow warming and that slow warming would have accelerated rapidly. That did not happen therefore there are no run away feedback loops triggered by melting arctic ice.

As for the current warming: we are measuring a change over a blip in the historical record. We cannot know if similar rates of warming occurred in the past because we have no data. However, the data from the Greenland ice cores strongly suggests that periods of rapid warming and cooling are the norm for the climate. The dumbest thing any can ever do is extrapolate on a graph and assume current trends will continue forever. After all we do know that CO2 response is logarithmic which means the more we add the less effect it will have - that is why the catastrophists keep spinning these yarns about 'run away feedbacks' because CO2 on its own is not much of a concern.

No I know what a feedback loop is sorry to tell you.

Your hypothesis of "It did not happen before there for it can not happen now" however is what I don't understand. That has to be the stupidest thing said today. You clearly do not understand how science works. BTW you have shown nothing that "proves" there was no feedback loop in 13000 years ago.

As for "We can not know what happened in the past" we certainly can. There are plenty of ways science has found to look at our past records and figure out what happened.

You need to read a book or something because everything you are saying doesn't make any sense what so ever. Your arguments are flawed even a 5th grader could see the problems with your reasoning.

Edited September 30, 2012 by punked