Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[Guest American Woman]

you shouldn't ponder so much on Canada's relative positioning within your described speculation... why don't you speculate on the likelihood of Obama being able to realize a Carbon tax... in your own country, hey?

Golly gee, where did I say I was referring to a Carbon tax in Canada, eh?

[waldo]

you shouldn't ponder so much on Canada's relative positioning within your described speculation... why don't you speculate on the likelihood of Obama being able to realize a Carbon tax... in your own country, hey?

Golly gee, where did I say I was referring to a Carbon tax in Canada, eh?

you didn't - nor did I. Are you having reading comprehension difficulty? The relative positioning would be as a presumed benefactor of the decision to approve KXL. But like I said/implied, the real speculation you should waste cycles on is to the likelihood of your Congress passing a Carbon Tax. Again, why not offer your speculative assessment on that one, hey?

[sharkman]

Golly gee, where did I say I was referring to a Carbon tax in Canada, eh?

Well however it ends up, I hope Alberta's future is not held hostage by enviro extremists.

[bush_cheney2004]

you just made the same claim... and refused to support it. Some, certainly not the waldo, would suggest you're trolling - yes?

Canada was a big time Kyoto fail under Liberal "leadership", doing far worse that the Americans, who never even ratified the treaty:

[shortlived]

This is about more than just cutting emissions in order to keep economies strong there needs to be a realignment of lifestyle. This means opening up the north to development of sustainable living. Example. having more people live as naturalists. Example we need more environmental extremists if they are willing to live in the woodlands of the north, we need to give them land to shepherd up there, and to allow for new communities. Funding them to set up base camps for further future generations is what must be done, afterall if it takes two generations to realign population distribution and fulfilling carrying capacity needs while maintaining economic needs we will need to start now, since we only have perhaps 50 years left before the effects of climate change will by todays terraforming capacities be irreversible. 50 years is only 2 generations aways very soon. Canada would be benefited greatly if even 1 in 10 keystone xl activists were willing to move into the taigas of northern Canada to help the transformation of the next generation that will need to act to save the planet. Canada should give residency to any American environmentlists such as keystone xl activists willng to live in the taiga... Canada should act to facilitate this need immediately, of course also Canadian activists, and Chinese activists etc.. too. Russia should open its northern doors to india and china for example. The only other real option is Malthusian warfare and one world government. 1wG is like a total participation comintern. As the other option is just capitalism and a ticket you can buy to be one of those selected to survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga You know residence for anyone willing to live with nature north of 50 degrees in the east and 55 degrees in the west.

Edited February 17, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

This means opening up the north to development of sustainable living...

The north is swamp, rock and black flies. It will take hundreds (if not thousands) of years for new flora and fauna to turn it into a place that can sustain large populations. Fortunately, there will be no need. Humans can and will adapt to the hotter climates without any need for mass migrations.

[shortlived]

The north is swamp, rock and black flies. It will take hundreds (if not thousands) of years for new flora and fauna to turn it into a place that can sustain large populations. Fortunately, there will be no need. Humans can and will adapt to the hotter climates without any need for mass migrations.

No, no it isn't. It is livable land natives have lived on for thousands of years. You clearly don't know anything about sustainable agriculture. 1 swamps make gas. 2. humans have everything needed to grow food in their body. Bugs of course have advantages too. Not only as a food source, but also to make compost, and medicine amongst other things. All that is needed is a bug sink. There are even processes that can make artificial protein blocks from bugs. Also there is tons of freshwater, ample ground to manage abundant fish stocks, and other aquaculture, as well as engage in caribou/reindeer herding domesticating geese. Obviously you don't understand enough about the north but it isn't to late I can show you the way. Edited February 17, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

There are even processes that can make artificial protein blocks from bugs.

I think most people would be happier to stay where they are and buy a better air conditioner... Edited February 17, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

while Canada ratified the treaty and proceeded to do even less than the Americans !

even less? Citation request.

for all of Canada's failings toward meeting it's Kyoto commitments, Canada did ratify it - which, in itself, was a significant effort on the part of the Liberal party in terms of working with the provinces and business. The Liberal party did put forward detailed plans of action toward meeting phased compliance... did put forward correlated budgetary measures, in kind. And then, of course, we can thank the efforts of Harper Conservatives in working against Kyoto - but not before we acknowledge the significant impact your hero Dubbya had when he snubbed his nose at Kyoto, throwing a significant curve-ball in Canada's presumptions toward working to/within an integrated North American strategy. Hence my citation request - given your country refused to ratify it's initial agreement and then your hero 'put the boots' to it even further, I'm quite intrigued to have you step-up and support your claim... waiting.

Why did Canada ratify Kyoto only to do even less than the U.S., which did not ratify the treaty ?

you just made the same claim... and refused to support it. Some, certainly not the waldo, would suggest you're trolling - yes?

Canada was a big time Kyoto fail under Liberal "leadership", doing far worse that the Americans, who never even ratified the treaty:

you're quite ballsy to claim "bettering" a Kyoto commitment when your country didn't have the, 'courage of it's conviction' to follow-through and ratify the agreement... by the by, don't hesitate to state what policy/plans the U.S. followed to meet your claimed/supposed betterment!

as for your continued slag against the Liberal party, I described to you exactly what positive measures the Liberal party undertook... before having your hero, Dubbya, completely trash any opportunity for a cooperative North-American strategy... before having Harper trash Canada's commitment level.

[waldo]

In Germany, consumers are getting fed up with the cost of 'green energy' and the end of nukes in there will mean that Germany will be abandoning its pledges soon.

bull crap! Germany, and the EU at large, bettered Kyoto 1 commitments. In line with the recent Dec-2012 Doha UN COP 18 meetings:

The European Union has confirmed its participation in the Kyoto Protocol's "second commitment period" starting on January 1, 2013. The European Commission also confirmed that for the second Kyoto Protocol commitment period, the EU has established an emissions reduction commitment in line with its domestic target of cutting emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 but has left the door open to stepping up this reduction to 30 percent if the conditions are right.

if you persist I will quote you a previous MLW post that showed, on its own initiative, Germany in 2011 was well on its way to bettering Kyoto 1990 levels by upwards of a 30 reduction amount. You've stated your/this same kind of crap about Germany in the past... you've been shown to be wrong on each account... and yet you persist!

[Bonam]

I think most people would be happier to stay where they are and buy a better air conditioner...

Who wouldn't want to subsist off bug protein cubes?

[Canuckistani]

No, no it isn't. It is livable land natives have lived on for thousands of years. You clearly don't know anything about sustainable agriculture. 1 swamps make gas. 2. humans have everything needed to grow food in their body. Bugs of course have advantages too. Not only as a food source, but also to make compost, and medicine amongst other things. All that is needed is a bug sink. There are even processes that can make artificial protein blocks from bugs. Also there is tons of freshwater, ample ground to manage abundant fish stocks, and other aquaculture, as well as engage in caribou/reindeer herding domesticating geese. Obviously you don't understand enough about the north but it isn't to late I can show you the way.

do do do do, do do do do.

[sharkman]

I love the smell of bug protein cubes in the morning!

[bush_cheney2004]

don't hesitate to state what policy/plans the U.S. followed to meet your claimed/supposed betterment!

The U.S. didn't follow any Kyoto policy, but still had less growth in "emissions" than Canada, which actually ratified the treaty! Canada was a Kyoto FAIL and international laughing stock through Copenhagen. PM Harper finally put a stop to the entire charade.

as for your continued slag against the Liberal party, I described to you exactly what positive measures the Liberal party undertook... before having your hero, Dubbya, completely trash any opportunity for a cooperative North-American strategy... before having Harper trash Canada's commitment level.

The Americans didn't need to cooperate for Canada's Kyoto FAIL, which the Liberal party managed all by itself. If that wasn't funny enough, Chretien blamed Martin for dropping the Kyoto ball after he left office.

http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/12/11/chreacutetien_points_finger_at_martin_for_kyoto_failure.html

"North American" is just Canadian code for cozying up to the U.S. when it suits their interests (sans Mexico...the other part of North America).

[waldo]

The U.S. didn't follow any Kyoto policy, but still had less growth in "emissions" than Canada, which actually ratified the treaty!

no - once again, you don't know what you're talking about... I'd recommend you do a lil' research and save yourself further embarrassment. I'll even give you a clue: check out CO2-equivalent values and correlate that back to what GHGs were/are a part of the Kyoto Protocol. While you're doing that, have a chew over this illuminating article, that will reinforce you don't know what you're talking about:

... the EIA has a well-worn track record of this kind of obsfucation, one that gets regularly trumpeted throughout the mainstream: notwithstanding the basic fact of reduced American consumption, I give you, The Myth Of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions

The Americans didn't need to cooperate for Canada's Kyoto FAIL, which the Liberal party managed all by itself. If that wasn't funny enough, Chretien blamed Martin for dropping the Kyoto ball after he left office.

not sure why you're hell bent on laying the principal failure/fault with Canada's Liberal party... other than you just trolling. Martin had, effectively, less than 2 years (while in minority government) before he ran into Harper's big-time resistance. Even at that, the Martin government still put forward significant proposals toward meeting Kyoto... in any case, you're simply showcasing another internal Chretien/Martin snipefest.

but as I said, it's really quite ballsy of you to presume to chastise another country when your own country, as you stated, "never intended to ratify the agreement in the first place". Ballsy, indeed!

"North American" is just Canadian code for cozying up to the U.S. when it suits their interests (sans Mexico...the other part of North America).

no - the cooperative North American strategy that I referred to was the one Dubbya put his shit-kicker boots to. If you have trouble with that level/degree of cooperation for 2 countries so integrally tied together on energy, then I eagerly await your rattling against Harper Conservatives formal association in directly linking emission reduction targets, ala the Copenhagen Accord, to match U.S. commitments (commitments that were not met by either Canada or the U.S.). After all, as far as Harper Conservatives were concerned, Kyoto was 'dead' as of 2006... it took them until 2008's "Turning the Corner" plan and moving into 2009 @Copenhagen to even realize an emissions reduction target/commitment. And yet you're still flogging Kyoto!!! You really need to up your game here, hey!

[Argus]

the price gap between North Sea Brent versus West Texas Intermediate versus Western Canadian Select:

a part of that 'choke point' you speak to is also being 'fueled' by significant increases in U.S. domestic output from the Bakken Shale reserve... which, in turn, is having an impact widening the existing gap between Brent & WTI.

You'll note the prices were virtually identical up until February 2011. That does not seem to suggest that the price differential is caused in any large part by refining costs.

[Argus]

for all of Canada's failings toward meeting it's Kyoto commitments, Canada did ratify it - which, in itself, was a significant effort on the part of the Liberal party in terms of working with the provinces and business. The Liberal party did put forward detailed plans of action toward meeting phased compliance... did put forward correlated budgetary measures, in kind. And then, of course, we can thank the efforts of Harper Conservatives in working against Kyoto

It is possible my memory is flawed, but I can't recall the Liberal government doing anything substantive to meet its goals under Kyoto. You say they developed "detailed plans of action". How very good. But nine years after they signed it they'd done, essentially, nothing, leaving the Conservatives the task of meeting a goal which required a 15 year timeline (a goal many say was unobtainable even when Chretien signed it) in 6 years.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

why... yes... that's right! It's the weasel move Harper Conservatives took to avoid paying penalties for not meeting commitments. And your point is?

You mean the commitment Jean Chretien made, against advice, and never did anything over the following nine years to meet?

[bush_cheney2004]

no - once again, you don't know what you're talking about...

Wrong...not only did Canada fail to meet its ratified Kyoto targets, it actually increased emissions. Chretien blamed Martin....laughable

not sure why you're hell bent on laying the principal failure/fault with Canada's Liberal party... other than you just trolling. Martin had, effectively, less than 2 years (while in minority government) before he ran into Harper's big-time resistance. Even at that, the Martin government still put forward significant proposals toward meeting Kyoto... in any case, you're simply showcasing another internal Chretien/Martin snipefest.

Call it what you wish...it is "internal" recognition of Canada's Kyoto FAIL.

but as I said, it's really quite ballsy of you to presume to chastise another country when your own country, as you stated, "never intended to ratify the agreement in the first place". Ballsy, indeed!

Not "ballsy" (???) at all....Canada ratified the treaty in a feel good moment and then promptly proceeded to do nothing about it. Kyoto FAIL.

no - the cooperative North American strategy that I referred to was the one Dubbya put his shit-kicker boots to.

Irrelevant....Dubya and the U.S. were not responsible for Canada's international obligations required by the treaty. The U.S. had no intention of playing the Kyoto game as designed, while Canada wanted to feel some international tree hugger love while failing miserably, even as the Americans slowed their growth in emissions more effectively without ever signing the stupid treaty to begin with. Kyoto FAIL.

[Argus]

The context means nothing in light of the comment you were responding to, and fyi: The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years.

Yes, that happens when you go into a massive recession and industries shut down. One of the issues some had with the Kyoto Protocal, in fact, was it was based on a timeline which set the starting point in the midst of a deep north American recession. We would thus be required to reduce emissions from then, while the Europeans faced far fewer issues.

[Argus]

No, no it isn't. It is livable land natives have lived on for thousands of years.

Well... yeah, kind of. In small numbers, eking out a bare existence on fish and hunting, with short lifespans.

For today's north, almost everything has to be subsidized by the government, from food and fuel to communications and transport.

We'd be better off bringing all those people south.

[waldo]

You'll note the prices were virtually identical up until February 2011. That does not seem to suggest that the price differential is caused in any large part by refining costs.

there are coincident effects at play: 2 new pipelines delivering WCS from Canada opened in 2010, 2011 respectively... prior to this, comparative volumes were not significant; limited refining capacity existed as a relatively few number of refineries had the capability to handle heavy crude; competitive Mexican heavy crude (Maya) increased from the Gulf into the Midwest U.S. refineries. Heavy crude costs significantly more to refine than WTI/Brent... the WCS price differential reflects upon additional refining costs for heavy crude, limited refining capability to handle heavy crude, competition from Mexican Maya heavy crude, and an overall over supply.

[waldo]

It is possible my memory is flawed, but I can't recall the Liberal government doing anything substantive to meet its goals under Kyoto. You say they developed "detailed plans of action". How very good. But nine years after they signed it they'd done, essentially, nothing, leaving the Conservatives the task of meeting a goal which required a 15 year timeline (a goal many say was unobtainable even when Chretien signed it) in 6 years.

9 years??? Try 4 years of concerted effort working with the provinces and business to ratify the treaty (that brings us to 2003 and the last year of Chretien... which for intents and purposes became overtaken with sponsorship/Gomery). Now add in the couple of years of Martin working within a minority... perhaps you could provide your insightful comment on the degree of support Harper gave to Kyoto during that period).

[waldo]

You mean the commitment Jean Chretien made, against advice, and never did anything over the following nine years to meet?

ratifying the agreement was a significant undertaking. While you're berating any/all efforts put forward by Liberals, don't hesitate to offer comment on Harper's position/support for Kyoto. I mean, after all, you appear to be quite taken aback concerning the lack of meeting Kyoto commitments... don't be too hard on Harper, hey?

[waldo]

Wrong...not only did Canada fail to meet its ratified Kyoto targets, it actually increased emissions.

says the guy who could care less about Kyoto, other than to showcase your petulant self. Says the guy who proudly proclaims his (claimed) country never had any intention to ratify the agreement it signed... and yet the same guy who remains absolutely fixated with Kyoto. Says the guy who doesn't acknowledge that Kyoto was dead in Canada, ala Harper, in 2006... and yet the same guy who remains absolutely fixated with Kyoto. Says the guy who puffed up over supposed U.S. emission reductions... until he was called on it and shown to be wrong.

The U.S. had no intention of playing the Kyoto game as designed, while Canada wanted to feel some international tree hugger love while failing miserably

I've asked you twice now... once more: if, as you say, there was no intention to ratify the agreement your country signed, why did the U.S. sign the agreement in the first place... what, no courage of your convictions, hey?

even as the Americans slowed their growth in emissions more effectively without ever signing the stupid treaty to begin with.

you've been most slippery in your evasion. Why not step-up and state what you attribute the supposed (your claimed) "slow growth in emissions" to... quantify it - sure you can. You keep avoiding this - is there a problem?