Climate activists hold signs behind Harper

[hitops]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/protester-sean-devlin-tells-how-he-got-onstage-with-pm-1.2486133

That's kind of embarrassing for Harper's security detail, but beyond that, this is just another example of pure unadulterated ignorance. Climate justice?

The irony could not be more profound. What poor countries want to do is develop. If you tell them no to fossil fuels, they cannot. By saying we limit fossil fuel production, basically you condemn the poor to permanent misery with no chance of development. It's the ultimate in arrogance, and a kind of truly disgusting neo-colonialism.

The negative effect of rising waters or other weather changes on poor people is nearly non-existent compared to the negative effect of a policy of preventing fossil-fuel based development (the only kind currently available). And for what? A theory of climate change we barely understand, based on shaky assumptions at best.

Edited January 7, 2014 by hitops

[waldo]

What poor countries want to do is develop. If you tell them no to fossil fuels, they cannot.

please identify which 'poor countries' you're speaking of

[Guest Derek L]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/protester-sean-devlin-tells-how-he-got-onstage-with-pm-1.2486133

That's kind of embarrassing for Harper's security detail, but beyond that, this is just another example of pure unadulterated ignorance. Climate justice?

It most certainly is another black-eye for the RCMP, especially after numerous security failures during the Chrétien tenure and the incident at Marois's victory party.

I think incidents like this, and their appearance on CBC’s Power and Politics ultimately does nothing, and perhaps even hurts their cause. I think the majority of Canadians, regardless of their views on the validity of the climate change debate, tune out Moonbats like this.

[On Guard for Thee]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/protester-sean-devlin-tells-how-he-got-onstage-with-pm-1.2486133

That's kind of embarrassing for Harper's security detail, but beyond that, this is just another example of pure unadulterated ignorance. Climate justice?

The irony could not be more profound. What poor countries want to do is develop. If you tell them no to fossil fuels, they cannot. By saying we limit fossil fuel production, basically you condemn the poor to permanent misery with no chance of development. It's the ultimate in arrogance, and a kind of truly disgusting neo-colonialism.

The negative effect of rising waters or other weather changes on poor people is nearly non-existent compared to the negative effect of a policy of preventing fossil-fuel based development (the only kind currently available). And for what? A theory of climate change we barely understand, based on shaky assumptions at best.

And if you tell them yes to fossil fuels they still don't develop. The bank accounts of Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP, et al do dramatically develop. Have you ever been in any of those countrys? I have and I could tell you stories. Oh a few people get jobs, mowing the lawn, making beds, for a few years. Some of the corrupt sons of corrupt leaders get stinking rich, and when the price drops or the well runs dry, It's adios mofo. Take a boat ride through the Niger river delta one day and get back to me.

[bush_cheney2004]

And if you tell them yes to fossil fuels they still don't develop. The bank accounts of Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP, et al do dramatically develop....

So what ? Seventy percent of Canada's oil production is foreign owned, with what some believe are ridiculously low royalty fees. Why should African nations be limited in fossil fuel production and domestic usage just because of so called "climate change" when the "developed" world continues to do as it pleases for production and consumption?

[On Guard for Thee]

So what ? Seventy percent of Canada's oil production is foreign owned, with what some believe are ridiculously low royalty fees. Why should African nations be limited in fossil fuel production and domestic usage just because of so called "climate change" when the "developed" world continues to do as it pleases for production and consumption?

Ah, apparently you missed the whole point here.

[August1991]

please identify which 'poor countries' you're speaking of

'poor countries' where people are forced to pay to listen to 'propaganda'.

I can understand why North Korea has a State broadcaster.

In Canada with the Internet, I don't understand why we still have the CBC/Radio-Canada except that I understand too there are many rent-seekers...

Edited January 7, 2014 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

\

In Canada with the Internet, I don't understand why we still have the CBC/Radio-Canada except that I understand too there are many rent-seekers...

Canada's state sponsored and controlled CBC is required to combat the relentless assault on the so called "Canadian identity" by the American cultural hegemon, or so we are told. Ironically, far more research and datasets from the Americans are constantly invoked during debates about "climate change". Go figure....

Edited January 7, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Ah, apparently you missed the whole point here.

My point here had nothing to do with climate change, but rather, and I'll put it this way: man in west africa walking down road, no shoes, carrying a machette, walks into the bush. Emerges later that day with some bananas, a couple of coconuts, and maybe a couple of ratons he snared, tied to his belt. Next day oil company arrives, drills hole, finds offshore oil. Tankers arrive, helicopters arrive, a lot of white people arrive. A few blqck people get menial jobs and do ok. Then the price of oil drops or the well goes dry. Tankers disapear, as do helicopters as do white people. as do jobs. Corrupt government family and friends are rolling in dough as is multi national oil company. Man with no shoes and machette still goes into the bush each day.

[waldo]

Ironically, far more research and datasets from the Americans are constantly invoked during debates about "climate change". Go figure....

USA! USA! USA!

[On Guard for Thee]

Canada's state sponsored and controlled CBC is required to combat the relentless assault on the so called "Canadian identity" by the American cultural hegemon, or so we are told. Ironically, far more research and datasets from the Americans are constantly invoked during debates about "climate change". Go figure....

It's quite funny how you keep suggesting the CBC is state controlled. If you had ever watched or listen to it you would know that if Harper controlled it he would have pulled the plug long ago. He can't, A because he doesn't control it, and B if he ever tried he'd be tarred and feathered and sent to America where he could be happy with Fox news and the like.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's quite funny how you keep suggesting the CBC is state controlled. If you had ever watched or listen to it you would know that if Harper controlled it he would have pulled the plug long ago.

It is not funny to the CBC, as the state sponsored and controlled CBC budget was slashed 10% by the ruling party. The CBC is not viable without large government sponsorship.

[waldo]

It is not funny to the CBC, as the state sponsored and controlled CBC budget was slashed 10% by the ruling party. The CBC is not viable without large government sponsorship.

is this a thread that relates to the CBC?

[On Guard for Thee]

It is not funny to the CBC, as the state sponsored and controlled CBC budget was slashed 10% by the ruling party. The CBC is not viable without large government sponsorship.

That's right, it's state sponsored, and if I may say so with the blessing of a huge majority of the Canadian people. It is not state controlled. There is a difference.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's right, it's state sponsored, and if I may say so with the blessing of a huge majority of the Canadian people. It is not state controlled. There is a difference.

Sponsorship is control....there is no difference. This story and OP link was provided by the CBC.

Edited January 7, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[PIK]

What a joke, those jokers should have been tackled right there, brought down hard and then a couple more pile on. That way these idiots won't do it again.

[Rocky Road]

"pure" economics eh.

Lol.

How many countries have the us ruined with that bias?

please see this film called The Power Principle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=RDZwHUlIiLI

[overthere]

That's right, it's state sponsored, and if I may say so with the blessing of a huge majority of the Canadian people. It is not state controlled. There is a difference.

Do you have any data at all that would validate your claim that CBC has the blessing of a huge majority of Canadians?

You'd think a few of them would actually watch CBC TV if that was true.

[overthere]

"What poor countries want to do is develop. If you tell them no to fossil fuels, they cannot. "

That's about half right, maybe 3/4 right.

What people in less developed countries want is exactly what we have: 1) personal safety, joint security, and the rule of law 2) a reasonable shot at earning a living. It's why they come to countries like Canada, even with our horrible climate and constant whining despite immense privilege of birth.

If getting there involves fossil fuels, fine. They generally don't give a shit what gets them to the two universal objectives.

[carepov]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/protester-sean-devlin-tells-how-he-got-onstage-with-pm-1.2486133

That's kind of embarrassing for Harper's security detail, but beyond that, this is just another example of pure unadulterated ignorance. Climate justice?

The irony could not be more profound. What poor countries want to do is develop. If you tell them no to fossil fuels, they cannot. By saying we limit fossil fuel production, basically you condemn the poor to permanent misery with no chance of development. It's the ultimate in arrogance, and a kind of truly disgusting neo-colonialism.

The negative effect of rising waters or other weather changes on poor people is nearly non-existent compared to the negative effect of a policy of preventing fossil-fuel based development (the only kind currently available). And for what? A theory of climate change we barely understand, based on shaky assumptions at best.

I agree that the real problem of under-development/poverty dwarfs the potential problem of climate change.

I also agree that the eco-extremist calling for a shutdown of all fossil-fuel usage is ridiculous and harmful.

However, IMO the majority of activists are not calling for an end to fossil fuel development. I do not agree with these two protesters but I do not agree with our government's stance on climate change either. There are still good reasons to concern ourselves with climate change and to limit the burning of fossil fuels.

-It is unjust to future generations if we irresponsibly consume non-renewable fossil fuels

-If we can cut the demand for fossil fuels, especially in the OECD, this will put downward pressure on energy prices and help poor countries develop.

[Boges]

It's interesting that people don't talk much about reducing fossil fuels when it's -25 C outside. Then it's a human right to live in an environment that's 20 C or more.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Boges

[hitops]

I agree that the real problem of under-development/poverty dwarfs the potential problem of climate change.

I also agree that the eco-extremist calling for a shutdown of all fossil-fuel usage is ridiculous and harmful.

However, IMO the majority of activists are not calling for an end to fossil fuel development. I do not agree with these two protesters but I do not agree with our government's stance on climate change either. There are still good reasons to concern ourselves with climate change and to limit the burning of fossil fuels.

-It is unjust to future generations if we irresponsibly consume non-renewable fossil fuels

-If we can cut the demand for fossil fuels, especially in the OECD, this will put downward pressure on energy prices and help poor countries develop.

Absolutely, lack of development is an elephant compared to the ant of 'rising waters' of whatever other sexy issue is worth reporting.

Your concerns in bullet points actually have nothing to do with climate change, but more to do with over-consumption of resources (and presumably, their subsequent reduce supply).

I believe it is unjust to future generations if we limit development and put ourselves at a future disadvantage by cutting fossil fuels. The only way to cut demand is to increase costs or limit prosperity. This to is unfair to future generations, as the young get most impacted by such measures (due to reduced economic activity and jobs).

We develop with fossil fuels, there is no other way to do it today. When we develop we get richer, more productive and more innovative. That is how we will invent, develop and market newer, more efficient, less consuming energy methods. Willfully making ourselves poorer will just retard that process.

Natural gas prices went into free-fall due to fracking, and oil has stabilized/dropped as well. This didn't happen from limited our consumption so others could have it cheaper, it happened from full-speed ahead development to unlock new sources of energy. This is the most effective method.

Edited January 7, 2014 by hitops

[Argus]

What a joke, those jokers should have been tackled right there, brought down hard and then a couple more pile on. That way these idiots won't do it again.

Actually, these two should not have even been able to get into the building. That they were able to get in among the invitation only audience was a huge security failling. That they were then allowed to simply walk up onto the daise behind Harper is a stunning breech of security. Whoever planned out the security for this event should be reporting for his next duty assignment in Inuktitut very soon.

[Boges]

We already have ample proof of this, as fracking alone, the unlocking of new energy, has done 100x more to relieve this problem in a few short years than 60 years of activism. Fuel prices are now falling, with natural gas in free-fall. Limiting our consumption to lower prices for others didn't do this, development did.

If hilarious that people want Fracking banned. It's a far cleaner fossil fuel than any available and it'll allow people to move away from crude oil and gasoline. Eventually batter technology will have to advance so that renewable power like wind and solar would be more viable but for now, Natural Gas is the way to go.

I said this in another thread, Al Gore came up to Ontario to praise the government for closing all Coal-fired plants. Well how was that accomplished? building natural gas powered plants. I wonder what his view on Fracking is?

[hitops]

And if you tell them yes to fossil fuels they still don't develop. The bank accounts of Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP, et al do dramatically develop. Have you ever been in any of those countrys? I have and I could tell you stories. Oh a few people get jobs, mowing the lawn, making beds, for a few years. Some of the corrupt sons of corrupt leaders get stinking rich, and when the price drops or the well runs dry, It's adios mofo. Take a boat ride through the Niger river delta one day and get back to me.

Things are bad in plenty of places. That doesn't change the fact that in most of the world, things are far, far better than they were 50 or 100 years ago. This is due to fossil-fuel based prosperity and the actions of the market. The good has far outweighed the bad. With perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions, life expectancy, literacy, mortality rates, education and access to health care is far better today than 50 years ago. By focusing on the fact that health care is poor in many place, you are ignoring the fact that previously it was non-existent.

"What poor countries want to do is develop. If you tell them no to fossil fuels, they cannot. "

That's about half right, maybe 3/4 right.

What people in less developed countries want is exactly what we have: 1) personal safety, joint security, and the rule of law 2) a reasonable shot at earning a living. It's why they come to countries like Canada, even with our horrible climate and constant whining despite immense privilege of birth.

If getting there involves fossil fuels, fine. They generally don't give a shit what gets them to the two universal objectives.

How do we support those privileges? Politically with our systems, and economically with our development which is based on fossil fuel consumption. We are saying the same thing.

Edited January 7, 2014 by hitops