jacee Posted January 28, 2014 Author Report Posted January 28, 2014 no - what I've read has the First Nation chief proposing beyond the immediacy/timeline of that Calgary concert... a meeting intent that pulls in those missing stakeholders I spoke of earlier (i.e., government officials) - you know, something about a 'treaties concern'.Environment, jobs, revenues ... all have to be negotiated ... but ya, a press conference with Neil Young and David Suzuki is not the place to do that. Nor is the CAPP the appropriate party to do it. kind of makes a NO decision easy for Obama to convey to the American public, particularly if that China tarsands investment & Asian export angle is played up more in the lead-up to a decision. That's an Obama decision that won't be coming before the end of the year (before the 2014 mid-term elections)... no matter how hard Baird/Harper posture/"huff&puff" and say they won't accept a NO!Interesting that Harper now says he wants a decision even if it's the "wrong" one. Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Ethanol comes from plants, specifically GMO corn. What kinds of resources are needed to grow corn in order to process it into ethanol? comes from biomass (and yes, corn is one of those feedstocks); however, see 'cellulosic ethanol', which is produced from non-food-based feedstocks Edited January 28, 2014 by waldo Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 Environment, jobs, revenues ... all have to be negotiated ... but ya, a press conference with Neil Young and David Suzuki is not the place to do that. Nor is the CAPP the appropriate party to do it. Interesting that Harper now says he wants a decision even if it's the "wrong" one. Makes sense - at least if it's "no", we'll know where we stand - and do what we have to to turn it into a "yes". This continual obfuscation - kicking the can down the road....is just cowardly. Make a decision - or in today's new English - take a decision. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 Interesting that Harper now says he wants a decision even if it's the "wrong" one. I'm pretty sure that's just Baird saying that in his latest trip to the U.S... it provided quite the contrast to Harper's previous posturing over "not accepting a NO decision". (My bad for not making that distinction in my initial statement). Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 I don't like hearing negative generalizations against racial/cultural groups it's true, and when they're repeated ad nauseam I'll call it what it is. Yes I did ... see "generalization". The quote you called me out on the second time had ZERO racial connotation or implication whatsoever yet you threw down the race card because that's what you do. The two other members called you out on it and you DID NOT respond to any of them or my own request to know how it was racial. Yes I did ... twice. See "Neil ... naive". No...at this point you were responding to another post...not the Globe and Mail article. I do appreciate your honesty in comments about him as this situation clearly proves his naivety. Don't conflate what Neil Young and David Suzuki said with where Chipewyan people stand, and accuse the latter for the former. As I said, I think Neil went into this somewhat naively without understanding some things well, and he's since been 'schooled' in their realities of environmental concerns, right to revenue sharing and need for jobs and training. Really? So the ACFN have no problem lettting Neil speak for them when it benefits them but the minute that it doesn't they can dust him off? Sorry Jacee...but when the ACFN took Neil on as a spokesman they took on everything. If they didn't like what he was saying then they should have spoken up and shut him down. Its like when Flanagan piped up last year about child pornography and the U of C immediately fired him. Your spokespeople represent you which can be a good or a bad thing but in the end Neil Young and Allan Adam sat at the same press conferences with the same message. Now...you pass this off as if Adam doesn't fully agree with Neil Young? Adam has numerously stated how the cancer rates are high in his areas due to the oil sands development. ASSUMING this was true....then why would anyone be in favor of ANY sort of development. The only reason....$$$$$. Like I said....the "whoa is the environment" is put out there but seems to become a non-factor if the price is right. Even Adam said this as he said its a fine line. Obviously whether one believes they "deserve" revenue sharing does have something to do with your denigrating Indigenous Peoples' positions on oil sands development, or you wouldn't have mentioned it at all. If that's your real issue, you should be up front about it, and not hide it behind Neil Young. . I have previously posted in past threads my exact thoughts on this and have never hid behind anyone or anything. I believe that any resources on their land (reserve land) is completely and totally theirs as is the case in Onion Lake or Samson Cree. Any land outside of their reserves is NOT their land. The treaties say cede and surrender all land meaning its now the property of Canada. Sure..the treaties then say that the natives are allowed to use this land for their uses but that does not mean its theirs nor does it mean they should be able to dictate what we do on it. If I bought land off my neighbor but said he/she can still use it, that doesn't mean that he/she should share in revenues if I were to find oil or other minerals. Nor should he/she be able to impede on my development of this land. Same thing here. The land was ceded and surrendered including all rights. If activity on that land has proven to cause an environmental concern to their land, then YES....they should be compensated. However, they should not be compensated just for the resources. I know what you're going to say....the way it is in reality is not the way I think it should be. The courts have given many rights to native groups based on these lands being their 'hunting grounds' and of traditional use. As such, the environmental impacts need to be considered to those activities that will impede their ability to hunt or perform traditional. However, I don't feel that the environmental impacts should be any greater for these lands as they would be for any other part of Canada. What seems to be the issue is actually defining these traditional lands. Take for example the ACFN. As per the CBC article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/neil-young-tour-5-facts-about-the-first-nation-he-s-singing-for-1.2497824): The band has eight reserves around the southern shores of Lake Athabasca, with a combined area of 34,767 hectares, but considers its traditional territory to encompass all of Treaty 8. Ancestors signed Treaty 8 at Fort Chipewyan in 1899. The land associated to treaty 8 is the northern half of Alberta!! You're telling me that this group is entitled to work happening in Grande Prairie? There is an awful lot of talk about the 'intent' of treaties. I trust the ol' Brits signing this one didn't INTEND on this being the case. With all this being said, you have repeatedly told me that you will let the courts decide....that its not up to us. Well...in this case the Supreme Court of Canada has decided. Their decision is to not even listen to the case. Doesn't that tell you something? Quote
jacee Posted January 28, 2014 Author Report Posted January 28, 2014 Makes sense - at least if it's "no", we'll know where we stand - and do what we have to to turn it into a "yes". Turn it into a yes ??? That doesn't make any sense. Once the decision's made - No - you don't really think it's going to change do you?I can't see Obama wanting to stick his neck out to help Harper pipe/ship controversial product through their land to China ... because Canadians don't want it piped/shipped through our own! Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 comes from biomass (and yes, corn is one of those feedstocks); however, see 'cellulosic ethanol', which is produced from non-food-based feedstocks an image from the/Young's LincVolt website itself, showing the GHG reductions with ethanol/biomass: According to U.S. Department of Energy studies conducted by Argonne National Laboratory of the University of Chicago, one of the benefits of cellulosic ethanol is that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by up to 86% over reformulated gasoline. By contrast, starch ethanol (e.g., from corn), which most frequently uses natural gas to provide energy for the process, may not reduce GHG emissions at all depending on how the starch-based feedstock is produced. Much debate also exists around the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels due to land use change. The Lincvolt project is constantly seeking the greenest fuel possible, focusing on fuels that are carbon negative such as using waste corncobs and corn stover. As EPA Renewable Fuels Standard and California Air Resources Board Low Carbon Fuel Standard certify more fuels, Lincvolt will use the cleanest and most greenhouse gas reducing fuel available. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 no - what I've read has the First Nation chief proposing beyond the immediacy/timeline of that Calgary concert... a meeting intent that pulls in those missing stakeholders I spoke of earlier (i.e., government officials) - you know, something about a 'treaties concern'. Do you have a citation for this? One showing their request to meet with the CAPP, government officials and of course the other missing stakeholders. But yes, the referenced CAPP "unacceptable" should have been with respect to the presser,... but c'mon, what would be wrong with having the eminent Order of Canada recipient, David Suzuki, moderate a presser? What ever would CAPP be afraid of? Ok...so you just want an Order of Canada recipient? How about Allan Markin. I trust he would do a good job. Dr. Allan Markin, a University of Lethbridge Honorary Degree recipient (2006), oil and gas industry entrepreneur and philanthropist, was promoted to an Officer of the Order of Canada by Governor General Michaelle Jean Wednesday, Apr. 7 at Rideau Hall. Markin represents one of Canada's great entrepreneurial success stories. Since 1989, he has helped to build Canadian Natural Resources Limited from a small company of six employees into one of Canada's largest independent oil and gas producers. http://www.uleth.ca/unews/article/markin-promoted-order-canada Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 move along now NoAccount... the thread has bypassed your nonsense! Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 move along now NoAccount... the thread has bypassed your nonsense! Scared....I get it. 6-0. Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 Scared....I get it. 6-0. don't you have any comments about produce, stocking shelves, 18-year old shift supervisors? Again, just how old are you? Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 further to Young's LincVolt and ethanol alternatives: from the U.S. Department of Energy: Cellulosic Ethanol FeedstocksCellulosic feedstocks are non-food based feedstocks that include crop residues, wood residues, dedicated energy crops, and industrial and other wastes. These feedstocks are composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (typically extracted to provide process steam for production). It's more challenging to release the sugars in these feedstocks for conversion to ethanol. Commercialization of these processes is a funding priority of the U.S. Department of Energy's Bioenergy Technologies Office.Cellulosic feedstocks offer many advantages over starch- and sugar-based feedstocks. They are more abundant and can be used to produce more substantial amounts of ethanol to meet U.S. fuel demand. They are waste products or, in the case of trees and grasses grown specifically for ethanol production, can be grown on marginal lands not suitable for other crops. Less fossil fuel energy is required to grow, collect, and convert them to ethanol, and they are not used for human food. There are challenges with harvesting, collecting, and delivering cellulosic feedstocks. Researchers are studying these challenges in an effort to formulate solutions to them. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 don't you have any comments about produce, stocking shelves, 18-year old shift supervisors? Again, just how old are you? Like I said...I've got you figured out now. Quote
Boges Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 BTW the problem with using food as energy is that it makes food, which we sort of use to eat, is that it makes it cost more. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/423385/ethanol-blamed-for-record-food-prices/ Federal ethanol mandates, which have led to a steady increase in the production of ethanol made from corn, are a major reason why food prices worldwide have reached record levels in the past several months, according to some economists. Earlier this month, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization reported that global food prices had risen for eight consecutive months, reaching the highest levels since the agency started tracking prices in 1990. The prices are high in large part because of steadily growing worldwide demand for food, and because of natural disasters that have hurt harvests, but they’re also affected by government policies. Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Like I said...I've got you figured out now. again, just how old are you? How old does one need to be to throw your stock-boy style insults? Should I resurrect that post where I catalogued a dozen+ of your insults that followed another of your most juvenile themes... along your intellectual level of "living in mom's basement"? Should I lay down that post? again, just how old are you.... you self-proclaimed owner of a successful multi-national business!!! Edited January 28, 2014 by waldo Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 BTW the problem with using food as energy is that it makes food, which we sort of use to eat, is that it makes it cost more. which is the angle member GostHacked was waiting to play on... as I said, see cellulosic feedstocks Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Turn it into a yes ??? That doesn't make any sense. Once the decision's made - No - you don't really think it's going to change do you? I can't see Obama wanting to stick his neck out to help Harper pipe/ship controversial product through their land to China ... because Canadians don't want it piped/shipped through our own! Well - for one, there's always the next US election - only two years away.....but chances are, Obama will not say no - he would further alienate the almost 70% of Americans who are in favour. He might find some way to delay the decision even more - but that too would serve to further undermine his credibility in being afraid to make a decision - and further cast him as a weak President beholden to his financial backers.....and do you honestly believe that they'll be shipping a bunch of oil to China from the Gulf Coast? Do you really believe that? Two-thirds of Americans continue to favour building the Keystone XL pipeline despite a massive campaign against the project, according to a new survey. While an overwhelming majority of Republicans (82%) favour construction of the pipeline, so do 64% of independents and just over half of Democrats (51%), according to the Pew Research Centre which polled 1,506 Americans earlier this month. Crucially, the six states the pipeline will pass through were also strongly in favour of the project. Link: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/27/two-thirds-of-americans-favour-building-keystone-xl-pipline-poll/?__lsa=d0de-3783 Edited January 28, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 again, just how old are you? How old does one need to be to throw your stock-boy style insults? Should I resurrect that post where I catalogued a dozen+ of your insults that followed another of your most juvenile themes... along your intellectual level of "living in mom's basement"? Should I lay down that post? again, just how old are you.... you self-proclaimed owner of a successful multi-national business!!! Post what ever you feel like. Maybe you should post that one where you said you were putting me back on ignore ABOUT 100 posts ago. I guess your desire to continue to learn from my business and life skills keeps you coming back for more. Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Post what ever you feel like. Maybe you should post that one where you said you were putting me back on ignore ABOUT 100 posts ago. I guess your desire to continue to learn from my business and life skills keeps you coming back for more. members are trying to move this thread along... away from your "life skills"! but again, just how old are you? How old does one need to be, as you, to continue a festering need to tally/project your false claims of "winning"? To perpetually throw down the most juvenile of insults? Do you need your anonymous self stroked..... and what's it called when you do the stroking yourself? Does it feel good? . Edited January 28, 2014 by waldo Quote
Boges Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 which is the angle member GostHacked was waiting to play on... as I said, see cellulosic feedstocks I have no doubt you can use waste as fuel. I guess the question is how long would it take to change from oil production to growing biofuels and could it meet the demand for oil. I personally think having cars run on Natural gas would be a great (and much cheaper than electric cars) alternative to gasoline. The powers that be haven't moved that way though. But I can see alternatives to Oil and Gasoline on the horizon but don't force it down the throats of the consumer, at a much greater price. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 Anyone who has actually listened to Neil Young or Darryl Hannah (or seen her antics) can readily see that they know next to nothing about the issues - about Climate Change - about the economy. They have been commandeered as shills from the ego-industry for the eco-industry. . Quote Back to Basics
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 members are trying to move this thread along... away from your "life skills"! but again, just how old are you? How old does one need to be, as you, to continue a festering need to tally/project your false claims of "winning"? To perpetually throw down the most juvenile of insults? Do you need your anonymous self stroked..... and what's it called when you do the stroking yourself? Does it feel good? . Still responding...hey? I guess your 'ignore' threat was just another one of your great hypocrisies. Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 he would further alienate the almost 70% of Americans who are in favour. a one-off poll... those numbers are sliding... just like in Canada: per the Jan 15, 2014 Nanos poll... "52 percent of those polled supported building Keystone XL, a result that’s down 16 percentage points from 68 percent in April. The poll also found opposition for the pipeline grew to 40 percent, up from 28 percent in April." Quote
waldo Posted January 28, 2014 Report Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Still responding...hey? I guess your 'ignore' threat was just another one of your great hypocrisies. move along, little boy, move along! ... don't you have a multi-national business to run? Edited January 28, 2014 by waldo Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.