hitops Posted March 29, 2014 Report Share Posted March 29, 2014 BC should have the right to unilateral control of its coastline and access to it over the needs of the ROC the same day that Alberta is given the right to sole control over its natural resources to the exclusion of the ROC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 29, 2014 Report Share Posted March 29, 2014 Alberta has all that and BC does too, almost...our fish are still under Ottawa's control much to the disaffection of coastal people who rely on them. Alberta has nothing to complain about, given how much Ottawa goes to bat for it's interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Alberta has nothing to complain about, given how much Ottawa goes to bat for it's interests. Wouldn't you go to bat for something that consistently paid you a 50% return on your investment? Look at page 2 http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/fiscal/spotlights/2012-0223-alberta-net-contribution-to-confederation.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Wouldn't you go to bat for something that consistently paid you a 50% return on your investment? Look at page 2 http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/fiscal/spotlights/2012-0223-alberta-net-contribution-to-confederation.pdf Alberta hate's Ottawa's national energy programs but it loves Ottawa's national energy transportation programs. Looks like you're getting a good bang for your investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Alberta hate's Ottawa's national energy programs but it loves Ottawa's national energy transportation programs. Looks like you're getting a good bang for your investment. I guess you don't know how investments work. You are supposed to make money off a good investment yet for every dollar Alberta gets from the Feds we give two dollars back. I think we all know who's getting the best bang for their buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Alberta has all that [/size] Umm no. I would kindly suggest you educate yourself on how energy resource revenues work in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 What do resource revenues have to do with control over access to them? Ottawa says when and where British Columbians can access fish in BC not British Columbians. Is that how it works in Alberta when it comes to Alberta's oil? No it doesn't. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 I guess you don't know how investments work. You are supposed to make money off a good investment yet for every dollar Alberta gets from the Feds we give two dollars back. I think we all know who's getting the best bang for their buck. I know exactly how money talks in this misbegotten country and how economics trumps virtue. Do you remember how it felt when Ottawa treated Alberta's oil the way it treats BC's fish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demosthenes26 Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Trains are even worse though. You're going to have to deal with the fact that oil will be transported across physical space, and in doing so the infrastructure will interact with matter. Given that, pipelines would serve your stated goals better than trains. NIMBY attitudes don't really help anyone. "Physical space" as opposed to nonphysical space? Additionally people oppose oil projects simply because they are oil projects. It doesn't matter how safe or environmentally responsible are project is. Consider the keystone pipeline debate. Largely the opposition to that was an environmental one, however it was clearly demonstrated that a pipeline was a safe and more environmentally safe method of transport additionally used less oil to transport and thus co2 / greenhouse gases. I think people have equated oil = bad in the popular consciousness, and aren't willing to fully engage the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 I know exactly how money talks in this misbegotten country and how economics trumps virtue. Do you remember how it felt when Ottawa treated Alberta's oil the way it treats BC's fish? Misbegotten? Perhaps you forget where we live. Canada is continuously ranked as one of the best places to live and you call it misbegotten? Maybe spend some time elsewhere and see how lucky you have it in spite of your "woe is me" attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 So you have forgotten. More likely you just don't give a shit. How did you answer your own question when Albertans talked about separating from the best country in the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 So you have forgotten. More likely you just don't give a shit. How did you answer your own question when Albertans talked about separating from the best country in the world? First off...I was young when the first Alberta movement happened in the 80s, so yes I didn't give a shit. In recent years the so called movement is a joke and usually gets about 4,000 of the popular votes every election. I feel the same way about those people as I do about anyone that wants to separate from Canada and that is 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out'. I guess the same should be said to your fellow Cascadians! Despite what you might think of Albertans, there are a lot of us who are quite nationalistic and the vast majority laugh at the thought of separatism. Having said that we do get tired of people not supporting oil sands products but then have their hands out to share in the profit. Personally I think the East West pipeline is the best idea out there as it provides that nationalistic approach....but just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) I don't support Alberta's tar sands products if it means shipping them west. I oppose them coming this way primarily because of Ottawa's proven negligence when it comes to it's responsibility for all the fish and fish habitat that stand between Alberta and it's prime target customer, China, which brings up the 2nd reason I oppose shipping Alberta's tar sands products west. Fuelling the growth of aggressive and oppressive super-powers is insane, full stop. It's bad enough BC is doing this with our coal and why our nation stands for it is beyond me. I share your opinion, shipping your bitumen east gives us far more opportunity to add value along the way before offering it to Europe as an alternative to purchasing energy and thereby supporting the growth of yet another oppressive and aggressive super-power, Russia. Edited March 31, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 It's not an either or. There is enough new production coming on line to fill every new pipeline proposal, and even more of them going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 For about 40 years or so then...pffft. That oil could have sustained us for generations and positioned us like...Norway, who's own NEP put 500 billion dollars in it's pension fund with plenty left over to come buy our's out from under us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'm interested to see what the latest IPCC report due out shortly will say. Apparently some leaks ahead of the official tabling don't sound so good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) I'm interested to see what the latest IPCC report due out shortly will say. Apparently some leaks ahead of the official tabling don't sound so good.A report so politicized with alarmist scaremonging that one scientist has asked that his name be removed from the report. The lead author for the chapter on the oceans is a professional activist on the payroll of Greenpeace and the WWF. Edited March 31, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 I can never understand why people are so paranoid about a report that is funded by The UN. Does their pay grade get advanced if they find that there is a whole shitload of ice missing in the arctic? Because that ice is missing. Either that or the UN has some sort of secret control of satellites that take the pictures of said missing ice. If your doctor told you (Heaven forbid) that you had high blood pressure, would you just assume he was scaremongering? Assessing the evidence of a problem is the first step to attempting to solve the problem. Sticking your head in the sand is the first step to exacerbating it. There may be 1 scientist bowing out, I don't know the details to that, but how many are left who endorse it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 If your doctor told you (Heaven forbid) that you had high blood pressure, would you just assume he was scaremongering? Assessing the evidence of a problem is the first step to attempting to solve the problem.If you doctor told you that your cough was a sign that you needed to amputate your leg would you simply agree? Or would you look at the evidence that the doctor is using to make that assessment? And if, when looking at that evidence you find that the doctor is relying on computer models of the body instead of actual data would you blindly trust that doctor? Or would you ask why you should put so much faith in computer models when the actual data suggest suggests there is not much to be concerned about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Well I suppose if my doctor did that I'd guess I needed a new one. But the premise is silly. If I knew all about coughs then why would I go to a doctor in the first place? I guess I'd be a doctor. If I knew all about auto mechanics I'd never take my car to a garage. Missing ice is actual data. Hottest number of days ever recorded, is actual data, not computer models. And they suggest there may well be something to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Well I suppose if my doctor did that I'd guess I needed a new one.In other words, you do not blindly trust experts. You only trust them when you feel their claims makes sense. This is what everyone does. Given that context, why do you expect people to blindly trust "climate experts" when there are so many obvious problems with their claims? Edited March 31, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think your previous is a tad contradictory, if you care to re read it. I didn't suggest anyone blindly trust. But when the claims do make sense, maybe it's time at least pay attention. Otherwise we may in our ignorance sail off the edge of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) But when the claims do make sense, maybe it's time at least pay attention.So who decides "when they make sense"? I think you mean to suggest that when anyone hears advice they need to think about whether it makes sense using their own knowledge. In some cases, getting a second opinion may be necessary. But whatever the exact process you are implicitly acknowledging that it is not enough an expert to say something - the expert must say things that make sense to the listener. i.e. judgment is required. Edited March 31, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 For about 40 years or so then...pffft. That oil could have sustained us for generations and positioned us like...Norway, who's own NEP put 500 billion dollars in it's pension fund with plenty left over to come buy our's out from under us. And here you prove my point to a tee. You don't support oil sands development (especially if it goes through your back yard) yet you have your hand out for the pension fund! You want to know the difference between Norway and Canada? Norwegians support their oil development. They understand the benefits it brings and the country is not bogged down with bi-lateral movements dragging it down. Canada has the same opportunity for prosperity and trust funds as Norway but it needs to develop the resources to do so. This means pipelines. If you don't want to develop the pipelines then don't bitch about not having the pension trust fund. It's very simple! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) "Physical space" as opposed to nonphysical space? Additionally people oppose oil projects simply because they are oil projects. It doesn't matter how safe or environmentally responsible are project is. Consider the keystone pipeline debate. Largely the opposition to that was an environmental one, however it was clearly demonstrated that a pipeline was a safe and more environmentally safe method of transport additionally used less oil to transport and thus co2 / greenhouse gases. I think people have equated oil = bad in the popular consciousness, and aren't willing to fully engage the issue. This is all it is. As in nearly all things in human nature, the emotional value of a position is more important that the actual value. Although pipelines are clearly safer, they are more dangerous to the self-important narrative of pipeline opposition, built over time. Opposition to pipelines is strongly symbolic, sexy, and trendy. Take this standard scenario: You're a college guy and you just met a cute girl in the local enviro club or enviro-minded social circle, and you guys bond over vaguely understood but highly motivating notions of enviro protection. You're going to tell her that you now support pipelines because by opposing them you get policy that actually causes more environmental damage? That would be a no. She's the cutie, and she don't like her no pipelines. Edited March 31, 2014 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.