Environmental activists costing Canada billions

[Argus]

Want to create jobs and taxation to help pay down the growing deficit? How about do something about what a time-wasting bureaucratic nightmare it has become to start any new resource project? Thousands and thousands of jobs and billions in yearly tax revenue are tied up in knots while activists snivel about the environmental impact of pipelines and mines.

Resistance to infrastructure projects has become the norm in Canada’s resource sectors. As part of a four-month investigation, the Financial Post identified 35 projects worth $129 billion in direct investment — mostly private money — that are struggling to move forward or have been sidelined altogether because of opposition from environmental, aboriginal and/or community groups. The downside is adding up: slower growth, lower Canadian oil prices, investment chill, less control over domestic resources, over-reliance on the U.S. market, regulatory gridlock. 

http://business.financialpost.com/features/arrested-development

[dre]

I don't think the problem is just "activists".  The problem is there's a fair amount of distrust for the corporations that run these projects in the general population. Even the non activists.

I do agree with you that its a problem though.

[PIK]

Right now it is all activists. Look how Carr had to crawl on his knees so the native chiefs would not walk out on Trudeau and Carr was right when he said the army could be used to quell illegal protests. I love how the law is different for certain groups. Do the natives chiefs not have any idea where thier money comes from?? Do they realize how the oil sands have elevated a lot of them out of poverty? Does the whole country need to suffer because of a hand full of people?

[Argus]

26 minutes ago, dre said:

I don't think the problem is just "activists".  The problem is there's a fair amount of distrust for the corporations that run these projects in the general population. Even the non activists.

I do agree with you that its a problem though.

Only part of that distrust is deserved, especially given the distrust extends to government agencies which regulate review and approve resource projects. A lot of the distrust is aroused by dishonest claims propagated by the activists themselves.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, dre said:

I don't think the problem is just "activists".  The problem is there's a fair amount of distrust for the corporations that run these projects in the general population. Even the non activists.

I do agree with you that its a problem though.

Further to that and probably greater is the mistrust so many people have towards the governments who's jobs it will be to regulate and police these corporations.

We need to keep power and wealth as separate from each other as we keep a church away from a state.  As I've said before either outlaw in-camera lobbying or as you've suggested outlaw political parties.

Trust or the lack thereof has always been the core problem and it's only getting worse.

[poochy]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Want to create jobs and taxation to help pay down the growing deficit? How about do something about what a time-wasting bureaucratic nightmare it has become to start any new resource project? Thousands and thousands of jobs and billions in yearly tax revenue are tied up in knots while activists snivel about the environmental impact of pipelines and mines.

Resistance to infrastructure projects has become the norm in Canada’s resource sectors. As part of a four-month investigation, the Financial Post identified 35 projects worth $129 billion in direct investment — mostly private money — that are struggling to move forward or have been sidelined altogether because of opposition from environmental, aboriginal and/or community groups. The downside is adding up: slower growth, lower Canadian oil prices, investment chill, less control over domestic resources, over-reliance on the U.S. market, regulatory gridlock. 

http://business.financialpost.com/features/arrested-development

i was under the impression that Harper had not only removed all environmental laws but had already destroyed our natural world, seems too late to do anything about it now, so i dont understand what there is left to protest about.

[dre]

8 hours ago, PIK said:

Right now it is all activists. Look how Carr had to crawl on his knees so the native chiefs would not walk out on Trudeau and Carr was right when he said the army could be used to quell illegal protests. I love how the law is different for certain groups. Do the natives chiefs not have any idea where thier money comes from?? Do they realize how the oil sands have elevated a lot of them out of poverty? Does the whole country need to suffer because of a hand full of people?

No its really not all activists. Myself for example, I think pipelines are a good idea. Much safer than transporting oil by rail car. But I think that the companies that build them would - if left to their devices - skimp on quality in favor of more profitability. And because they do that, these things are leaking like sieves all over North America. So I'm skeptical. Also some of the pipeline plans are just really dumb ideas. We should build one back east where all our consumption is, and we shouldn't worry about exports until we eliminate imports.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, dre said:

No its really not all activists. Myself for example, I think pipelines are a good idea. Much safer than transporting oil by rail car. But I think that the companies that build them would - if left to their devices - skimp on quality in favor of more profitability. And because they do that, these things are leaking like sieves all over North America. So I'm skeptical. Also some of the pipeline plans are just really dumb ideas. We should build one back east where all our consumption is, and we shouldn't worry about exports until we eliminate imports.

They don't 'leak like sieves'. They have an extremely high reliability rate. There are millions of miles of them in North America. Of course there are going to be the occasional leaks. Activists are violently opposed to building a pipeline back east, too, or anywhere else, ever.

[?Impact]

On 12/9/2016 at 0:59 PM, Argus said:

They don't 'leak like sieves'. They have an extremely high reliability rate. There are millions of miles of them in North America. Of course there are going to be the occasional leaks. Activists are violently opposed to building a pipeline back east, too, or anywhere else, ever.

There are thousands of leaks every year, that is not what I would consider extremely high reliability. Yes, most of those leaks are minor and are properly cleaned up (thanks to tough regulation influenced by environmental activists). What is extremely concerning however is the few major leaks, and especially how long they went unnoticed by the pipeline company until the environmental damage was noticed. The pipeline companies have to do a far better job in both reducing the possibility of leaks, and especially in real-time monitoring to detect the early signs.

Yes, there are a subset of environmental activists that are against all development. There is also much opposition directed at tar sands development, and pipelines are just a misguided means to address that. There are far more NIMBY anti-pipeline activists out there, who suddenly turn out because of locality. There are however many environmental activists that can distinguish between an Energy East and Northern Gateway. That is not to say there are not many challenges with Energy East, but they are far more manageable.

[dialamah]

On 08/12/2016 at 10:28 AM, Argus said:

 A lot of the distrust is aroused by dishonest claims propagated by the activists themselves.

Big tobacco, big pharma, big oil.  They've all been in the news for deliberately misleading the public, their shareholders and the government.  They've all had to pay penalties and settle lawsuits.  The activists are a result of the irresponsible and damaging behavior of the corporations and government, they did not create the mistrust that now exists.

 

[Canadianjim]

We need a good old fashioned exxon or gulf disaster, to make some Canadians feel really good. I know I can hardly wait to see that oil spill in Vancouver Harbor. 

[TimG]

On 12/13/2016 at 0:48 PM, dialamah said:

Big tobacco, big pharma, big oil.  They've all been in the news for deliberately misleading the public, their shareholders and the government.

Big green is doing the a lot worse. Most claims by environmental NGOs are complete nonsense largely because they have get money to survive and the best way to get money is to fabricate ridiculous claims that scare people into donating to the cause.

Edited December 17, 2016 by TimG

[cannuck]

I do work for several energy companies, and can tell you that NONE of them "skimp" on quality of pipelines, power lines, transformers, pumping stations, or ANY parts of their infrastructure.  Contrary to the mindless blather of the eco-terrorists, doing so "for profit" is about as stupid as opposing pipelines on the basis of no intelligent or logical thought.  Energy infrastructure companies, be they public, private or crown corporations are by the nature of the business in it for the very long haul.   This isn't real estate where a developer can double his money in a single transaction - this is a highly competitive and regulated business where paybacks are measureed in DECADES, not years.  Any kind of pre-mature failure costs a staggering amount of money, and is avoided at the construction phase by extreme attention to detail on quality and compliance with quality standards set by the project owner.    Contractors who would take a shortcut "for profit" open themselves to mega lawsuits for the liability that comes along with the territory.

How much do activists and activism cost?   Just came back from the Manitoba Hydro Bipole 3 DC transmission line project.  It will be a $5Bn project because the former NDP government could not face the activist and aboriginal difficulties of permitting the direct route from Keeyask Generating Station to the Riel Conerter Station - costing an extra $1Bn to the 1 million people in Manitoba.  Instead, they chose to route the line down the same allowance of the first and second DC lines - bearing in mind that the third was built because a storm took out both lines in 2009 indicating a different route was needed for supply security reasons.  That one single example cost them a thousand bucks a head for ever man, woman and child in MB - and since something less that 1 in 6 people actually do the productive work that pays the bills, that means each genuinely wealth creating person is on the hook for 6 grand.

Edited December 19, 2016 by cannuck

[?Impact]

33 minutes ago, cannuck said:

 since something less that 1 in 6 people actually do the productive work that pays the bills

There you go, solved all the worlds problems. Time to send 5.5 billion people to the gas chamber and the productive chosen will remain.

[cannuck]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

There you go, solved all the worlds problems. Time to send 5.5 billion people to the gas chamber and the productive chosen will remain.

well, Dr. Spin, that is the choice the left has made many, many times already.

 

[drummindiver]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 3:48 PM, dialamah said:

Big tobacco, big pharma, big oil.  They've all been in the news for deliberately misleading the public, their shareholders and the government.  They've all had to pay penalties and settle lawsuits.  The activists are a result of the irresponsible and damaging behavior of the corporations and government, they did not create the mistrust that 

Big Tobacco were knaves very clearly.

Big oil helped you get most of those nice things you enjoy in life lije a house food and a car.

Big Pharma helps when you're sick. But let's blame them when misuse happens.

Big organic just kills people and makes them sick while charging more than convenationally or gmo grown food.

 

[dialamah]

9 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Big Tobacco were knaves very clearly.

Big oil helped you get most of those nice things you enjoy in life lije a house food and a car.

Big Pharma helps when you're sick. But let's blame them when misuse happens.

Big organic just kills people and makes them sick while charging more than convenationally or gmo grown food.

 

Just because oil was used to develop products doesn't mean the corporations haven't haven't behaved immorally.   Giving me diamond earrings doesn't make killing a jewellery store clerk ok.

Same with drugs; yup, drugs have helped millions of people but that doesn't excuse hiding evidence of serious and life-threatening side effects.

I don't think excusing or ignoring illegal, immoral or dangerous behavior should be ignored or excused because someone (or some corporation) 'did good' somewhere else.   

[drummindiver]

 

 

 

 @dialamah Just because oil was used to develop products doesn't mean the corporations haven't haven't behaved immorally.   Giving me diamond earrings doesn't make killing a jewellery store clerk ok.

Same with drugs; yup, drugs have helped millions of people but that doesn't excuse hiding evidence of serious and life-threatening side effects.

I don't think excusing or ignoring illegal, immoral or dangerous behavior should be ignored or excused because someone (or some corporation) 'did good' somewhere else.   "

 

 

So what is your suggestion? 

We have tougher laws that send corporate leaders to jail.

I agree with activism.   I don't believe activism is an excuse for illegal behaviour.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by drummindiver

[dialamah]

@drummindiver, So essentially we agree that the behavior of large corporations has not been trustworthy?  

[Argus]

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

I agree with activism.   I don't believe activism is an excuse for illegal behaviour.

The problem is not just activism. There's nothing wrong with expressing concerns and campaigning for what you want. The problem in this country is the byzantine rules and regulations which take YEARS to work through. If someone wants to mine somewhere it shouldn't take more than a year to get the go-ahead. That it can take five to ten years is lunacy.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

If someone wants to mine somewhere it shouldn't take more than a year to get the go-ahead. That it can take five to ten years is lunacy.

Where do you get the year from? If I want to exploit the environment, then get the f*ck out of my way? It should take as long as it takes to ensure that your exploitation is not going to be a big burden on future generations - period. Certainly there are inefficiencies in the system, but putting an artificial date on things is bogus. Work through to make the system better, but stop with the entitlement to exploit.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Where do you get the year from? If I want to exploit the environment, then get the f*ck out of my way? It should take as long as it takes to ensure that your exploitation is not going to be a big burden on future generations - period. Certainly there are inefficiencies in the system, but putting an artificial date on things is bogus. Work through to make the system better, but stop with the entitlement to exploit.

We're talking about paperwork. There is no amount of paperwork which should take more than a year. There is no study of the local environmental conditions which should take more than a month or two. And in any case, the actual study of environmental conditions is not what takes time. What takes time is the various legal maneuvering by deceitful activists exploiting the law's loopholes to drag things on as long as they possibly can. The idea that activists care the slightest what any environmental study says is ludicrous. They oppose every single project, regardless of merit.

[drummindiver]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

@drummindiver, So essentially we agree that the behavior of large corporations has not been trustworthy?  

Large corporations? Some have for sure.All of them? Of course not. 

[drummindiver]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Where do you get the year from? If I want to exploit the environment, then get the f*ck out of my way? It should take as long as it takes to ensure that your exploitation is not going to be a big burden on future generations - period. Certainly there are inefficiencies in the system, but putting an artificial date on things is bogus. Work through to make the system better, but stop with the entitlement to exploit.

Please.Standing Rock is in the states but the same happens here. Everything in place but special interest groups derail the legal process. 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

What takes time is the various legal maneuvering by deceitful activists exploiting the law's loopholes to drag things on as long as they possibly can.

It is interesting you picked mining, an industry replete with examples of destroying the environment. When a company can open up, create massive tailing ponds that are highly damaging to the environment, then close and file for bankruptcy to absolve themselves of responsibility for the mess they created. Pyrite and Iron Sulfide from copper and nickel mines, bauxite from aluminum mining, cyanide from gold mining, etc. Perhaps the economics need to be modified so that investors do not get one red cent until the mine closes and they have restored the environment to a pristine state.