Are Liberals trying to destroy the resource industry?

[Argus]

The federal Liberals have changed the rules again, determined to put an end to all resource development in Canada. Now the Energy East pipeline project, worth over $15 billion in economic development plus the ability to feed oil to our central and eastern provinces rather than relying solely on the US, looks to be the first major victim. Trans Canada told the Canadian Energy Board to pause their applications, saying they might not go ahead in the face of the new rules on climate change affects. The new rules are just part of a massive new rewrite of environmental regulations any corporation seeking to develop resources in Canada must now satisfy. Four years after the company first proposed the project, and having submitted its 30,000 page application twice, it hasn't  gotten past the starting line for hearings after the Liberals restarted the process.

In addition to blowing up the NEB, the government is about to introduce new legislation to cover future environmental assessments. The guiding principles going forward will go far beyond environmental impacts to consider social, health and economic aspects of projects, as well as gender implications. Environment minister Catherine McKenna told the Assembly of First Nations that the new system would be produced in a “co-development process” with an AFN committee.

Politicians such as outgoing Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall have called the proposals “subjective and nebulous,” while business groups like the Chamber of Commerce have responded by suggested the government is set to introduce an “unworkable” system that could effectively end investment in Canada’s natural resources sectors.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/john-ivison-trudeaus-liberals-have-kept-all-the-pipeline-promises-they-intended-to-keep

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/gallant-transcanada-energy-east-pipeline-1.4280327

[dialamah]

Perhaps this will help persuade companies to put more effort and money into green technologies, which are needed much more than resource development.  

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps this will help persuade companies to put more effort and money into green technologies, which are needed much more than resource development.  

Canada's natural resources sector provides 1.74 million jobs and 16% of our GDP. It also provides $25 billion in tax revenue to government and $200 billion in exports. You think we're going to replace all that with solar panels, most of which are made in south Korea or China anyway?

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

Canada's natural resources sector provides 1.74 million jobs and 16% of our GDP. It also provides $25 billion in tax revenue to government and $200 billion in exports. You think we're going to replace all that with solar panels, most of which are made in south Korea or China anyway?

There's more to green technology than 'solar panels', but hey if you want to dumb it down to such a simplistic argument, I'm out.  

https://gereports.ca/category/clean-technology/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv63l8LuY1gIVFG5-Ch07PgLMEAAYASAAEgIr1_D_BwE

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nathanael-greene/us-clean-energy-market-hits-200-billion-global-market-135-trillion-thanks

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/02/two-thirds-of-canadas-electricity-now-comes-from-renewable-energy.html

 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

There's more to green technology than 'solar panels', but hey if you want to dumb it down to such a simplistic argument, I'm out.  

https://gereports.ca/category/clean-technology/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv63l8LuY1gIVFG5-Ch07PgLMEAAYASAAEgIr1_D_BwE

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nathanael-greene/us-clean-energy-market-hits-200-billion-global-market-135-trillion-thanks

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/02/two-thirds-of-canadas-electricity-now-comes-from-renewable-energy.html

 

None of your cites are relevant to the topic at hand. This is not about the viability of green energy but the importance of Canada's resource based economy and the $600 billion in planned expenditures on new resource projects in the next decade which are imperiled by a blindly ideological leftist government. No one wants to hear your tired old bleating about how many jobs there are going to be in green energy - some day - eventually - just wait for it. And in the meantime trash the energy sector because it's no longer needed. 

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

None of your cites are relevant to the topic at hand. This is not about the viability of green energy but the importance of Canada's resource based economy and the $600 billion in planned expenditures on new resource projects in the next decade which are imperiled by a blindly ideological leftist government. No one wants to hear your tired old bleating about how many jobs there are going to be in green energy - some day - eventually - just wait for it. And in the meantime trash the energy sector because it's no longer needed. 

My cites are on the "current" state of renewable energy.  But as I said, I'm out.   Not bothering with your simplistic arguments and your habit of embedding insults into near every post you make if someone disagrees with you:  "blindly ideological leftist government. No one wants to hear your tired old bleating".

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by dialamah

[drummindiver]

Some more resource jobs left on the block. Taxes and jobs are over rated to some I guess.

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-build-roads-into-ring-of-fire-region/article36039989/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My cites are on the "current" state of renewable energy.  But as I said, I'm out.   

And as I pointed out, renewable energy is not the subject of this topic. So good. Leave. 

As for my 'insults' in describing your 'tired old bleating'  your whining seems odd given your one line post was no more polite.

"but hey if you want to dumb it down to such a simplistic argument"

Edited September 9, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Some more resource jobs left on the block. Taxes and jobs are over rated to some I guess.

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-build-roads-into-ring-of-fire-region/article36039989/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

Access to these resources has been delayed for over a decade by endless studies and negotiation with natives and the ultra left environmentalists who oppose all resource development. Even this announcement is nothing more than another bow to the native lobby to spend a fortune linking a few isolated reserves to the main highway system - at huge cost. You'll notice there was no announcement related to approval of actual development.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

My cites are on the "current" state of renewable energy.  But as I said, I'm out.   Not bothering with your simplistic arguments and your habit of embedding insults into near every post you make if someone disagrees with you:  "blindly ideological leftist government. No one wants to hear your tired old bleating".

 

 

 

Yep, he likes to dish it out but hates it when it comes back at him.

[Queenmandy85]

Why should we be giving our oil away now when we get almost nothing for it. We should be hanging on to it until Saudi Arabia, Russia, the U.S. etc run out. Then it will be worth something. Petroleum is too valuable to burn.

It is time to pivot to nuclear energy. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium and the Candu is thorium compatible.  Thorium is more plentiful than uranium and doesn't have the drawbacks.

[Queenmandy85]

The inference of your title is that the Government is deliberately trying to destroy the resource sector of the economy, thereby eliminating jobs. Really? No government tries to eliminate employment.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The inference of your title is that the Government is deliberately trying to destroy the resource sector of the economy, thereby eliminating jobs. Really? No government tries to eliminate employment.

I didn't say it was a smart decision. The ability of liberals to lie, even to themselves, and convince themselves that their wishes will be reality is almost limitless. I'm sure the Ontario liberals actually believed we'd have a booming green economy now in Ontario with 50,000 jobs if they screwed up the electrical system, and really believed it wouldn't result in huge cost increases. They were, of course, wrong. Just as the liberals now who believe it's better, more moral to put immense new hurdles in front of any new resource project and that this won't have a massive impact on the economy.

Just look at the quote from the cite.

The guiding principles going forward will go far beyond environmental impacts to consider social, health and economic aspects of projects, as well as gender implications

A potential new resource project has to consider 'gender implications' whatever the hell that is. If that isn't ideological nonsense I don't know what is.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Argus

[Bonam]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

The guiding principles going forward will go far beyond environmental impacts to consider social, health and economic aspects of projects, as well as gender implications

A potential new resource project has to consider 'gender implications' whatever the hell that is. If that isn't ideological nonsense I don't know what is.

I guess pipelines do look a little bit too phallic? 

[Queenmandy85]

I have to ask again, Argus, why the rush to sell off our oil when it will be worth a lot more in the future? 

[Guest]

Why eat now when you can eat next year?

[Queenmandy85]

25 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Why eat now when you can eat next year?

Oil is not the only industry in Canada. The real money is in industries such as the finance sector, the nuclear industry and computer science to name just three. The world is awash in oil. It makes good business sense to hang on to our oil until there is a critical shortage in the world. 

Next question, if we become too reliant on the oil industry, what are we going to do when we run out? Better to diversify in advance.

We don't need oil for energy. We lead the world in nuclear technology. The true value of oil and coal is in the chemical industry.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I have to ask again, Argus, why the rush to sell off our oil when it will be worth a lot more in the future? 

What makes you think it will be worth a lot more in the future? Aren't we all going to be driving electric vehicles in 20 years, and using solar panels on our homes? And this is not just about oil, but all resource industries.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Argus

[Queenmandy85]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

What makes you think it will be worth a lot more in the future? Aren't we all going to be driving electric vehicles in 20 years, and using solar panels on our homes? And this is not just about oil, but all resource industries.

You cannot operate an electric vehicle, a Candu reactor or any other machine without a lubricant (oil).  Then there are the thousands of other products derived from petroleum. When Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia run out of oil, it will be worth as much as people can pay. 

Modern civilization is supported by three pillars: iron ore, coal and oil. Lose just one of those pillars and you have serious problems. You cannot build a reactor, an office building or pretty much anything else without steel and you can't make steel without iron ore (or recycled steel) and coal.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You cannot operate an electric vehicle, a Candu reactor or any other machine without a lubricant (oil).  Then there are the thousands of other products derived from petroleum. When Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia run out of oil, it will be worth as much as people can pay.

We are not going to run out of oil. We have more than sufficient for as far into the future as we can see. And with the advent of electric vehicles and alternative energy sources for electricity use of oil will plummet, thus making the supply last far, far longer.

[Queenmandy85]

Oil is a finite resource. It will run out. All we can do is try to make it last as long as possible.

As for the original post, the government of Quebec is not on board with the Energy East pipeline. The BC government is not on board with Trans Mountain. It is better to go with the american option where the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Canadian and US governments are all in favour. It makes good business and good politics.

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is better to go with the american option where the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Canadian and US governments are all in favour. 

They're in favor until they aren't. If I was in the pipeline business, I'd be pretty close to giving up on North America altogether. Decades-long timeframes to get things approved, only to have dozens of different jurisdictions and levels of government change their minds hundreds of times throughout a process, is not a business-friendly environment. 

Pipelines aren't the only thing this affects. It affects almost any kind of capital investment. Whether it comes to infrastructure, power generation, manufacturing, or distribution, it's almost impossible to build anything anymore on this continent. Simply too much byzantine bureaucracy to navigate.

There's a reason Asia is covered in high speed rail which is non-existent in North America. There's a reason we haven't built any substantial new hydro power in decades despite it being obviously the best and cleanest power source. There's a reason why roads and highways are falling apart and over-congested. There's a reason why manufacturing is done overseas. It's not lack of money. America and Canada are awash in money compared to any other countries on Earth. No, the problem is governments simply won't get out of the way. 

[Queenmandy85]

That's democracy. The government can only do what the voters will let it. This is part of the governments problem in dealing with climate change. Until the voters come to terms with what is coming, government is limited in acting to slow the impact.

I am getting too old to be able to have influence on the course of national and international policy.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[Hydraboss]

On 9/9/2017 at 9:38 AM, dialamah said:

Perhaps this will help persuade companies to put more effort and money into green technologies

I doubt it.  They'll just move investment out of Canada.  That's exactly what the corporation I work for is doing (we rely on oil and gas production) - we, and our financial backers Those With The Checkbook, decided at the board meeting last Friday that putting any more money in this country is a really bad financial risk.  We're moving all new proposed manufacturing to north Texas instead of expanding our Alberta/Saskatchewan presence.

And get this:  our new sales and distribution hub is going to a region that is waaaaay easier to deal with when you're in fossil fuels.............California.

[Hydraboss]

On 9/9/2017 at 4:00 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The inference of your title is that the Government is deliberately trying to destroy the resource sector of the economy, thereby eliminating jobs. Really? No government tries to eliminate employment.

Trudeau certainly would eliminate oil and gas employment if it meant he would be reelected.  You are correct that most governments wouldn't do that - but you ignore the fact that Justin Trudeau is of substantially lower intelligence than the people that run "most governments"....and the re-election is all about him working his way to his real goal.

Secretary-General of the United Nations