World Wildlife Federation Canada Took Anti-Oilsands Foreign Money While Being Run By Trudeau Advisor Butts

[Centerpiece]

It’s beyond obvious that the Trudeau Liberals want to crush the oilsands.

Justin Trudeau keeps trying to get everyone to disbelieve their own eyes and ears.

His actions make it clear that he wants to crush the oilsands, and the oil industry is in crisis.

Yet, he claims to support Canadian energy, pretending as if the crisis has nothing to do with him or his government.

But it’s not just Trudeau’s actions that reveal his dishonesty. It’s also who he surrounds himself with.

Particularly, Gerald Butts.

Butts, a close friend of Trudeau and his top advisor, was the head of the World Wildlife Federation Canada from 2008 to 2012.

And it turns out, in 2009, WWF Canada took $160,000 USD from the US billionaire funded Tides Foundation as part of the anti-oil sands “Tar Sands Campaign”....................

Link: https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/11/24/world-wildlife-federation-canada-took-anti-oilsands-foreign-money-while-being-run-by-trudeau-advisor-butts/

[Centerpiece]

Quote

 

Speaking at a town hall in Peterborough, Ont., Trudeau was asked about his government's approval of pipelines and his commitment to the environment.

"You can't make a choice between what's good for the environment and what's good for the economy," Trudeau said. "We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.

"That is going to take time. And in the meantime, we have to manage that transition."

Trudeau challenged over carbon pricing on 2nd day of town hall tour

In Alberta, both the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservatives were quick to condemn the statement.

"I am sick and tired of people attacking our oilsands," Wildrose Leader Brian Jean told CBC. "I truly would suggest that Mr. Trudeau keep his comments to himself when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

"We certainly don't need out-of-touch, federal politicians sounding like Jane Fonda on this topic."

 

He could have said something like "The world needs to transition its dependence off fossil fuels"............but he didn't - because he and Butts want to be seen as virtuous eco-saviours by the UN and Davos crowd - at the expense of every single Canadian.  And the media is either too stupid to put the pieces together - or they actually believe that staving our economy is a good thing. Where are all the pipeline protesters as pipeline after pipeline is built in the US - under Trump AND Obama? They are all up here in Canada. Why? Because we let them. Insanity!!!!

Link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/justin-trudeau-oilsands-phase-out-1.3934701

 

 

[cannuck]

The PCLL (you can probably figure out that acronym without me having to spell it out) is so enamoured with Euroweenies that they only pull their head out of their rectum to see which way the Euros are going next.   Reality is just plain out of their realm of understanding.

We live in a hydrocarbon economy, and the TRILLION$$$ of existing infrastructure is not going to disappear overnight.  The end of HC resources IS somewhere down the road, but NOT just around the corner.   Alternatives need time to develop and mature to compete effectively.   The Morons of Cabinet (and several cabinets around the Western world) think that they can leave their jobs as drama teachers, truck drivers and babysitters and chose winners and losers in global scale economics.  All they end up doing is screwing up marketplaces and racking up debt.

[Queenmandy85]

On 11/25/2018 at 9:03 AM, cannuck said:

We live in a hydrocarbon economy, and the TRILLION$$$ of existing infrastructure is not going to disappear overnight.  The end of HC resources IS somewhere down the road, but NOT just around the corner.

If we can replace oil and coal as sources of energy and start transitioning to nuclear, it will postpone the exhaustion of our hydrocarbon resourses for a lot longer. In the meantime, the transition to nuclear power for both domestic and export markets will bring Canada, and particularly western Canada, an unprecedented economic boom. The rail system can be re-built and electrified. Small, medium and large Candu reactors can be mass produced. Surplus heat can be sold. It will give us unlimited energy, even if fusion turns out to be a bust. We have enough uranium for about twi centuries, but thorium is almost unlimited.There will also be the added bonus that your great great grandchildren will not be barbequed. If the greenhouse effect is not real, we still need to preserve our oil and coal resourses for as long as possible. When they run out, billions of people will die. Without them, you cannot build and operate machinery. (Steel and lubrication).

For those uneducated ninnys who have an irrational fear of nuclear power, more people have been killed in motor vehicle accidents in little Saskatchewan this year, than have ever been killed by all nuclear power accidents world wide in history.

There are times when I think my fellow conservatives are afraid of making money.

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

On 11/25/2018 at 7:22 AM, Centerpiece said:

And it turns out, in 2009, WWF Canada took $160,000 USD from the US billionaire funded Tides Foundation as part of the anti-oil sands “Tar Sands Campaign”....................

 

How much money did the oil companies get from foreign sources to lobby for the oil sands?

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

For those uneducated ninnys who have an irrational fear of nuclear power, more people have been killed in motor vehicle accidents in little Saskatchewan this year, than have ever been killed by all nuclear power accidents world wide in history.

 It's not the nuclear power that we should be afraid of, its the regulatory regime charged with keeping us safe that we need to fear.  How many people have been killed and injured due to the neglect, incompetence and all too often deliberately misguided (by special and usually vested interests) policies of governments?

Quote

 

Pollution from Canadian refineries an ‘embarrassment’ compared to U.S.

The key culprit behind the Canada/U.S. emissions gap, say experts, is less rigorous industry regulation and enforcement in Canada.

 

This, quite simply, is while I'll always oppose the development of nuclear energy in Canada. Our government lacks, entirely, both the ethical and moral background that such an important job requires.  For those ninnies with an irrational trust in government, changing the way we govern ourselves is as anathema to them as worrying about  climate change.

[cannuck]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If we can replace oil and coal as sources of energy and start transitioning to nuclear, it will postpone the exhaustion of our hydrocarbon resourses for a lot longer. In the meantime, the transition to nuclear power for both domestic and export markets will bring Canada, and particularly western Canada, an unprecedented economic boom. The rail system can be re-built and electrified. Small, medium and large Candu reactors can be mass produced. Surplus heat can be sold. It will give us unlimited energy, even if fusion turns out to be a bust. We have enough uranium for about twi centuries, but thorium is almost unlimited.There will also be the added bonus that your great great grandchildren will not be barbequed. If the greenhouse effect is not real, we still need to preserve our oil and coal resourses for as long as possible. When they run out, billions of people will die. Without them, you cannot build and operate machinery. (Steel and lubrication).

For those uneducated ninnys who have an irrational fear of nuclear power, more people have been killed in motor vehicle accidents in little Saskatchewan this year, than have ever been killed by all nuclear power accidents world wide in history.

There are times when I think my fellow conservatives are afraid of making money.

 

The Canadian nuclear industry is kind of stuck in limbo between government and private sector.  AECL was such a HUGE loser to the government, it was sold for peanuts to stop bleeding the treasury dry from the billions time each Candu project ran over budget/bid.  Unfortunately, after trying for 3 years the only company that would take AECL was SNC Lavalin - probably the most corrupt company (behind Bombardier, maybe?) to come out of Quebec.  They also bought the utility assets of Enron that included their nuke division, and add that to AECL and SNC is a bit player compared with the big 3 of the nuclear industry.   So, as it stands, and Candu sales will be strictly commercial - and since it is mostly obsolete technology, don't hold your breath to see any new sales any time soon.  About the only thing good I can say about AECL is that Canada leads the world in use of Thorium as a Uranium substitute in fuel bundles.   BTW: the former President of that division of SNC is from Saskatoon (same engineer who conceived full scale Clean Coal tech project sold to Sk Pwr at Boundary dam.

Also: you don't have any fellow conservatives, this is Canada.

[Centerpiece]

Something that Andrew Coyne said last year - it bears repeating - over and over........

Quote

"But if there is anything that you should have learned by now, ........ it is that you have no business believing a word that comes out of this prime minister’s mouth; that the most solemn promises, however unequivocal and however often repeated, are to him and the people around him mere bait for the gullible; and that if you ever believe anything they tell you ever again, on any matter large or small, if you ever trust them to keep their word from this day forward, then you deserve everything you have coming to you.

It is not their fault for lying to you. It is your fault for believing them."

Link: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-its-not-the-liberals-fault-for-lying-about-electoral-reform-its-yours-for-believing-them

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Something that Andrew Coyne said last year - it bears repeating - over and over........

Link: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-its-not-the-liberals-fault-for-lying-about-electoral-reform-its-yours-for-believing-them

His name should be "Sir Andrew Coyne.

[WestCanMan]

On 11/28/2018 at 7:37 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

How much money did the oil companies get from foreign sources to lobby for the oil sands?

Do you know that's the case or are you just making that assumption? And fwiw, I don't really care how much money people pour into our country in support of our industries. 

The biggest joke in all of this is that people like climate Barbie (aka pro-raw-sewage Barbie) cry about Canadian oil going through our coastal waterways to foreign markets, but they don't care that foreign oil is coming into our country through the exact same waterways.

 

[Queenmandy85]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The biggest joke in all of this is that people like climate Barbie (aka pro-raw-sewage Barbie) cry about Canadian oil going through our coastal waterways to foreign markets, but they don't care that foreign oil is coming into our country through the exact same waterways.

So, what you are saying is that the government wants to build the transmountain pipeline, but they don't want to export the oil? Everyone is blaming the feds when it is those three bozos in the BC legislature that are holding everyone hostage. Weaver is the best advertisement yet against PR.

As for Coyne, he ignores the fact that it was the NDP who killed electoral reform by insisting on proportional representation.

Energy East stalled because Quebec refused it. The Northern Gateway was a disaster waiting to happen. Transmountain is being held up by the three idiots who control the BC government. 

Would anyone seriously want the Federal Government to run roughshod over a province?  

[Centerpiece]

28 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, what you are saying is that the government wants to build the transmountain pipeline, but they don't want to export the oil? Everyone is blaming the feds when it is those three bozos in the BC legislature that are holding everyone hostage. Weaver is the best advertisement yet against PR.

As for Coyne, he ignores the fact that it was the NDP who killed electoral reform by insisting on proportional representation.

Energy East stalled because Quebec refused it. The Northern Gateway was a disaster waiting to happen. Transmountain is being held up by the three idiots who control the BC government. 

Would anyone seriously want the Federal Government to run roughshod over a province?  

In the case of something that has been stated to be in the National interest - and a Provincial Parliament that does not indicate a large opposition to such a move.....YES!

[Queenmandy85]

The Green Party Government of BC has indicated very strong opposition. Horgan is just the puppet on this issue. Weaver is the puppet master. The pipeline will go through, but the process, as laid down by the court, still must be followed. 

From a strictly political angle, if you were JT, would you rather alienate vote-rich BC or Alberta where no one is going to vote for you no matter what you do for them. However, the Feds are trying to get the pipeline built because, as you say, it is in the national interest. There is no rush because there is not profitable market right now. The world is swimming in cheap oil. It is better to wait until the price goes back up to over $120 per barrel. Put money into re-training people.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, what you are saying is that the government wants to build the transmountain pipeline, but they don't want to export the oil? Everyone is blaming the feds when it is those three bozos in the BC legislature that are holding everyone hostage. Weaver is the best advertisement yet against PR.

As for Coyne, he ignores the fact that it was the NDP who killed electoral reform by insisting on proportional representation.

Energy East stalled because Quebec refused it. The Northern Gateway was a disaster waiting to happen. Transmountain is being held up by the three idiots who control the BC government. 

Would anyone seriously want the Federal Government to run roughshod over a province?  

Trudeau and his toadies are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They talk like they want the pipeline when they're out west, but when they're in a foreign country they're all about shutting down the oil sands.

If your realtor said that they were trying really hard to sell your house, but they're also posting on social media about how your home is a hideous blight on the environment, do you really think they're trying to sell your house? Or if they are, are they doing a good job of it? Do you think they're trying their best?

 

[Queenmandy85]

The pipeline is a short term solution to a problem. JT is right that we are going to have to stop burning fossil fuels in the near future and transition into non-carbon sources of energy. Nuclear is the best alternative. We should have done that 40 years ago, but we just kicked the can down the road. The real mistake governments have made is the lack of political will to explain what is actually looming in the near future. We will always need oil, but to use it for energy is criminal. 

[Rue]

The issue as to how to replace fossil fuel is not addressed with nuclear energy. In fact the future is already here and its not nuclear, its called hydrogen cell technology, that and recycling biodegradable waste into thermal electricity.

To say there are serious environmental problems with using nuclear energy as well is an understatement. Start with the process of mining uranium and then move on to the use of plutonium and the contamination both cause to the area around both activities.

To pretend it has not or will continue to negatively impact on the entire ecosystem and all life forms in it is ridiculous. We know this contamination  last for thousands of years, leaving toxic chemicals in our ecosystems. This is only the beginning affects shown by nuclear energy, there could be many more we have not discovered yet. Every day we see new illnesses and permanent damage emerge.

How can anyone not be aware of the disaster in Japan and the permanent death of thousands of square miles of ocean and how that death is spreading as the toxic radiation continues to spread?

Was that not enough to explain that there is no such thing as a safe nuclear reactor? What you think there will be no further earth quakes or natural disasters?

Let's talk reality:  all  parts of the nuclear fuel cycle produce s radioactive waste and the cost of managing and disposing of this is not cheap nor is it necessarily effective depending on the stage of nuclear fuel cycle production it is. At each stage of the fuel cycle there are proven technologies to dispose of the radioactive wastes some supposedly safe but only temporarily.

Right now waste from the nuclear fuel cycle is categorized as high, medium or low-level  by the amount of radiation they emit.  Any radiation emission is a problem.

Low-level waste is produced at all stages of the fuel cycle. Supposed intermediate-level waste produced during reactor operation, from reprocessing and from decommissioning old plants, is highly toxic. High-level waste, containing fission products from reprocessing, and in many countries, the used fuel itself is killing millions.  Replacing one pollution with an even more dangerous one makes no sense. Its part of the denial process of not wanting to change our lifestyle and how we waste energy.

We have the technology through hydrogen fuel, solar and wind energy, thermal electricity produced from garbage and hydro electricity to manage ourselves now. David Ben Gurion University invented a self sustaining igloo of a house in the middle of the Negev Desert 40 years ago. In downtown Toronto, they created a totally self sufficient energy producing home. We have the technology.

The problem is the large networks of financial interests don't want to give up the fees associated with controlling the production of energy if we became self sufficient.

The fact though is we could replace outmoded technologies with new ones but it would mean a change over from who controls the fees derived from energy. If technology leaves that in our individual hands someone will not make the money they are now and that somebody are the very large mega nationals behind the energy industry.

I will say it until doomsday, the future is now and it means switching over to wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and bioenergy as well as developing further hydro electric plants.

 

[Queenmandy85]

As I pointed out, unranium is a bridge to using thorium fuel which produces far less waste with a much shorter half life. Thorium can't be used for nuclear weapons which was the reason they switched from thorium to uranium in the first place.

I 

19 hours ago, Rue said:

High-level waste, containing fission products from reprocessing, and in many countries, the used fuel itself is killing millions.

I need to see proof of that. So far, the fatality rate from nuclear power accidents is just over 100; mostly due to chyrnoble. One worker died of a heart attack at the Fukishima accident. Had Fukishima been a thorium reactor, the ecological devestation would have been minimal. I do not suggest thorium is without its own problems. Developement and start-up costs are expensive. 

Our problem is, we are living on a planet that can probably sustain one and a half billion people, but we are soon going to try and support 12-14 billion plus people. Can you supply a major industrial society using wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and bioenergy sources? Can you power the transportation infrastructure?

Wind power generators currently consume a lot of energy themselves, do not produce energy consistantly (dependent onthe wind), and have significant ecological issues. Solar consumes a lot of space and is not efficient. Tidal is location specific. It doesn't help heat a house in Saskatchewan. Can you power steel mills with geothermal?

To be honest, I know nothing of bioenergy. Does it produce any methane or CO2? Can it produce the massive amonts of energy required to power an industrial society.

No option is without problems. A global nuclear power network, in a worst case scenario, using your figures, may kill a million people. So far,  more people have been murdered in Chicago in 3 months, than in the whole world from nuclear power in the last 70 years. Fossil fuel energy generation, when operated according to manufacturer's specifications (if we continue on the current trajectory) will, in the worst case scenario, kill billions. As I say, worst case scenario. 

However, for those of you concerned with imigration, when it becomes more difficult to sustain the populations of south Asia, Africa, and Central and South America, those people are going to move north in the 10's of millions. They will be headed for Russia, Germany and Canada. Picture a caravan of 400,000,000 people all headed for the northern US and Canada. They will be joined by tens of millions of Americans from the southern US. 

Ten years ago, the Pentagon was already preparing contingency plans for this situation.

 

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I need to see proof of that. So far, the fatality rate from nuclear power accidents is just over 100; mostly due to chyrnoble. 

Our problem is, we are living on a planet that can probably sustain one and a half billion people, but we are soon going to try and support 12-14 billion plus people. Can you supply a major industrial society using wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and bioenergy sources? Can you power the transportation ...

 

 

There have been far more deaths than you report. Its on the internet. I would prefer not to side track this thread on that point. The is there on death rates. Not good.

The answer to your seco d question is yes but after a change-over that would take time and encounter problems along the way needing to be addressed.

Wind works well on small projects. I concede the large towers built in Ontario are a disaster to the environment. I am talking much smaller versions on roof tops.  

Edited December 2, 2018 by Rue

[cannuck]

8 hours ago, Rue said:

Wind works well on small projects. I concede the large towers built in Ontario are a disaster to the environment. I am talking much smaller versions on roof tops.  

This is exactly the kind of problem of John Q. Public (and elected officials) trying to understand technical things.  No, wind on a rooftop is NOT a very good idea at all.  There is an extremely good reason why wind farms are located on ridges and have towers in the 50 meter and up range.  Flowing fluids suffer from something called boundary layer effects.  Essentially the flow right at the wall of a pipe, or in this case near the surface of the earth is extremely slow due to the interaction of the fluid and its container/surroundings.  You might notice that over land, the wind you felt all day dies down at night.  Without the sun stirring up convective currents from the surface, the boundary layer next to the surface comes to almost a complete stop most nights.  The daytime wind you feel at the surface on land is just a small portion being dragged along near the boundary between fluid and solid compared with the steady flow that is just 50 to 100 meters away.   When the overall flow has to limb over a ridge, it moves closer to the surface and the "squeeze" speeds it up even more.  Thus, exactly where, why and how one locates a wind farm - with towers high enough to reach into the full velocity fluid flow.  The other place you put the towers is offshore, where the surface tends to have steady (but reduced velocity) flow, and one can reach up into the main stream easily.   Look at the 1000 millibar and surface winds around the world, and you will see the dramatic difference over land vs. water.   That difference is aloft, but much closer to the surface over water...thus another place one puts wind farms.

Now, you might have SEEN wind farms, but have you ever worked in one?  I do that often, and can tell you that even the newest turbines are extremely high maintenance and older ones are long since obsolete because of extreme unreliability and ridiculous maintenance costs.  Most, if not all windmills on this continent are there for political reasons - driven by subsidies of one kind or another, NOT good business choices.

[Queenmandy85]

On 12/1/2018 at 1:10 PM, Rue said:

I will say it until doomsday, the future is now and it means switching over to wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and bioenergy as well as developing further hydro electric plants.

I owe you an apology. I am starting to learn more about geothermal power. Thank you for the tip.

[Rue]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I owe you an apology. I am starting to learn more about geothermal power. Thank you for the tip.

Very courteous of you but you don't. Sheeyat this is a discussion forum. We exchange ideas. I learn as much from you and others. Thanks though that was real nice of you to say.

[Rue]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 10:36 PM, cannuck said:

This is exactly the kind of problem of John Q. Public (and elected officials) trying to understand technical things.  No, wind on a rooftop is NOT a very good idea at all.  There is an extremely good reason why wind farms are located on ridges and have towers in the 50 meter and up range.  Flowing fluids suffer from something called boundary layer effects.  Essentially the flow right at the wall of a pipe, or in this case near the surface of the earth is extremely slow due to the interaction of the fluid and its container/surroundings.  You might notice that over land, the wind you felt all day dies down at night.  Without the sun stirring up convective currents from the surface, the boundary layer next to the surface comes to almost a complete stop most nights.  The daytime wind you feel at the surface on land is just a small portion being dragged along near the boundary between fluid and solid compared with the steady flow that is just 50 to 100 meters away.   When the overall flow has to limb over a ridge, it moves closer to the surface and the "squeeze" speeds it up even more.  Thus, exactly where, why and how one locates a wind farm - with towers high enough to reach into the full velocity fluid flow.  The other place you put the towers is offshore, where the surface tends to have steady (but reduced velocity) flow, and one can reach up into the main stream easily.   Look at the 1000 millibar and surface winds around the world, and you will see the dramatic difference over land vs. water.   That difference is aloft, but much closer to the surface over water...thus another place one puts wind farms.

Now, you might have SEEN wind farms, but have you ever worked in one?  I do that often, and can tell you that even the newest turbines are extremely high maintenance and older ones are long since obsolete because of extreme unreliability and ridiculous maintenance costs.  Most, if not all windmills on this continent are there for political reasons - driven by subsidies of one kind or another, NOT good business choices.

I have seen built in windmills in igloo/eg like self sustaining homes in the Negev  desert that function excellently. They are not very big. They look like fans with small generators. No I am not talking about large wind mills you discuss. Those create havoc for birds, and the neurological systems of all life forms to name just two concerns. Not a fan of them. I agree about wind farms you talk of not being a great idea.

Here's what I am referring to:

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/installing-and-maintaining-small-wind-electric-system

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/buying-and-making-electricity/small-wind-electric-systems

https://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/how-make-small-backyard-wind-power-generator.html

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rehrlich/sample.pdf