Bill C69 is harmful

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Global warming is not utter bullshit, but thinking that stopping pipelines in Canada will help with it certainly is.

Leaving fossil fuels in the ground most certainly will help, thinking otherwise ignores reality.

[Guest]

Just now, eyeball said:

Leaving fossil fuels in the ground most certainly will help, thinking otherwise ignores reality.

If you can leave them all in the ground sure. Of course, there would be other problems then.  

That said, if you think just leaving Canada's in the ground will make a difference then you are ignoring reality

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If you can leave them all in the ground sure. Of course, there would be other problems then.  

That said, if you think just leaving Canada's in the ground will make a difference then you are ignoring reality

I've heard the drop-in-a-bucket if-we-don't-someone-else-will arguments but I just don't give a shit...I just happen to believe that signalling our virtue is the appropriate thing to do - someone, sooner rather later, has to start setting a better example in the world.

Forestalling the day it finally does get dug out of the ground is the least we can do, at least we can hope that technology will make it unprofitable to do so, and again sooner rather than later.

Edited May 4, 2019 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

51 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Maybe the PM should grow a pair, either force it through via the law, or take back all that federal funding for that new LNG plant that BC wants....cut back on all federal funded projects.....until they come to their senses....Can't have the cake and eat it to, we already have one province that does that....

Are you saying that Alberta's desire to give away their prime resource to foreigners should override BC's. desire to protect their environment?

Also, as it stands now, Prime Minister Trudeau faces a steep climb to re-election. Are you suggesting his best path to victory is to alienate his few remaining supporters in BC?  If he does as you suggest, is he going to win any more votes in Alberta? Will killing the LNG project win votes in BC?

Just for arguments sake, let's say this PM or the next one tries to force the pipeline through, a large minority of British Columbians will continue to block it through court action and protest blockades. As much as you, and Trudeau  would like to see it built, it ain't going to happen anytime soon. The unemployed workers in the oil industry should stop wasting their time and start sending out resumes for jobs in other fields of employment. 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I've heard the drop-in-a-bucket if-we-don't-someone-else-will arguments but I just don't give a shit...I just happen to believe that signalling our virtue is the appropriate thing to do - someone, sooner rather later, has to start setting a better example in the world.

Forestalling the day it finally does get dug out of the ground is the least we can do, at least we can hope that technology will make it unprofitable to do so, and again sooner rather than later.

Sure, if you like.  No-one says you have to give a shit.  It doesn't change the facts.

Edit> Actually, I appreciate your honesty.

Edited May 4, 2019 by bcsapper

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Because there is train loads of cash to be made in the transition to nuclear power. I interpret your user name to mean you are from western Canada. Don't you like money? 

When I was growing up nuclear power was frowned on. 

The damage from places like Fukijima and Chernobyl make an oil slick look like spilled milk. 

 

[Queenmandy85]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

When I was growing up nuclear power was frowned on. 

The damage from places like Fukijima and Chernobyl make an oil slick look like spilled milk. 

 

Hydro-electric power is the best and safest but it is not portable. There are only certain areas where it is viable.

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in Saskatchewan in one year than have died from nuclear accidents world wide in the history of nuclear power. One person died at the Fukijima plant when he suffered a heart attack. The irrational fear of nuclear power is an indictment of our education system. 

 We should use uranium until we can bring LIFTR reactors on line. Thorium produces little waste, will not melt down is far more efficient than uranium, and is more plentiful than uranium. It cannot be used in nuclear weapons. 

Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. Eastern Canada is home to the Candu reactor family and they are currently developing small reactors for use in northern communities. We can sell them all over the world. It means clean water, small carbon emissions,  electric fast trains and urban transit, and basically, unlimited energy for thousands of years. The proviso is we will need to conserve coal, iron ore and oil to build the infrastructure.

[Realitycheck]

In an aside on the fisheries issue. The Feds totally ruined the Cod fishery off Nfld for purely political purposes. 25 years before the fishery collapsed the government of the day was warned that if conservation measures weren't put in place the fishery would collapse in...25 years. The Fishery scientists pegged it. But "conservation" measures meant a loss of jobs and thus a loss of votes. Vote won out over cod.

In BC today, wild salmon stocks are in peril largely due to ocean-based salmon farms farming, of all things, Atlantic Salmon! But again politics is the problem. These big European companies make substantial donations one way or another to local politicians and parties. Thus efforts to make these polluters either fold up and bugger off or move to land-based operations fall upon ears stuffed with fish company dollars.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Realitycheck said:

In BC today, wild salmon stocks are in peril largely due to ocean-based salmon farms farming, of all things, Atlantic Salmon! 

The real scandal is how little Ottawa puts into salmon hatcheries, the only reason seems to be that if DFO produces more fish they'll be stuck with a fishery they have to manage.  They seem to be phasing out free range farming in favour of raising fish in a pen.  Oh well, it is Ottawa's fish after all not BC's so...

In any case and given Ottawa likes phasing out old school ways of doing things in favour of the new....I fail to see were Alberta gets off thinking their old fossil fuel industry deserves any better treatment.

Edited May 4, 2019 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Hydro-electric power is the best and safest but it is not portable. There are only certain areas where it is viable.

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in Saskatchewan in one year than have died from nuclear accidents world wide in the history of nuclear power. One person died at the Fukijima plant when he suffered a heart attack. The irrational fear of nuclear power is an indictment of our education system. 

 We should use uranium until we can bring LIFTR reactors on line. Thorium produces little waste, will not melt down is far more efficient than uranium, and is more plentiful than uranium. It cannot be used in nuclear weapons. 

Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. Eastern Canada is home to the Candu reactor family and they are currently developing small reactors for use in northern communities. We can sell them all over the world. It means clean water, small carbon emissions,  electric fast trains and urban transit, and basically, unlimited energy for thousands of years. The proviso is we will need to conserve coal, iron ore and oil to build the infrastructure.

One person died from Fukijima, but several more are in the slow, painful process of dying from the radiation they received in the initial cleanup process. 

The damage to marine life and the problems associated with eating fish from that part of the ocean isn’t being talked about because there are no anti-nuclear lobbyists paying kids to protest about it. 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

One person died from Fukijima, but several more are in the slow, painful process of dying from the radiation they received in the initial cleanup process. 

And how many people died in Lac Megantic again? Fifty? More than have ever died because of nuclear accidents.

[Queenmandy85]

The problem with C-69 is the mushy language. It was intended to give industry a clear road map (a check list if you wish) to approval. Unfortunately, it was messed up some how so it makes the process a maze rather than a map.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And how many people died in Lac Megantic again? Fifty? More than have ever died because of nuclear accidents.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of people around Chernobyl who are dying of multiple cancers, and I'm a pipeline person. 

 

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of people around Chernobyl who are dying of multiple cancers, and I'm a pipeline person. 

And how many people have died because of the side effects of pollution caused by the internal combustion engine? For that matter, how many have died in car accidents? We accept these deaths as the price to be paid for the benefits we get.

Chernobyl was 1950s technology run by Russians, half of whom seem to be alcoholics. I'm pretty sure we can make them safer today.

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Are you saying that Alberta's desire to give away their prime resource to foreigners should override BC's. desire to protect their environment?

Also, as it stands now, Prime Minister Trudeau faces a steep climb to re-election. Are you suggesting his best path to victory is to alienate his few remaining supporters in BC?  If he does as you suggest, is he going to win any more votes in Alberta? Will killing the LNG project win votes in BC?

Just for arguments sake, let's say this PM or the next one tries to force the pipeline through, a large minority of British Columbians will continue to block it through court action and protest blockades. As much as you, and Trudeau  would like to see it built, it ain't going to happen anytime soon. The unemployed workers in the oil industry should stop wasting their time and start sending out resumes for jobs in other fields of employment. 

 

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying, Alberta resources are what fuels THE ENTIRE NATIONS economy, so do I think that  trumps BC desire to protect their environment ,YES, do I think BC should be holding this nation hostage because of a few tree huggers, NO, the fact that most BC's er that are effected by the pipeline have already made a deal to bring in funding and additional resources and jobs into their districts....Including the people of wet sum or what ever it's called, those few that are holding out are doing so to get a better deal, not because they want to save the planet....where are they when bils of liters of sewage are pumped into the ocean everyday...

Lets forget Justin and is merry gang of clowns for now, they are done......Do you think the cons are not going to use every measure in their power to drive this pipeline through, the law already states that this can be done, without the few holdouts permission....and yes the cons will gain even more support in Alberta, and yes pick up more seats in BC, not every bc is a tree hugger, some even like going to the pump and paying  below 1.70 a liter....

Like I said before the NATION is tired of BC and Quebec holding the nation hostage, will the cons win any more seats , the answer is how many more seats will the gain across the nation for taking some action in regards to pipelines.....stop the funding of the 40 Bil LNG plant will get their attention, cut any other funding and they will be phoning the PM on how we can proceed with the twinning of the pipeline....

a large minority of BC'ers will be getting arrested, end of story, The PM is already declared it in the nations interest, the Con will have the balls to push on with this wait and see. I know that is the battle cry of the greens and the hesitant NDP, but the rest of the nation does not give a rats ass, the world is still driven by oil, with no viable replacement anytime soon, that is cheap enough to make a difference. Why not profit from those resources while they are still here....

And when BC does not cooperate, and Alberta slowly reduces the flow, and your fuel goes over 3,00 a liter you'll be begging for a pipeline...and you will be riding a bike to and from work....and heating your home with nice thoughts, and good wishes...while the rest of the world is swimming in fossil fuels....because we can't drive 55..... 

[eyeball]

44 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And when BC does not cooperate, and Alberta slowly reduces the flow, and your fuel goes over 3,00 a liter you'll be begging for a pipeline...and you will be riding a bike to and from work....and heating your home with nice thoughts, and good wishes...while the rest of the world is swimming in fossil fuels....because we can't drive 55..... 

So what ever happened to fungibility? Sooner or later someone's going to notice there's a lot of room for competition against Alberta in BC. 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

So what ever happened to fungibility? Sooner or later someone's going to notice there's a lot of room for competition against Alberta in BC. 

It stopped when the few dictated terms to the many.....lets wait until the cons take the reigns and see if the pipe line remains stagnate, or construction starts....and I really hope the energy east pipeline gets a new life as well.... 

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

the world is still driven by oil, with no viable replacement anytime soon

So what do we do when we have no more oil?  You cannot operate machinery such as electrical generators without lubrication. You seem to advocate selling it off as fast as possible. What is your answer?

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

..lets wait until the cons take the reigns and see if the pipe line remains stagnate, or construction starts....and I really hope the energy east pipeline gets a new life as well.... 

Much as I think its in our planet's interest to leave Canada's oil in Alberta's ground I'd accept digging it up if it was directed east - away from the greater environmental risk of going west and farther away from the hands of oligarch's and dictatorships. Shipping it east will also make it even easier (than it already should be) to tell Saudi Arabia to take their oil and f*^k off.

The honest hard-working folks in London...(insert's-croc-tears-here)...who seem to be the only other reason for staying allied with Saudi Arabia can be put to work building pipelines and refineries.

Edited May 5, 2019 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

Army Guy, I want the pipeline expansion too, but I am not as optimistic as you. The Grits are going to lose in October. The only question is who will be leader of the opposition.  I do think the Trans Mountain project is more politically viable than the Energy East line.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

It stopped when the few dictated terms to the many.....lets wait until the cons take the reigns and see if the pipe line remains stagnate, or construction starts....and I really hope the energy east pipeline gets a new life as well.... 

The first order of business around the cabinet table after an election is re-election. It is rare to find a government that sets out to loose the next election. These are considerations that every government takes heed of when they consider what action to take.

[egghead]

On 5/3/2019 at 7:34 PM, eyeball said:

Leaving fossil fuels in the ground most certainly will help, thinking otherwise ignores reality.

Do you know that killing yourself will cure your influenza infection? Thinking otherwise ignores THE TRUTH. 

climate changing is a fact (hey, ice age, glacial period.....), but thinking that no fossil fuel consumption will help (what???) certainly is ignorance.

 

[egghead]

On 5/3/2019 at 8:13 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Are you saying that Alberta's desire to give away their prime resource to foreigners should override BC's. desire to protect their environment?

Also, as it stands now, Prime Minister Trudeau faces a steep climb to re-election. Are you suggesting his best path to victory is to alienate his few remaining supporters in BC?  If he does as you suggest, is he going to win any more votes in Alberta? Will killing the LNG project win votes in BC?

Just for arguments sake, let's say this PM or the next one tries to force the pipeline through, a large minority of British Columbians will continue to block it through court action and protest blockades. As much as you, and Trudeau  would like to see it built, it ain't going to happen anytime soon. The unemployed workers in the oil industry should stop wasting their time and start sending out resumes for jobs in other fields of employment. 

 

Are you contradiciting yourself or are you saying BCer are loony?

I worked in the oil industry and it is not that simple for unemployed workers to change field. 

 

 

[cougar]

On 5/2/2019 at 5:56 PM, Argus said:

I'll just stick this in here.

Lack of pipelines has cost Canada $20 billion 

This is exactly the kind of capitalist propaganda that will destroy our environment and all living things on this planet including us.

It cannot "cost"  when nothing needs to be paid or built.  

The possibility to make $20 billion while destroying habitat, resources and lives worth $200 billion is the actual proposition here.

 

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, cougar said:

This is exactly the kind of capitalist propaganda that will destroy our environment and all living things on this planet including us.

It cannot "cost"  when nothing needs to be paid or built.  

The possibility to make $20 billion while destroying habitat, resources and lives worth $200 billion is the actual proposition here.

Hmmm. You seem to be making a fundamental error in logic. Making the $20 billion (plus more tens of billions in the coming years) is not up against $200 billion damage. It's up against pretty much zero in damage. But then, you pulled that figure out of your ass, didn't you.