Anti-Pipeline Campaign was foreign funded

[Argus]

And planned and organized, according to Vivian Krause, who has been doing a lot of research tracing money to groups. So the question is, how do be ban such money coming in, and ban it being spent? We do not want moneyed foreign interests funding activism in Canada which may not even be in the interest of Canada or Canadians, but may instead serve the needs of foreign governments and corporations.

Krause – an independent researcher who has documented the funding of Canadian environmental groups by American philanthropic foundations – pointed out Texas’ oil production had more than doubled, and it is now exporting oil to 20 countries, but in Canada, there are protests against further oil and gas development.

“How is it that we got to this place? How is it that pipelines, of all things, are now a major election issue? We’re not talking about fentanyl, or drug prices,” she said. “What are we talking about? Pipelines? They used to be out of sight, out of mind. No one ever had a pub conversation, or dinner conversation, over pipelines. But now we do.

“This didn’t happen for no reason. It was planned. It was the intended outcome of a campaign, a campaign with a name,” Krause said, explaining she first stumbled on it eight years ago with three little words: “tar sands campaign.”

“I can go through every single court ruling that has slowed down or stopped all the pipeline projects, and there isn’t one single court ruling that has been brought about, that has not been funded. Every single court action slowing down these pipeline projects is part of this campaign,” she said.

https://biv.com/article/2019/06/anti-pipeline-campaign-was-planned-intended-and-foreign-funded-vivian-krause

[eyeball]

All this story does is underscore how slimy our trading partners and the oil industry are.  I see no reason not to believe our government and industry wouldn't do the same thing if they were in a similar position to do so.

Keeping the Tar Sands in the ground is still the right thing to do.  Its the most CO2 laden oil on the market and largely destined for the biggest most dangerous authoritarian country on the planet.  We should be boycotted and sanctioned for even thinking about digging it up.

[Shady]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

All this story does is underscore how slimy our trading partners and the oil industry are.  I see no reason not to believe our government and industry wouldn't do the same thing if they were in a similar position to do so.

Keeping the Tar Sands in the ground is still the right thing to do.  Its the most CO2 laden oil on the market and largely destined for the biggest most dangerous authoritarian country on the planet.  We should be boycotted and sanctioned for even thinking about digging it up.

Complete nonsense.  And the most authoritarian countries want us to keep it in the ground.   Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc

[Michael Hardner]

Foreign influence is everywhere.  You can reduce it but all parties seem to be using it.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Foreign influence is everywhere.  You can reduce it but all parties seem to be using it.

 

True...and Canadian public and private interests also play the same game in other nations.  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

Complete nonsense.  And the most authoritarian countries want us to keep it in the ground.   Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc

No it's a fact, Tar Sands oil is the most CO2 laden oil on the planet. Everyone wants us to keep it in the ground even the democracies. Instead of insisting Canada lower itself to the level of the world's shitheads Albertans should follow their own advice and move to where the jobs are.

As for dangerous dictatorships, Russia is a has been and give me call when Saudi Arabia starts building nukes.

 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Tar Sands oil is the most CO2 laden oil on the planet.

And yet Canada only emits 2% of the world's CO2.  Canada is not a net carbon emitter.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

 

Quote

 

The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.

That’s right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.

A conservative estimate of Canada’s existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the “Big Four” polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canada doesn’t seem very dirty now, do we?

Recently, Canada’s federal and provincial auditors general announced a joint audit of the country’s carbon emissions. But what credible audit would examine only half a balance sheet? There’s no reason why they shouldn’t audit our absorption capacity, too. How much CO2 did our forests and land absorb? Do some trees and topographies perform better than others? In short, what is Canada’s carbon balance?

 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Goddess

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, Goddess said:

And yet Canada only emits 2% of the world's CO2.  Canada is not a net carbon emitter.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

The secret is a falsehood that's based on a deception.  The following underscores the falsehood

 

Quote

Canada oil sands CO2 emissions hugely underestimated: study

Canada's oil sands CO2 emissions are significantly higher than indicated by industry data collected using internationally recommended methods, according to a study published Tuesday.

Environment Canada scientists flying over the region took atmospheric measurements and found CO2 emission intensities up to 123 percent higher than current estimates.

 

This story belies the deception. 

Quote

 

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?

To date, fossil fuel burning, deforestation and other actions have put nearly 570 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere...

...If all the bitumen in those sands could be burned, another 240 billion metric tons of carbon would be added.

"The amount of CO2 locked up in Alberta tar sands is enormous," notes mechanical engineer John Abraham of the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota, another signer of the Keystone protest letter from scientists. "If we burn all the tar sand oil, the temperature rise, just from burning that tar sand, will be half of what we've already seen"—an estimated additional nearly 0.4 degree C from Alberta alone.

 

The carbon neutral nonsense is like listening to the tobacco and asbestos industries saying they're not responsible for the manner by which customers use their products or the harm they cause.   Just because we're not the ones burning it doesn't make us any less responsible.  Making it available for burning in the first place should be cause enough for boycotting us.  

Edited June 28, 2019 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

A more compelling reason to keep both the oil sands and conventional oil in the ground is to hold on to it until the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia run out. Then we can sell it for what it is worth. It is a gift to future generations. All of our technology is built on coal, oil and iron ore. When those run out, so does our technological civilization.

[Argus]

31 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A more compelling reason to keep both the oil sands and conventional oil in the ground is to hold on to it until the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia run out. Then we can sell it for what it is worth.

Except it means we'll have to borrow even more money to pay for the bills, so that eventually, at some future date, we'll start pumping the oil only to use the profits to pay off our enormous debts. That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Which is probably why nobody on the planet is doing it.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Argus

[jacee]

On 6/26/2019 at 10:22 PM, Argus said:

And planned and organized, according to Vivian Krause, who has been doing a lot of research tracing money to groups. So the question is, how do be ban such money coming in, and ban it being spent? We do not want moneyed foreign interests funding activism in Canada which may not even be in the interest of Canada or Canadians, but may instead serve the needs of foreign governments and corporations.

Krause – an independent researcher who has documented the funding of Canadian environmental groups by American philanthropic foundations – pointed out Texas’ oil production had more than doubled, and it is now exporting oil to 20 countries, but in Canada, there are protests against further oil and gas development.

“How is it that we got to this place? How is it that pipelines, of all things, are now a major election issue? We’re not talking about fentanyl, or drug prices,” she said. “What are we talking about? Pipelines? They used to be out of sight, out of mind. No one ever had a pub conversation, or dinner conversation, over pipelines. But now we do.

“This didn’t happen for no reason. It was planned. It was the intended outcome of a campaign, a campaign with a name,” Krause said, explaining she first stumbled on it eight years ago with three little words: “tar sands campaign.”

“I can go through every single court ruling that has slowed down or stopped all the pipeline projects, and there isn’t one single court ruling that has been brought about, that has not been funded. Every single court action slowing down these pipeline projects is part of this campaign,” she said.

https://biv.com/article/2019/06/anti-pipeline-campaign-was-planned-intended-and-foreign-funded-vivian-krause

The pro-pipeline campaign, entire industry, is largely foreign funded.

So what is your point? 

[Queenmandy85]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

Except it means we'll have to borrow even more money to pay for the bills, so that eventually, at some future date, we'll start pumping the oil only to use the profits to pay off our enormous debts. That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.

There are other ways to make money and generate energy. We had huge reserves of uranium in western Canada and we a re world leaders in the development of nuclear power plants. We have one of the best banking industries in the world. We have the potential to be the world leader in beverage alcohol. There is no shortage of money, only vision.

[Hudson Jones]

22 hours ago, Goddess said:

And yet Canada only emits 2% of the world's CO2.  Canada is not a net carbon emitter.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

 

 

That's interesting information.

I wonder why, with our relatively low population, our emissions are comparable with countries with 3 times+ our population. Is it due to our land size and the commuting? Then again, Russia and India are also huge and have many times more the population.

[Argus]

31 minutes ago, jacee said:

The pro-pipeline campaign, entire industry, is largely foreign funded.

So what is your point? 

That your point is nonsense. There is no pro-pipeline campaign out there launching lawsuits and organizing people to block roads. At best you have individual companies who operate in Canada lobbying the government to not get in the way of their business.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, Hudson Jones said:

That's interesting information.

I wonder why, with our relatively low population, our emissions are comparable with countries with 3 times+ our population. Is it due to our land size and the commuting? Then again, Russia and India are also huge and have many times more the population.

We are industrialized, and so use more energy than nations only partially industrialized. We are cold in winter, and use more energy than warm countries, and we are rich enough to all have air conditioning so we use more energy in the summer too. We are spread out so use more energy getting things back and forth. And we have an oil industry on top of that.

[taxme]

On 6/27/2019 at 9:26 AM, Shady said:

Complete nonsense.  And the most authoritarian countries want us to keep it in the ground.   Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc

Billionaire George Soros has a lot to do with and against the building of new pipelines in Canada. That communist funds too many leftist organizations and leftist environmentalist activists that are on his payroll and are only to willing to demonstrate and attack and create damage as much as possible to stop the building of pipelines or any other big projects in Canada. When we hear that there are some environmentalists demonstrating against some new project to be built then it is for dam sure that Soros is behind it all.

Canada could be self sufficient in oil and would not need Saudi Arabia oil. Why does Canada by oil from an Islamic regime that kills gays and treats it's women like cattle? Trump has now made America self sufficient in oil. Our Canadian politicians kiss more ass than I can eat apples. Canada can be a very rich country if it were not for our dear leaders who seem to be hell bent on making sure that does not happen. Some will tell us that all is rosy. They lie. We would not be paying any GST nor would our dollar(peso)be as low and sad as it is. Unemployment should be next to zero. Canada has a problem alright. That problem is called "politicians". 

[Argus]

Vivian Kraus is at it again.This time showing how the Trudeau government colluded with foreign interests who helped them win the election.

Krause also points out that the same U.S. foundations that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars successfully blocking Canadian energy pipelines to tidewater also funded groups that helped Trudeau win the 2015 election.

Krause showed slides that prove that foreign money “moved the needle” in the 2015 federal election campaign, with groups claiming credit for defeating 26 Conservative incumbents. These foreign funded groups, such as OPEN and Leadnow, pumped millions of dollars into Canada’s federal election, a dangerous loophole in Canadian law that the Trudeau government refuses — perhaps not surprisingly — to close. Leadnow admitted that it received foreign funding before the 2015 election but claims that money was not used in its Vote Together campaign to defeat the Harper Conservative government.

“They didn’t do this because of how we treat refugees or immigrants, or First Nations people or anyone else,” Krause told the crowd.

“This was done as part of the campaign to land-lock our crude. To defeat the one political party (the Conservatives) that was committed to breaking the American monopoly that’s keeping our country over a barrel,” she said.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/corbella-krause-questions-why-trudeau-changed-charity-laws-for-activists

[egghead]

On 6/30/2019 at 11:03 AM, taxme said:

Billionaire George Soros has a lot to do with and against the building of new pipelines in Canada. That communist funds too many leftist organizations and leftist environmentalist activists that are on his payroll and are only to willing to demonstrate and attack and create damage as much as possible to stop the building of pipelines or any other big projects in Canada. When we hear that there are some environmentalists demonstrating against some new project to be built then it is for dam sure that Soros is behind it all.

Canada could be self sufficient in oil and would not need Saudi Arabia oil. Why does Canada by oil from an Islamic regime that kills gays and treats it's women like cattle? Trump has now made America self sufficient in oil. Our Canadian politicians kiss more ass than I can eat apples. Canada can be a very rich country if it were not for our dear leaders who seem to be hell bent on making sure that does not happen. Some will tell us that all is rosy. They lie. We would not be paying any GST nor would our dollar(peso)be as low and sad as it is. Unemployment should be next to zero. Canada has a problem alright. That problem is called "politicians". 

Soros also plans to transform criminal justice system, and he backs far-left “progressives” DA to overthrow dems DA in important area counties. 

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, egghead said:

Soros also plans to transform criminal justice system, and he backs far-left “progressives” DA to overthrow dems DA in important area counties. 

He's also a bogeyman of convenience for people who love to simplify issues by blaming them on Bond-villain-types.  There are other billionaires more influential than him and they are never mentioned.  The Soros argument is a marker of conspiracy-type arguments.

Trudeau loves the pipelines.  He even bought it.  

[Hudson Jones]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

He's also a bogeyman of convenience for people who love to simplify issues by blaming them on Bond-villain-types.  There are other billionaires more influential than him and they are never mentioned.  The Soros argument is a marker of conspiracy-type arguments.

Trudeau loves the pipelines.  He even bought it.  

The Koch brothers put A LOT more money into influencing ideals in politics. Especially when it comes to natural resources.

That said, oddly enough, Soros and Koch brothers have teamed up to push their anti-war agenda. 

There’s an unlikely pair of philanthropists behind Washington, DC’s, newest think tank.

The new outfit, launched yesterday, is called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and it’s funded by liberal billionaire George Soros and libertarian billionaire Charles Koch. Its mission: to make the case against foreign wars. The Boston Globe broke the story yesterday, calling the team-up “one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history.”

Soros is, of course, widely hated on the right for his support of liberalized immigration and is frequently the target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Koch, meanwhile, has come under fire for his contributions to the Republican Party and his opposition to climate policies.

The Quincy Institute is named for US President John Quincy Adams, who said in an 1821 speech that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/1/20677441/soros-koch-end-interventionist-wars-military

[taxme]

16 hours ago, egghead said:

Soros also plans to transform criminal justice system, and he backs far-left “progressives” DA to overthrow dems DA in important area counties. 

Transform the justice system from an innocent until found guilty system to a guilty until proven innocent system.  I do not trust communists like Soros. That thing is truly an enemy of we the people. 

[Hudson Jones]

23 minutes ago, taxme said:

Transform the justice system from an innocent until found guilty system to a guilty until proven innocent system.  I do not trust communists like Soros. That thing is truly an enemy of we the people. 

Charles Koch, of the famous right wing, Libertarian Koch Brothers trusts him. Why is that?

 

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, taxme said:

I do not trust communists like Soros.

What sort of communists you do trust?

[Michael Hardner]

Try to find out how much these people spend in Canada - it's paltry.  $6M overall for ALL foreign sources.  Leadnow spent about $135K in 2015.

 

Anti-Semite far-right white-pride types (yes, you are all the same to me sorry) will make bogeymen out of people who fund environmental causes but as usual they are being dishonest about the scale of influence.

[taxme]

20 hours ago, Hudson Jones said:

Charles Koch, of the famous right wing, Libertarian Koch Brothers trusts him. Why is that?

 

The Koch brothers are no better than Soros. They all hate we the people and America. With those three it's all about money and power. Just saying.