Klein slams Al Gore for attacking oilsands

[BubberMiley]

"Jonesing"??? That word is new to me.

According to Urban Dictionary:

Jones: Desire for something that may be sought irrespective of the consequences..

Can apply to humans, love, drugs, whatever.

Man, I've been jonesin' for days!

[jbg]

"Jonesing"??? That word is new to me.

According to Urban Dictionary:

Jones: Desire for something that may be sought irrespective of the consequences..

Can apply to humans, love, drugs, whatever.

Man, I've been jonesin' for days!

Thanks. And the response to the rest of the post?

[kimmy]

The smog is also a red herring, because it isn't exactly related to global warming. It is also not a problem in Ontario alone, as it is also in New York, Detroit, Montreal, etc. Albertans in Edmonton and Calgary may not "feel" or "see" the affects of the pollution caused by the oil sands, but driving out of Edmonton looking at the "reclaimed land" sure is an experience.

Out of curiousity, what "reclaimed land" outside of Edmonton are you referring to?

The only reclaimed land I'm aware of that one sees driving out of Edmonton is a former open-pit coal mine that's around an hour west on Highway 16; seeing it is indeed an experience... an experience that lasts about 5 seconds. The last time I was by it, it was actually quite lovely, all radiant with green. In that area of rolling hills and farmland, it doesn't look out of place, except that the contours are odd and obviously man-made. If you feel this is some sort of shock-effect that will put an end to fossil fuel use, I think you're going to be disappointed. If you've spent any time on the highways of interior British Columbia, you've probably seen an entire hillside that's been completely razed of trees, certainly a much bigger visual shock than the sight of our nicely-reclaimed open-pit coal-mine... but last I heard, they're still logging in BC.

Have you actually seen this "reclaimed land" outside of Edmonton to which you refer?

As for Mr. Gore, my feeling is simply this: he has no business blaming *us* for allowing *them* to continue wasting energy.

North Americans do waste an absurd amount of fuel for frivolous reasons. Unfortunately, we don't seem to care. Scientists and environmentalists have been talking about this issue for longer than I can remember, but people only really started paying attention when gas hit a buck per litre. For the most part, people don't listen until they get smacked in the wallet.

As our conventional reserves get lower our reliance on the oil-sands will increase. As Mr Gore correctly points out, extracting oil from the tar-sands is an inefficient, expensive process, and you can bet that those costs will be passed along to the consumer. The consumer will realize the folly of using so much natural gas to extract oil from sand as soon as the consumer finds himself paying for that natural gas.

People will seek energy-efficient lifestyle options when energy becomes too expensive to waste frivolously anymore.

-k

[August1991]

Kimmy, thanks for bringing this thread to the top.

The evaporation from the Great Lakes contributes more green house gas (remember that CO2 is only about 1%, water vapour is the gas that actually makes a difference) than Alberta. Blame Ontario for having the lakes.

Hell, Geoffrey, the oceans cause even more. We are talking about human-caused greenhouse gases. Gore's film specifically makes this point.

So put that in your car and burn it Al Gore. Alberta is the leading example to the world how to use green technology to combat emissions. It's not our problem if the rest of the world can't get off oil, us cutting our supply will simply have people going elsewhere.

Shit, I wonder if that defence would work for dope dealers.

"Well your honour, I'm just a businessman. It's not my fault that the junkies are hooked on the stuff. And besides, if I didn't sell them their fix, someone else would."

As economists say, there's on one hand supply and the other hand, demand. In a voluntary transaction, both parties are guilty.

I dislike the drug addiction analogy though. No one is addicted to gasoline (excepting the odd sniffer). People just want a cheap way to get around. Gasoline isn't even a status thing. You don't see gas stations including white antennae with a purchase of their new, cool premium brand. Gasoline is the most ordinary of commodities.

Anyway, by that logic, runout of oil has been predicted since at least the early 1920's. Each time, short term price rises have called forth new supplies. That's happening now with the oil sands (Alberta) and oil shale (US West).

I'm with jbg on this. Oil is just a commodity and it's in the owners interest to sell it at the highest price. This means there will be no "peak oil" and we'll never really run out. At most, I have argued elsewhere that the Klein government has probably charged too little for access to the resource. In the worldwide scheme of things, this underchanging means nothing to the world supply of oil.

-----

Anyhoo, none of this is neither here nor there.

The fundamental problem is that anybody can dump anything into the environment because nobody owns it. I can't dump garbage on your lawn (you own it). But I can dump garbage in your air (who owns the air?).

One solution is "to tax air pollution" (impose a carbon tax). That's like the government arbitrarily declaring itself owner of the air and then charging (through a tax) for its use.

Ah, government....

Carbon taxes are simply a transfer program from Alberta to the ROC.

Geoffrey, you have put your finger on the biggest problem the world faces. We argue about who is getting the bigger piece until finally the cake is stale and unedible.

I have one solution. Let's impose a federal carbon tax and give half the proceeds to Alberta. IOW, let's say Albertans own (half of) Canada's air and let them keep the money from its use. Would that make you happy Geoffrey? For myselfv, I don't really care who is deemed the owner as long as someone is - this free-for-all is unsustainable.

----

I don't understand how people in Alberta can claim they are "green" in the way they do things when as a whole the province is the highest contributer to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. See this map for emissions intensity. This chart shows that Alberta emits more greenhouse gases then all of Ontario, even though it has 1/4 of the population. Alberta also emits close to 40% of all GHG's in Canada, even though it has 10% of the population.

Apollo, that data you supply is highly misleading. It is simply wrong to say that Albertans produce "close to 40%" of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

The linked website relies only on (voluntary) reporting by facilities which produce more than 100,000 tonnes annually. Emissions from vehicle use, for example, are completely omitted from the data.

In Phase One of mandatory GHG reporting, all facilities that emit the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes (100kt) or more of carbon dioxide (in CO2 equivalent units) per year are required to report.

Link

Measuring greenhouse gas emissions is difficult (and offsets from planting new trees make the calculations even more difficult). One should be wary of reported statistics.

[kimmy]

Anyhoo, none of this is neither here nor there.

The fundamental problem is that anybody can dump anything into the environment because nobody owns it. I can't dump garbage on your lawn (you own it). But I can dump garbage in your air (who owns the air?).

One solution is "to tax air pollution" (impose a carbon tax). That's like the government arbitrarily declaring itself owner of the air and then charging (through a tax) for its use.

Ah, government....

The federal government already considers itself the owner of the air in at least some respects. I believe air travel is regulated by a federal government agency? I believe that use of the radio spectrum is regulated by a federal government agency.

Broadcasters and cell-phone service providers pay a lot of money for the right to pump electromagnetic waves into the air. It seems logical to me that people could likewise be asked to pay for the right to pump emissions from combustion or industrial processes into the air.

-k

[August1991]

The federal government already considers itself the owner of the air in at least some respects. I believe air travel is regulated by a federal government agency? I believe that use of the radio spectrum is regulated by a federal government agency.

Broadcasters and cell-phone service providers pay a lot of money for the right to pump electromagnetic waves into the air. It seems logical to me that people could likewise be asked to pay for the right to pump emissions from combustion or industrial processes into the air.

If Stephen Harper tried that, people like Geoffrey would claim that Harper had become Trudeau NEP Mark II. In Alberta, a federal carbon tax would be perceived as a tax grab by Quebec/Ontario on an Albertan resource - oil.

[Charles Anthony]

If Stephen Harper tried that, people like Geoffrey would claim that Harper had become Trudeau NEP Mark II. In Alberta, a federal carbon tax would be perceived as a tax grab by Quebec/Ontario on an Albertan resource - oil.

If they had half of a brain, they should accept your proposal because your proposal gives half of the proceeds to Alberta.

I have a better proposal to please Alberta: impose your carbon tax on all provinces EXCEPT Alberta.

[kimmy]

The federal government already considers itself the owner of the air in at least some respects. I believe air travel is regulated by a federal government agency? I believe that use of the radio spectrum is regulated by a federal government agency.

Broadcasters and cell-phone service providers pay a lot of money for the right to pump electromagnetic waves into the air. It seems logical to me that people could likewise be asked to pay for the right to pump emissions from combustion or industrial processes into the air.

If Stephen Harper tried that, people like Geoffrey would claim that Harper had become Trudeau NEP Mark II. In Alberta, a federal carbon tax would be perceived as a tax grab by Quebec/Ontario on an Albertan resource - oil.

I don't really agree. I hope that doesn't mean I have to turn in my Angry Albertan club membership card...

I believe it would depend on the way in which the tax was implemented. In my view, the logical way to do it is to put the tax on the person who buys the fossil fuel, not on the person who produces it. (thus, rather than NEP II style attack on Albertans, it would be an outrageous tax-grab that attacks all Canadians. )

To go back to your analogy of lawns and garbage... if someone throws a big bag of McDonalds' McLitter on your lawn, should a financial penalty be imposed against McDonald's restaurants, or to the person who threw the McLitter on your lawn? If the penalty is imposed on McDonalds, the garbage-throwing guy is not really facing any disincentive to not litter, is he? The more desirable outcome is obtained if the guy is given a financial penalty for littering.

In the case of McDonalds McLitter, enforcement would be difficult. In the case of a hydrocarbon tax, however, it would not. We already have the administrative mechanisms in place for taxing consumption of hydrocarbons. And while it might be difficult to predict whether a person who buys a McDonalds meal at a drive-through window will litter, it's easy to predict the amount of emissions a person who buys a litre of gas will put into the atmosphere.

In my opinion, if somebody puts 50 litres of gas into their car, they should pay for putting the corresponding amount of emissions into the atmosphere; if a tar-sands plant burns 1000 tons of natural gas to make steam, they should pay for putting the corresponding amount of emissions into the air. To me, that seems fair. It makes each consumer directly responsible for their use of this public resource, and attaches a financial cost to their behavior.

Would Albertans view a tax on consumption of fossil fuel to be NEP II? I don't see it, personally. I think placing the tax on the consumer rather than the producer addresses that complaint.

-k

[geoffrey]

This is all ridiculous smoke and mirrors here. The real issue isn't CO2, that's not what every person here is going to die of being exposed to within the next 40 years. The real issue is the carcinogens and toxins that are released into the air. The smog that is causing asthma in what could safely be described as most children these days. The pollution of our water that we can no longer drink in some areas.

These are real issue that are going to kill people, and are killing people right now today. Let's deal with them before chasing some CO2 non-sense that likely won't heat/cool/dryout/floodout/bring a plague of locuses to the world within the next 1000 years.

Taxing carbon emissions won't save a life. Taxing cancer causing pollutants in the manufacturing core of Canada will save thousands if not millions of lives from premature 'expiration'.

[jdobbin]

This is all ridiculous smoke and mirrors here. The real issue isn't CO2, that's not what every person here is going to die of being exposed to within the next 40 years. The real issue is the carcinogens and toxins that are released into the air. The smog that is causing asthma in what could safely be described as most children these days. The pollution of our water that we can no longer drink in some areas.

These are real issue that are going to kill people, and are killing people right now today. Let's deal with them before chasing some CO2 non-sense that likely won't heat/cool/dryout/floodout/bring a plague of locuses to the world within the next 1000 years.

Taxing carbon emissions won't save a life. Taxing cancer causing pollutants in the manufacturing core of Canada will save thousands if not millions of lives from premature 'expiration'.

I agree that more should be done about the carcinogens in the air. What is Klein's stance on that?

I disagree on CO2. My former professor who is the champion of the anti-global warming lobby hasn't had a peer reviewed paper done in 14 years. He is paid by the oil and gas lobby through the Calgary Foundation via the University of Calgary.

The majority of the peer reviewed work out there has pointed to a link between CO2 and global warming.

[August1991]

The real issue isn't CO2, that's not what every person here is going to die of being exposed to within the next 40 years. The real issue is the carcinogens and toxins that are released into the air. The smog that is causing asthma in what could safely be described as most children these days. The pollution of our water that we can no longer drink in some areas.

I frankly disagree with you, and so would most scientific evidence. But then again, we are somewhat arguing about whether it is more dangerous to die by drowning or to die by car accident - in either case, you are dead.

However, Geoffrey, let me try a different argument and explain why governments alone can deal with global warming. A person can avoid carcinogens or toxins in their environment by moving or eating different food. It is impossible to avoid global warming.

If you believe air pollution in a city is bad for you or your children, then don't live in the city. Move to a cleaner city or move to a rural area. In the case of global warming, people cannot move to another planet.

This fact makes CO2 emissions different.

... if someone throws a big bag of McDonalds' McLitter on your lawn, should a financial penalty be imposed against McDonald's restaurants, or to the person who threw the McLitter on your lawn? If the penalty is imposed on McDonalds, the garbage-throwing guy is not really facing any disincentive to not litter, is he? The more desirable outcome is obtained if the guy is given a financial penalty for littering.

It matters to both McDonalds and fast food junkies whether we impose a tax on Big Macs or not. Both are affected by the tax.

Your example of litter is a little different. Not all Big Mac wrappers wind up on a lawn, but all burnt gasoline winds up in the atmosphere. I agree however that if some mechanism existed to capture the CO2 created by burning gasoline, then such gasoline should be carbon tax exempt. (The invention of such a mechanism starts us down the road of the true incentives of a carbon tax... )

[stamps]

Here's an interesting read on co2..... http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

[stamps]

A carbon tax is not about controlling climate change, it is about who controls our western (as in world) economy(Oil) ..... Fossil fuel CO2 emissions are the smoke screen these forces are using to acheive their agenda..... I say go blow your carbon dioxide is changing our climate and killing this planet BS up someone elses butt......

[geoffrey]

I say go blow your carbon dioxide is changing our climate and killing this planet BS up someone elses butt......

You indeed do have the eloquence of Ralph himself.