High loonie causing harm says Mulcair

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

It's a good thing manufacturing in Canada is more than 50% foreign-owned and controlled and mostly by rich Americans othewise we'd blaming Canadian corporations for doing such a piss-poor job of things. They have Canadian workers best interests in mind and especially during times of economic crises with buy American policies in effect. It's like our corrupt stooges were planning for the future all the while. 

Any economist with a half a brain(Harperexcepted) will say that manufacturing will always be among the most important sectors of any prosperous nation's economy. Manufacturing is where innovation and productivity are supposed to happen in order for a country to make things other countries want to buy. No rich country was renowned for its small businessmen or its ditch diggers. And Canada will be forgotten in the future for having contributed to global warming and for having fueled the most unsustainable and most fossil fuel dependent economies of what will be known as the pre-modern old world era.

The future is manufacturing and high tech not extracting energy from dead plants. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuel based economies. Someone should notify our brain-dead colonial administrators in Ottawa sometime soon.

The problem in Canada is that the country has been and continues to be run into the ground by a long-time corrupt stoogeaucracy in Ottawa. They sold the environment to Exxon-IMperial and the fossil fuel industry back in the 1990s, and now they want validating for their bad central planning from head offices in Calgary and corporate board rooms in America.

In effect our colonial adninistrativeship in Ottawa is being instructed to compensate corporate America and China for their lack of sustainable national energy policies. They want to continue bombing other countries and polluting hell out of Canada for a bit of oil. It's madness. 

Very Far Away

Fidel wrote:

Mulcair could always start a trend. He could say to Ontarians and Quebecers, vote for the NDP if you want jobs associated with a lower dollar. The feds don't have to allow one prairie province leaking a bit of inflation now and then to dictate things to the rest of Canada. The new western consensus is not real. They don't have the numbers in Alberta. Canadians as a whole are not as politically conservative as the Harpers and their oil company friends would like us to be.

Yes. Quebec and Ontario are key to form a majority government. Ironically, as long as Cons are in power, both provinces will suffer. I don`t think Cons will have a chance in Quebec in the near future. When this is the case, Mulcair should focus on convincing Ontarions right away.

Very Far Away

Fidel wrote:

Any economist with a half a brain(Harperexcepted) will say that manufacturing will always be among the most important sectors of any prosperous nation's economy. Manufacturing is where innovation and productivity are supposed to happen in order for a country to make things other countries want to buy. No rich country was renowned for its small businessmen or its ditch diggers. And Canada will be forgotten in the future for having contributed to global warming and for having fueled the most unsustainable and most fossil fuel dependent economies of what will be known as the pre-modern old world era.

 

100% Yes.

The secret of Germany`s success: Manufacturing.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67899/steven-rattner/the-secrets-...

I believe NDP should show Germany as an example to Canada (especially Ontario). Because some people believe that Canada needs Alberta`s oil revenue to survive in this fragile world economy.

 

Doug

Some evidence of fear on the part of the Tories. Tories debate how best to keep middle-class voters

jerrym

Germany's overwhelming success is dependent on the low value of the Euro compared to what would happen if it had a national Deutschmark as it currency. Its manufacturing sector is much more efficient than other Euro countries, which would lead to a high German Deutschmark if that were it currency, thereby reducing its export trade price advantage and therefore exports over time. However, because its currency is based on the value of the Euro, which is lower in value than a Detschmark would be due to the less efficient economies of its Euro partners, Germany has maintained its trade price advantage, thereby building a high employment economy built on high level of exports. In other words, Germany's success shows the advantage of having a relatively low-valued currency for manufacturing and employment, the exact opposite of what Harper's and Alberta's policies have done for Canada.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

A lot of good smart politics at work here,. First and foremost,  it is correct from a policy, truth and justice perpective. It is good  politics to be good and to be on the side of good..

It should, with related messages,(see your TV)  play well winning the people especially the "progressives"  and "bring the centre" to us across Canada. Mulcair as the  desireable and doable alternative to Harper . Opposition to the hihg dollar, tar sands and oppostion to the war on Canada being waged wby Harper with the high dollar, pipelines and gutting of environmenttal and democratic process will play well in the west, note Skeena and Nathan Cullen   Aboriginals and all peoples in the parth of the juggernauts seeking to destroy their land and their lives. In Quebec, job one, this should help  hold on to as many of those 50+ seats as possible, and hopefully pick up more. Second tier in the seat priority, but well in the top of the To Be Done List, help make gains in Ontario, 50+ seats is doable with messges like this. We want Charest, the CAW and McGuinty in your tent. Winning Canadain Elecions 101- win Quebec, Ontario and some others.

can we make the  2015 ballot question  a debate over publicy policy and public adminsitration- the economy, the environment, bread and butter, cash in your wallet issues coming down to  . Who do you trust in these uncertain tmes to look after your interests?.Cue: roll up sleeves.

 

 

Fidel

jerrym wrote:
In other words, Germany's success shows the advantage of having a relatively low-valued currency for manufacturing and employment, the exact opposite of what Harper's and Alberta's policies have done for Canada.

I think Argentina, Iceland, and even 1931 Germany are good examples of the need to cancel debts. According to people like Michael Hudson, there are precedents for debt foriveness and especially inter-ally loans of the WW I era. And there was generous debt forgiveness extended to Germany after that country's aggresive borrowing in the 1920s ended up strangling the German economy and paving the way for a dictator. Economists have a saying that says: Debts that can not be paid, won't be. 

Germany owes Greece a debt 2011

If Greece does eventually refuse to pay what is unpayable, they will have to consider finishing the job. They will need to consider financing new spending through their national central bank, and even re-denominate in drachmars debts curently held in foreign currencies. Otherwise they will be right back where they started except without the EU dictating the terms of repayment.

The Current Account Deficit

Paul Tulloch wrote:
 The National Bank have published a very useful and interesting report on the current account deficit, which is now running at about 3% of GDP. They argue that the deficit - largely driven by a huge fall in our manufacturing and wider goods trade balance - has now become structural, and should be cause for much greater concern than is now the case. They also argue that the Canadian dollar is clearly over-valued, and that its rise has been fuelled by large inflows of hot money rather than by the strength of resource exports.

We know we're in trouble when Pinocchio McGuinty is making more sense than our corrupt stooges in Ottawa.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Eventually, the Canadian dollar will return to its historically low levels, and Canadian manufacturing will still be in the crapper. Then the NDP will have to find some other target instead of the exchange rate on the dollar.

Anything to avoid actually having to acknowledge and come to grips with the fundamental contradictions and crises of the capitalist system itself.

clambake

I caught the end of Ezra Levant's show (I know, slightly sadistic of me) and I think i saw a headline challenging Mulcair to debate him on the tar sands issue.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I mentioned in a post above that McQuinty apologised for using the expression "petrodollar". Apparently Alberta is still waiting for that apology.  

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

jerrym wrote:

However, because its currency is based on the value of the Euro, which is lower in value than a Detschmark would be due to the less efficient economies of its Euro partners, Germany has maintained its trade price advantage, thereby building a high employment economy built on high level of exports. In other words, Germany's success shows the advantage of having a relatively low-valued currency for manufacturing and employment, the exact opposite of what Harper's and Alberta's policies have done for Canada.

Your "in other words" statement doesn't jibe with the previous sentence. That sentence clearly says that the souce of Germany's competitive advantage is its relative efficiency compared with its Euro partners. Since they are all using the same currency, that competitive advantage couldn't possibly have anything to do with the value of the Euro.

What Mulcair and his admirers don't want to talk about is that a lower-valued currency degrades the standard of living of the workers in an economy where so many of the manufactured goods they buy and so much of the food they eat are imported. The capitalists whose wealth is based on plundering our natural resources rejoice when the dollar goes down, because it makes them richer. Meanwhile the workers are making do with less. Only a believer in trickle-down Reaganomics would think such a situation is acceptable.

"Nothing good ever trickles." – Wanda Sykes

NorthReport

The gods are angry with the European election results so they are dropping the stock markets.

And btw the Cdn dollar is below par. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

WRT the thread title, I think Mulcair is absolutely correct, as is McQuinty and his "petrodollar" comments.

KenS

No one is arguing it isnt correct.

Should be clear the question is what to do about it. The politics. 'Policy' statements in this case are just going to be more pronouncements of the obvious.

'The dollar is high.' 'This isnt helping.' Etc.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KenS wrote:

There is one BIG fallacy.

The tradeoff is NOT Alberta versus seats in the manufacturing belt`of Ontario and Quebec.

It is Alberta, hinterland BC, SK, good part of MB and Northern Ontario versus the manufacturing belt seats.

You have listed the sites of the resources but that is not where the benefits of development go. In BC the profits always go to Howe Street and the environmental costs are given to the local communities. The BC hinterland needs small manufacturing they don't need fracking crews working and then leaving to spend their money.

I live in Burnaby where most of the refineries in BC are located.  The cost of gas in Burnaby is higher than everywhere else except the far north.  We'd love to see $1.10 gas again.  It hovers around $1.40 in Burnaby and 3 to 5 cents cheaper elsewhere across the Lower Mainland. I was on Vancouver Island this weekend and the gas was 8 cents a litre cheaper than in Burnaby.

One theory is the oil companies charge the residents more to offset any municipal taxes they have to pay.  I don't know if that is right but I also know the cheapest gas prices in the province are almost always in the Invermere area. They in effect get Alberta prices.  I am sure it is serendipitous that many of Calgary's 1% have summer homes and winter ski chalets there. 

The oil industry is not an engine for economic health it is a toxin.  Mulcair's views will only piss off people in BC that are in the 45% of the electorate who would rather die than vote NDP.  It seems to me the best thing is to refine the oil in Alberta before then shipping the refined product to other provinces. Even Albertans would agree that with that.  Put the brakes on the planned exponential expansions in the tar sands and built another couple of up graders like the LLyodminster one.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mulcair's views will only piss off people in BC that are in the 45% of the electorate who would rather die than vote NDP.

Mulcairs views are not the question here.

The questions are about politics. About optics. Framing. Perception. Building those.

And the frame that will be presented is that Mulcair and the NDP are about killing jobs. What they want to do to Alberta, think your community too.

Dotted line to environmentalists. Environmentalist dont want those sawmills working either. [Those already being well established frames in interior and northern communities.]

I am not saying that we are doomed to be implaed on this sword.

But people are VERY mistaken if they think it all boils down to with us or against us, hate the NDP or not, divides.

There wont be a single attack ad run in BC that in word or pictures asks people to love or tolerate the oil industry.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

To reiterate.

Mulcair's views will only piss off people in BC that are in the 45% of the electorate who would rather die than vote NDP.

You've merely pointed out much of the decades long propaganda that led them there. In BC the federal NDP needs to motivate the 45 to 50 percent who are open to them as potential government and the high loonie message will work with them. In this province trying to win over the other 45% is a recipe for election loss, after loss, after loss.

 

6079_Smith_W

Boom Boom wrote:

I mentioned in a post above that McQuinty apologised for using the expression "petrodollar". Apparently Alberta is still waiting for that apology.  

From reading the story, I see two things: 

First, Redford shouldn't turn a bad turn of phrase into something else - A trap requiring McGuinty to endorse the tar sands in order to get out.

On the other hand, using the term "petrodollar" is not entirely accurate, and quite undiplomatic. If you know a term is going to be taken as offensive, as he should have, saying sorry doesn't quite do it.

In short, he said something stupid. I can see why she might want to make him squirm a bit.

(edit)

And Mulcair was not saying the same thing as NcGuinty. Mulcair agreed with Mark Carney that oil was one factor in the rise of the dollar, but not the only one. Plus there is the other implication in McGuinty's statement - that the dollar is the only thing responsible for Ontario's economic woes.

 

KenS

No party anywhere has 45% of the electorate that will or will not vote for them, even more polarized BC [even the hyperpolarized US].

It is a distracting fallacy to think that the job is to rope in the rest of them that are up for grabs.

The effectivesness of the kind of 'job killer' ads [and give them to Quebec] that will play in BC is that they will be attended to by voters who are also in the NDP's universe. Whether they will tip the balance is the question, and what to do about that potential. It is not a situation, nor will the ads be designed to play into: half the people will see them and say right on, and half will absolutely reject them.

If that was true, attack ads would not work. Its not about convincing people, persuading. Its about creating doubts. Doubts are sufficient.

KenS

To reiterate,

and an example of how attack ads work.

You can have plenty of people who are favourably disposed to Mulcair- as much so as they were to Jack. And they see lots of reason to not trust Harper. But that doesnt say what they will do in the end.

Inject attack ads of NDP and Mulcair as willful job killers. [They have other priorities.] And there is fertile ground from widespread suspicion of environmentalists and their agendas- who would be just as happy if the sawmill closes / stays closed.

Stir.

Wait.

Stir again as required.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:
 Then the NDP will have to find some other target instead of the exchange rate on the dollar.
 

Yeah like all those absentee corporate landlords owning more than half of Canadian manufacturing. Look where that's gotten us.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

M. Spector wrote:
 Then the NDP will have to find some other target instead of the exchange rate on the dollar.
 

Yeah like all those absentee corporate landlords owning more than half of Canadian manufacturing. Look where that's gotten us.

Just as I said: Anything to avoid actually having to acknowledge and come to grips with the fundamental contradictions and crises of the capitalist system itself. 

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

M. Spector wrote:
 Then the NDP will have to find some other target instead of the exchange rate on the dollar.
 

Yeah like all those absentee corporate landlords owning more than half of Canadian manufacturing. Look where that's gotten us.

Just as I said: Anything to avoid actually having to acknowledge and come to grips with the fundamental contradictions and crises of the capitalist system itself. 

Right. You have suggested before that our current situation has nothing to do with all those automatic aye-ayes for foreign takeovers since Mulroney scrapped FIRA pushed for by the NDP. 

They could've replaced our two colonial administrative parties in Ottawa with big-giant rubberstamps of approval and saved Canadian taxpayers a lot of money for all the careful deliberating they didn't actually do while marauding international capital proceeded to hollow-out Canada.

We were supposed to become as like a prosperous 51st state. Instead Canada has become a sort of northern Puerto Rico with a few homeless Polar bears.

What's afta NAFTA?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You are right KenS the MSM is in the business of manufacturing consent. You seem to be coming very close to saying that the only thing to do is say nothing but bland meaningless things and hope that Harper keeps shooting his feet.

A great divide is coming in BC before the next election and that divide will be over the movement of oil. No other issue will be as powerful and meaningful to the voters of this province.  The NDP better be on the proper side of that major fault line or it is not going to do well.

KenS

So, if we dont agree with HOW it needs to be done, then all I want is to say bland and meaningless things.

Great discussion.

Vansterdam Kid

It seems as if you're proposing nothing. All it seems like you're saying is that you're worried about Mulcair's approach and therefore would rather talk more to propose an alternative. Am I right to interpret you this way? Assuming you'd rather talk more you will need to come up with some sort of proposal so that we could determine an alternative. Otherwise it just sounds like you're proposing nothing, because I can't quite determine what it is you're proposing. It's not that it's necessarilly bad to raise a warning, it's just that it would be more useful if you could come up with something so that this could be an actual discussion.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Eventually, the Canadian dollar will return to its historically low levels...

Not if the Harper stooges or their "at arm's length" BoC Governor, Art Carney, have anything to do with it. The two old line parties and the various superrich friend they are obliged to cater to prefer a higher dollar. Remember the centre of power is supposed to have shifted west where the dirty oil is. Our corrupt stooges will have Canadians paying corporate America to take it off our hands and exporting jobs down the Mississippi as usual.

 

JeffWells

I don't see a scenario in which the Conservatives won't call the NDP anti-development job killers, regardless of what Mulcair says. Like my grandmother used to say, May as well be hanged for a sheep as for a goat. For Mulcair to eat his words and hug the petroleum economy would be a costly, quite Liberal mistake, and dismaying to the many Canadians who chose us because of the fights we choose. I don't believe he'll make this mistake.

KenS

Who said anything about Mulcair eating his words?

Not me, and I dont see any other prospects of who it could be attributed here.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

It seems as if you're proposing nothing. All it seems like you're saying is that you're worried about Mulcair's approach and therefore would rather talk more to propose an alternative. Am I right to interpret you this way? Assuming you'd rather talk more you will need to come up with some sort of proposal so that we could determine an alternative. Otherwise it just sounds like you're proposing nothing, because I can't quite determine what it is you're proposing.

Fair enough. And it certainly occured to me that it would sound like this.

But before going into alternatives. Here is what I did say:

1.] I'm glad Mulcair quickly initiated it. And its the right start.

2.] But that's all it is. And I am critical of the notion around here about the politics of making it work: that its just drawing a line in the sand. There is, us and them. Subsidiary to that is the various formulations of what is there to lose: some votes in Alberta we'll never get anyway [as if it were just Alberta in play on our at risk side], that we're going to be attacked no matter what we say [what happened to making sure as much as possible you neutralize attacks that have a good shot at hurting us among our support universe], and that the only people who listen to the attacks, hate us anyway [which if true would make you wonder why attack ads are ever done].

If the responses around here were characteristic of the thinking in Caucus, we're loaded up and ready for a few shots to the foot.

KenS

As to alternatives, I gave an example. An exhaustive tour of BC mill towns by Mulcair. Where among other things he repeats the message of what the petrodollar is doing to these communities. And reinforcing what does not have to be said, but requires Mulcairs presence: we're here for you.

That is a specific example of what has to be done generally. Anybody can draw a line in the sand. The recipe is easy in this case. And who will like it is also easy. But you also have to neutralize the considerable downside effects upon our support universe. Without an array of well thought neutralizations, we'll pay through the nose.

Fidel

Canada's Oil: For Sale to the Highest Bidder

Jim Stanford wrote:
Want to know why Canada's currency is sky-high despite our sluggish recovery, our large and persistent current account deficit, and our lousy export performance?

Check out this fascinating story in Friday's National Post, by Yadullah Hussain, on why Canada's oil reserves are such a uniquely hot commodity in the eyes of global oil corporations. ...

As I have argued before, a good way to break this damaging link between oil prices and our currency (the 25% overvaluation of which which continues to devastate all non-resource export industries, including manufacturing, tourism, and tradable services) is to take down the "For Sale" sign currently hanging on our oil reserves.

Interesting comment by Larry Kazdan at bottom. Why destroy the environment and the rest of the economy for the benefit of a few energy companies, many foreign owned?

Only in Canada would colonial administrators hold a knife to Canadian workers throats and thereby working in service of marauding international capital and foreign ownership of natural resources. Monbiot was absolutely right - Canada is a corrupt petro state.

JeffWells

KenS wrote:

As to alternatives, I gave an example. An exhaustive tour of BC mill towns by Mulcair. Where among other things he repeats the message of what the petrodollar is doing to these communities. And reinforcing what does not have to be said, but requires Mulcairs presence: we're here for you.

I like it.

 

Fidel

JeffWells wrote:

KenS wrote:

As to alternatives, I gave an example. An exhaustive tour of BC mill towns by Mulcair. Where among other things he repeats the message of what the petrodollar is doing to these communities. And reinforcing what does not have to be said, but requires Mulcairs presence: we're here for you.

I like it.

 

 

There are a few mothballed factories and mills in Ontario and Quebec that are very tourable, too. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mulcair going into all parts of the country is a great idea.  However he should be seeking input not selling solutions that might not be very relevant. The main problems in mill towns in BC relate to the forest license system and the selling of raw logs.  That is not federal politics it is provincial.

Now if the NDP wants to promise to fix the soft wood lumber fiasco that the Liberal or Conservative Emerson signed to the detriment of forest communities that is in the federal sphere.  Also they could come down on the side of federal regulations that severely limit the use of fracking anywhere in the county. That would play well in the interior and likely resonate in other parts of the country.

Aristotleded24

Mulcair could also tour the oilpatch itself to see the impact that out-of-control development is having on the area, particularly in regards to environmental destruction and the high cost of living.

Doug

There are a lot of economic problems the Conservatives are just ignoring for the sake of preferring to pull goo out of the ground instead. Like this one:

Canada lags in e-commerce

Fidel

Doug wrote:

There are a lot of economic problems the Conservatives are just ignoring for the sake of preferring to pull goo out of the ground instead. Like this one:

Canada lags in e-commerce

"She also said that it's hard to find tech-savvy people who want to work for small companies; they'd rather work for big, multinational corporations."

 

I was helping out a retired guy to build an auction web site with open source software. He has hundreds of antique books and other collectors items he wants to sell. I was suprised to find out that Google's merchant side checkout/wallet capability for online transaction processing is only available to Americans, their non-NAFTA partners in crime in the U.K. and a few other places. 

I think our corrupt stooges must be doing more snivelling and grovelling than anything else when in Washington because they sure as hell aren't helping Canadians to venture into e-commerce, that's for sure.

knownothing knownothing's picture

KenS wrote:

To reiterate,

and an example of how attack ads work.

You can have plenty of people who are favourably disposed to Mulcair- as much so as they were to Jack. And they see lots of reason to not trust Harper. But that doesnt say what they will do in the end.

Inject attack ads of NDP and Mulcair as willful job killers. [They have other priorities.] And there is fertile ground from widespread suspicion of environmentalists and their agendas- who would be just as happy if the sawmill closes / stays closed.

Stir.

Wait.

Stir again as required.

Grow a backbone...Good for Mulcair for taking on the oil sands...we should be holding them accountable to the environment and the resource potential

Fidel

The thing is the two other parties in government have actually attacked workers in Central Canada and East coast plenty of times over the years with 600, 000 higher paid manufacturing jobs lost and tens of billions of dollars in wages sucked out of the economy since 2000. They want to hold the rest of the economy hostage for the sake of an oil sector and what amounts to a paltry 18% of export GDP. It's totally insane and not to mention totally corrupt.

The current fiscal Frankenteins in Ottawa are creating a permanent structural account deficit with the high dollar propping-up a fossil fuel economy.

Our corrupt stooges are running Canada like a banana republic.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

If I read this article on the NDP website correctly, the NDP is calling for more refinery capacity here in Canada:

 

NDP releases dissenting report on pipelines and refining capacity

Fidel

Boom Boom wrote:

If I read this article on the NDP website correctly, the NDP is calling for more refinery capacity here in Canada:

 

NDP releases dissenting report on pipelines and refining capacity

 

I think so. But the Exxon-Imperialists and the rest of the fossil fuel industry probably don't want many more refineries anywhere in North America. Not if building more refineries increases supply of value-added products, like gasoline etc. Multinationals want to maintain their right to monopolize and gouge us every step of the way. These Reform Party retreads couldn't run a lemonade stand without screwing it up. They are poor business planners themselves, and that's exactly what Canadians are supposed to think about government in general. Essentially we pay them to do a poor job of things and give federal governments a bad name.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

If the NDP forms government in 2015 or 2016, will they be able to have refineries built here instead of shipping away raw bitumen?

 

(IIRC, we've had this debate many times before Embarassed )

 

JeffWells

Has everyone seen this, from yesterday's New York Times? Because every Canadian needs to. Especially the ones who believe the NDP are going too hard on the tar sands. (Oops, I mean oi- no; I mean tar sands.)


Quote:
Game Over for the Climate

By JAMES HANSEN

Published: May 9, 2012

GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obamain Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

...

James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Good article, Jeff.

 

6079_Smith_W

Harper may soon regret his attack on environmental group funding.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/10/pol-forest-ethics-advoc...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Rex Murphy continues to be a prick, totally misunderstanding Mulcair tonight.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Hansen is NASA's top climatologist and he has more information available to him than you or I will ever see or know. So if he says the tar sands are that bad, I tend to believe him.

Another article of interest about Hansen.

6079_Smith_W

Boom Boom wrote:

Rex Murphy continues to be a prick, totally misunderstanding Mulcair tonight.

He talked a lot of nonsense, but said one thing that it correct. Mulcair needs to come and spend a bit of time out here , expecially if this is going to be a major issue for him.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

He talked a lot of nonsense, but said one thing that it correct. Mulcair needs to come and spend a bit of time out here , expecially if this is going to be a major issue for him.

Yes, understood - but it's not as if Mulcair hasn't been out there already.

KenS

The occasional visit is not on.

Even more frequency would not in itself do the trick.

Its a matter of focus. It is going to take APPLICATION, and smart application, for this to fly as much as we need in the West. And everyone can say they will. But it has to HAPPEN, in the context of the laundry list of demands.

We're down this road now. [And would have been forced down it anyway, not at least in a time and manner of our choosing.] Once having chosen to go down it, the work has to be done. Anybody can plant banners and draw lines in the sand.

Pages

Topic locked