Rachel Notley Says Jagmeet Singh Is Throwing Working Class People Under The Bus

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

i use my thumbs

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm pretty sure there are places where solar panels are put together on something like an assembly-line basis. 

Seven of the top ten manufacturers making Solar Panels are in China, Canadian Solar is on that list, but the company manufatures the panels in China.

So if these out of work oil sands workers want to move to China and work for 1/100 of what they made in the oil sands, I guess they could do that.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..one of the criticisms of the tarsands project and pipelines is that canada gets locked into old technologies while the rest of the world moves forward. already we have alta and canada making huge financial investments and in negotiations to invest even more.

..we are stuck on this board because we can't figure a way out of this situation. many have for years hoped that the ndp represented the alternative. well it does not even though they offer needed reforms. like the alta ndp does. like the bc ndp does.

..but the bc ndp while good on km is captured by lng. which is why they've recently signed deals that ignored indigenous folk. that ignored undrip. which is why they are moving forward with site c dam that is needed to power the lng industry..again ignoring indigenous folk. ignoring undrip.

..there is a need to find a path that travels beyond the ndp. that is the challenge. that is the way forward. for me that way is based in the movements for now. it is there we can collaborate our way into the future.

Rev Pesky

epaulo13 wrote:

which is why they are moving forward with site c dam that is needed to power the lng industry.

If you have any evidence of the truth of that statement, let's see it. In fact, Site C is renewable, non-emitting electrical generation of the type that is called for in the Leap Manifesto, which you have praised in the past.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

which is why they are moving forward with site c dam that is needed to power the lng industry.

If you have any evidence of the truth of that statement, let's see it. In fact, Site C is renewable, non-emitting electrical generation of the type that is called for in the Leap Manifesto, which you have praised in the past.

..there is plenty of proof in the site c thread. i will not keep arguing this point over and over again just because you disagree.

..now show me proof that the leap is calling for site c to be built please. show me proof that the leap is standing against the struggle going on by indigenous folk and ranchers in the area to have it stopped.

Pogo Pogo's picture

 

From the Leap Manifesto:

The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades[1]; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy[2].

From the first reference:

2.2.1 Energy Production : Electricity With vast, already installed hydropower capacity and rich potential in undeveloped renewable energy sources that could be harnessed to produce electricity ( Figure 4 ), Canada could rapidly move away from fossil fuels in the electricity sector56. This transformation, which would put Canada at the forefront of green electricity internationally, could also provide significant cost-savings and give leverage to a number of Canadian industrial sectors.

I looked at the map (figure 4) and I am pretty sure it shows the Peace River as a potential energy source, but it is not at all user friendly.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..that is not an endorsement of site c. the demands have clarity.

  1. The leap must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land, starting by fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
  2. The latest research shows we could get 100% of our electricity from renewable resources within two decades; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy. We demand that this shift begin now.
  3. No new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard.
  4. The time for energy democracy has come: wherever possible, communities should collectively control new clean energy systems. Indigenous Peoples and others on the frontlines of polluting industrial activity should be first to receive public support for their own clean energy projects.
  5. We want a universal program to build and retrofit energy efficient housing, ensuring that the lowest income communities will benefit first.
  6. We want high-speed rail powered by just renewables and affordable public transit to unite every community in this country – in place of more cars, pipelines and exploding trains that endanger and divide us.
  7. We want training and resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are fully able to participate in the clean energy economy.
  8. We need to invest in our decaying public infrastructure so that it can withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events.
  9. We must develop a more localized and ecologically-based agricultural system to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, absorb shocks in the global supply – and produce healthier and more affordable food for everyone.
  10. We call for an end to all trade deals that interfere with our attempts to rebuild local economies, regulate corporations and stop damaging extractive projects.
  11. We demand immigration status and full protection for all workersCanadians can begin to rebalance the scales of climate justice by welcoming refugees and migrants seeking safety and a better life.
  12. We must expand those sectors that are already low-carbon: caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest mediaA national childcare program is long past due.
  13. Since so much of the labour of caretaking – whether of people or the planet – is currently unpaid and often performed by women, we call for a vigorous debate about the introduction of a universal basic annual income.
  14. We declare that “austerity” is a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth. The money we need to pay for this great transformation is available — we just need the right policies to release it. An end to fossil fuel subsidies. Financial transaction taxes. Increased resource royalties. Higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy people. A progressive carbon tax. Cuts to military spending.
  15. We must work swiftly towards a system in which every vote counts and corporate money is removed from political campaigns.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I tend to agree.  On one hand they say that in order to move away from fossil fuel we will need to radically increase hydro electric sources, but when it come down to any particular project it comes out against it.  If the Leap Manifesto is to mean anything it has to provide a road map that is not just aspirational but also achievable.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the argument has been made for a long time now that bc doesn't need the power. who needed it was the lng industry. i disagree that the leap must provide a road map. this needs to come from the community. as it is in the case of km. as in the case of site c and lng. 

wage zombie

epaulo13 wrote:

..one of the criticisms of the tarsands project and pipelines is that canada gets locked into old technologies while the rest of the world moves forward. already we have alta and canada making huge financial investments and in negotiations to invest even more.

..we are stuck on this board because we can't figure a way out of this situation. many have for years hoped that the ndp represented the alternative. well it does not even though they offer needed reforms. like the alta ndp does. like the bc ndp does.

..but the bc ndp while good on km is captured by lng. which is why they've recently signed deals that ignored indigenous folk. that ignored undrip. which is why they are moving forward with site c dam that is needed to power the lng industry..again ignoring indigenous folk. ignoring undrip.

..there is a need to find a path that travels beyond the ndp. that is the challenge. that is the way forward. for me that way is based in the movements for now. it is there we can collaborate our way into the future.

I agree with your points but not your conclusion.

The NDP is the political vehicle we have available to us.  Generally speaking, it is in striking distance of power these day in most elections.  There are certainly clear signs that the prov NDPs in both AB and BC are at least somewhat owned by resource companies.  I think the way to go is to fight this.

It might be tempting to look at the Greens as not having these issues.  But the Greens are not in contention ever, and it's cause for celebration if they just win a single seat.  And frankly, from what I'm seeing from the outside, the Greens are no more democratic than what I'm seeing in the NDP.  The Greens have their own party culture issues that they are unable to solve.

The other option would be to start up a new political party to be the political arm of movements.  I don't see this as very appealling either because I don't see that party being in contention within then next 10 years.  I suppose maybe if we get PR anywhere that changes the equation.  But I think by the time that new party has enough support to threaten to form government, it will have many of the problems that you find acceptable in the current NDPs.

I think the problem is our political system.  By the time any people's party has gained enough support to be in contention to make the laws, it will be subject to the same nefarious forces we see inflluencing the AB and BC NDPs.

If you're arguing that these prov NDPs are more subject to these forces than we might reasonably expect the Greens or a new party to be ten years down the road, then I'm listening.  If you have some arguments for why we can only deal with these nefarious influences pre-emptively, but not after the fact, thus rendering the NDP a defacto lost cause, I would listen to that too.

I'm not sure what to call this process, whereby political parties lose their integrity as they gain support, but unless you have a way around it, my take is that the NDP is not even as owned as we might expect it to be, given its proximity to power.

Mostly I don't understand how ecosocialists are going to be able to take over the country if we're not up to the task of taking over the lowly NDP.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

wage zombie wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..one of the criticisms of the tarsands project and pipelines is that canada gets locked into old technologies while the rest of the world moves forward. already we have alta and canada making huge financial investments and in negotiations to invest even more.

..we are stuck on this board because we can't figure a way out of this situation. many have for years hoped that the ndp represented the alternative. well it does not even though they offer needed reforms. like the alta ndp does. like the bc ndp does.

..but the bc ndp while good on km is captured by lng. which is why they've recently signed deals that ignored indigenous folk. that ignored undrip. which is why they are moving forward with site c dam that is needed to power the lng industry..again ignoring indigenous folk. ignoring undrip.

..there is a need to find a path that travels beyond the ndp. that is the challenge. that is the way forward. for me that way is based in the movements for now. it is there we can collaborate our way into the future.

I agree with your points but not your conclusion.

The NDP is the political vehicle we have available to us.  Generally speaking, it is in striking distance of power these day in most elections.  There are certainly clear signs that the prov NDPs in both AB and BC are at least somewhat owned by resource companies.  I think the way to go is to fight this.

It might be tempting to look at the Greens as not having these issues.  But the Greens are not in contention ever, and it's cause for celebration if they just win a single seat.  And frankly, from what I'm seeing from the outside, the Greens are no more democratic than what I'm seeing in the NDP.  The Greens have their own party culture issues that they are unable to solve.

 

And not only is it cause for celebration if the Greens ever win a seat...it's an open question as to whether their federal leader even WANTS them to win more federal seats, or is simply fixated on taking revenge on the NDP from some perceived personal slight now lost in the mists of time.  And in many respects, the federal Greens have a relationship with the federal Liberals that seems to have recreated the one the Liberals had with the CPC/Labor-Progressive Party in the 1930s and 1940s-a partnership devoted solely to ganging on the CCF/NDP and preventing a social democratic breakthrough at all costs.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

wage zombie wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..one of the criticisms of the tarsands project and pipelines is that canada gets locked into old technologies while the rest of the world moves forward. already we have alta and canada making huge financial investments and in negotiations to invest even more.

..we are stuck on this board because we can't figure a way out of this situation. many have for years hoped that the ndp represented the alternative. well it does not even though they offer needed reforms. like the alta ndp does. like the bc ndp does.

..but the bc ndp while good on km is captured by lng. which is why they've recently signed deals that ignored indigenous folk. that ignored undrip. which is why they are moving forward with site c dam that is needed to power the lng industry..again ignoring indigenous folk. ignoring undrip.

..there is a need to find a path that travels beyond the ndp. that is the challenge. that is the way forward. for me that way is based in the movements for now. it is there we can collaborate our way into the future.

I agree with your points but not your conclusion.

The NDP is the political vehicle we have available to us.  Generally speaking, it is in striking distance of power these day in most elections.  There are certainly clear signs that the prov NDPs in both AB and BC are at least somewhat owned by resource companies.  I think the way to go is to fight this.

It might be tempting to look at the Greens as not having these issues.  But the Greens are not in contention ever, and it's cause for celebration if they just win a single seat.  And frankly, from what I'm seeing from the outside, the Greens are no more democratic than what I'm seeing in the NDP.  The Greens have their own party culture issues that they are unable to solve.

The other option would be to start up a new political party to be the political arm of movements.  I don't see this as very appealling either because I don't see that party being in contention within then next 10 years.  I suppose maybe if we get PR anywhere that changes the equation.  But I think by the time that new party has enough support to threaten to form government, it will have many of the problems that you find acceptable in the current NDPs.

I think the problem is our political system.  By the time any people's party has gained enough support to be in contention to make the laws, it will be subject to the same nefarious forces we see inflluencing the AB and BC NDPs.

If you're arguing that these prov NDPs are more subject to these forces than we might reasonably expect the Greens or a new party to be ten years down the road, then I'm listening.  If you have some arguments for why we can only deal with these nefarious influences pre-emptively, but not after the fact, thus rendering the NDP a defacto lost cause, I would listen to that too.

I'm not sure what to call this process, whereby political parties lose their integrity as they gain support, but unless you have a way around it, my take is that the NDP is not even as owned as we might expect it to be, given its proximity to power.

Mostly I don't understand how ecosocialists are going to be able to take over the country if we're not up to the task of taking over the lowly NDP.

..wow txs wz!

..for a long time now it has been understood that capital is much to powerful to overcome via electing governments. i can point to greece and venezuela as examples. that does not mean that i don't believe electing the ndp isn't useful.

..where my experiences have taken me though is to the understanding that there are forces moving within societies that demand participation. i can point to madrid and barcelona but also to bc and que. this is where the future lies. building from this a new world inside the old whereby communities are making decisions. and then, for now, forcing politicians to implement these decisions. and later maybe politicians become administrators. the point being that we alter the way decisions are made and that the are made beginning at the community level.

..the other way, giving our power away to political parties, just doesn't work.   

..i have much more to say around this as i'm sure you have wz so can we continue this in another thread?

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..behind the tarsands project and pipelines are transnational corporations that move around the world stripping countries of their wealth..by hook or by crook. the processes used to achieve this is never, i repeat never in the interests of the peoples of a country even though some benefit.

..in particular, in canada, at the center of this corporate pillage are the indigenous folk, their territories and their rights. i have no doubt that all on babble understand this yet this issue, which is at the center, is constantly being framed in other terms. in this case the "working class". as if the distruction of indigenous rights is not coming from the same forces that are destroying working class rights. the very same forces that are enforcing austerity. the same forces that created the environmental crisis.

..why are those connections not being addressed in a meaningful way in this discussion? why is it not acknowledged that the indigenous struggles around the pipelines are saving our asses? why isn't it acknowledged that there are alternatives? over and over again folks on babble have posted alternatives yet it is like that never happened. and someone says prove it..what alternatives like that hasn't been answered many times.

People are a mystery. There isn't any one reason for any thing you have pointed out. Focus is mostly on the latest things happening on any particular topic. Once it is out the news for a bit there is little to say and we move onto the next news events.

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:
I don't know if Alberta has a "moral right" to ship its main exportable product to tidewater through a pipeline across B.C. territory, over B.C. objection. It does seem pretty clear that they have a legal right to do so, though, which is why I asked the question about compensating Alberta residents the way I did. I think if we want Albertans to forego their legal rights for whatever reason we should be prepared to pay them for it.

They don't have a legal right. The federal government may have a legal right but the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that yet and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. The federal government may have a legal right as long as BC remains a province but they also have the right to not force it through if they consider the political cost too high.

robbie_dee wrote:
You say your objection is more about distrusting the industry to ship the oil safely, though, whereas Kropotkin's objection appears to be a more fundamental one - he wouldn't extract the oil even if it could be teleported directly to where it needs to be with zero risk of spillage, because even if it all arrives safely at its final destination he just doesn't agree with burning it.

Not exactly. Personally I think it has to stay in the ground based on climate change. Next I support the right of people along the pipeline to protect where they live and to protect the ocean. It is the second that is causing the industry so much pain not the first. Climate change is like lung cancer. You know it's bad so you will cut back and tell yourself you will quit soon but it's hard to do. Climate change is not the reason opposition is so strong although a lot of funding is generated due to oppostion to climate change. Opposition is rooted in having seen oil flow through neighbourhoods and contaminating streams, rivers and the ocean.

robbie_dee wrote:
I am concerned that we are already not shipping it safely and, assuming we are going to reject Kropotkin's position and extract and ship what we can, I think a pipeline is probably a safer option than the others we currently have available.

The oil sands will not be developed expotentially without a pipeline to ship it through. Excess will go by rail but that's all. So it's a false choice. The quantity that would go through pipelines is much greater than that which would be shipped by rail. That pipelines are safer per unit is meaningless because there would be far more units going through.

I want to help Alberta transition but they are no more entitled than Quebec is or other provinces are to the help they get.  Canadians will want to help Alberta because Alberta is part of Canada not because we have some sort of special debt to pay.

Sometimes I wonder how the rest of Canada puts up with Quebec and Alberta. Neither have been hard done by through creating and joining Canada. Alberta is not the only have province. Newfoundland is every bit as distinct as Quebec. BC seems pretty distinct to me.

Alberta's hissy fit is not helping their case but then I don't think anything will so I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:
..where my experiences have taken me though is to the understanding that there are forces moving within societies that demand participation. i can point to madrid and barcelona but also to bc and que. this is where the future lies. building from this a new world inside the old whereby communities are making decisions. and then, for now, forcing politicians to implement these decisions. and later maybe politicians become administrators. the point being that we alter the way decisions are made and that the are made beginning at the community level.

..the other way, giving our power away to political parties, just doesn't work.   

..i have much more to say around this as i'm sure you have wz so can we continue this in another thread?

Please do start a new thread sharing your overall "thesis" for lack of a better word. I think it would be really interesting.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Pondering wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:
I don't know if Alberta has a "moral right" to ship its main exportable product to tidewater through a pipeline across B.C. territory, over B.C. objection. It does seem pretty clear that they have a legal right to do so, though, which is why I asked the question about compensating Alberta residents the way I did. I think if we want Albertans to forego their legal rights for whatever reason we should be prepared to pay them for it.

They don't have a legal right. The federal government may have a legal right but the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that yet and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. The federal government may have a legal right as long as BC remains a province but they also have the right to not force it through if they consider the political cost too high.

robbie_dee wrote:
You say your objection is more about distrusting the industry to ship the oil safely, though, whereas Kropotkin's objection appears to be a more fundamental one - he wouldn't extract the oil even if it could be teleported directly to where it needs to be with zero risk of spillage, because even if it all arrives safely at its final destination he just doesn't agree with burning it.

Not exactly. Personally I think it has to stay in the ground based on climate change. Next I support the right of people along the pipeline to protect where they live and to protect the ocean. It is the second that is causing the industry so much pain not the first. Climate change is like lung cancer. You know it's bad so you will cut back and tell yourself you will quit soon but it's hard to do. Climate change is not the reason opposition is so strong although a lot of funding is generated due to oppostion to climate change. Opposition is rooted in having seen oil flow through neighbourhoods and contaminating streams, rivers and the ocean.

robbie_dee wrote:
I am concerned that we are already not shipping it safely and, assuming we are going to reject Kropotkin's position and extract and ship what we can, I think a pipeline is probably a safer option than the others we currently have available.

The oil sands will not be developed expotentially without a pipeline to ship it through. Excess will go by rail but that's all. So it's a false choice. The quantity that would go through pipelines is much greater than that which would be shipped by rail. That pipelines are safer per unit is meaningless because there would be far more units going through.

I want to help Alberta transition but they are no more entitled than Quebec is or other provinces are to the help they get.  Canadians will want to help Alberta because Alberta is part of Canada not because we have some sort of special debt to pay.

Sometimes I wonder how the rest of Canada puts up with Quebec and Alberta. Neither have been hard done by through creating and joining Canada. Alberta is not the only have province. Newfoundland is every bit as distinct as Quebec. BC seems pretty distinct to me.

Alberta's hissy fit is not helping their case but then I don't think anything will so I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

Quebec is more distinct than Newfoundland and Alberta, because the main language spoken here is French. In those other places, they all speak English and nothing else.

Quebec uses Civil Law. The rest use Common Law.

Quebec is not stuck in the Tory-Liberal-NDP quagmire as are all the provinces. It is legally, linguistically and politically distinct.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

Quebec is more distinct than Newfoundland and Alberta, because the main language spoken here is French. In those other places, they all speak English and nothing else.

Quebec uses Civil Law. The rest use Common Law.

Quebec is not stuck in the Tory-Liberal-NDP quagmire as are all the provinces. It is legally, linguistically and politically distinct.

Language is not the be all and end all of distinctiveness. Alberta is far more Conservative than the rest of Canada. Liberals barely exist there. In BC there are no Conservatives, or no Liberals, which ever way you look at it. Newfoundland may speak English but lots of people have trouble understanding those with a thick accent. They are culturally distinct. Quebec and New Brunswick are more similar than Newfoundland and Ontario.

Quebec has a different legal framework because they kept theirs and Ontario kept theirs when they united to form Canada. In outcome they are extremely similar. What is illegal in Quebec is generally the same things that are illegal in the rest of Canada. It isn't something that impacts people's day to day lives. Most Quebecers probably don't even know that our civil law is different.

Here are the voter turnout numbers:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/society/voter-turnout.aspx?...

P.E.I. is the top-ranking province, scoring a “B” with a voter turnout rate of 77.4 per cent in the 2015 federal election. The province ranks just below peer country Norway (78.2). New Brunswick and Saskatchewan also get “B” grades, with voter turnout rates of 74.4 and 71.1, respectively. The highest voter turnout rates are in Australia (93.2) and Belgium (89.4)—this is not surprising given that voting is compulsory in both countries.

Most provinces are “C” performers. Nova Scotia (70.8) and B.C. (70) have voter turnout rates above the national average, while Alberta (68.2), Manitoba (67.9), Ontario (67.8), and Quebec (67.3) have voter turnout rates just below.

At 61.1 per cent, Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest voter turnout rate among all the provinces.

Looks like Quebec is pretty average in voter turnout.

Quebec is certainly distinct but it is also similar. Quebec and Alberta are certainly most similar in their perpetual sense of victimhood. Quebec is one of the founding provinces of Canada yet acts as if it were forced to join. Alberta joined willingly. I think Canada is greater than the sum of its parts but in my opinion if either thinks they don't get enough by being members of the Canadian federation they should quit. 

Rachel Notley is no Jason Kenney but she has the same superior attitude and sense of entitlement towards the rest of Canada.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Please do start a new thread sharing your overall "thesis" for lack of a better word. I think it would be really interesting.

..i have a thread already existing here. and yes it is really interesting even if i say so myself.  unfortunately few participate. eta: be sure to check out the last page as it has the most adanced material on the state of the movements.

WWWTT

"To do that and forget the needs of working people, or to throw working people under the bus, means that both economic growth and environmental protection are bound to fail," said Notley.

Notley  is a political genius! Very clever comments if one understands the geopolitical complexities and nuances across Canada. 

Notley is the premiere of Alberta. Her #1 job is the promotion of socialist issues for the benefit of the people of Alberta first, the rest of Canada sometime after that. And Alberta just can’t abandon oil with no consequence. She knows very well that the rest of Canadians want that, that’s why her comments are brilliant and I suspect she’s a very good intellect!

If Notley abandons oil over night, she’s out next election! If her comments helps Jagmeet look more geared towards the interests of other parts of Canada and Jagmeet gets elected with a majority then Jag can do the dirty work federaly and Notley can work her magic provincially. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The piperline mess is Harper's fault. Not Notley,not Horgan and not even Trudeau.

But Notley is acting like a Conservative on this issue and Trudeau is messing it up. Notley throwing Singh under the bus does not do ther NDP any favours. If we're going to talk provincial and national ' interests' thaen Notley and Trudeau are doing their jobs.

We either recognize the pipeline as the interests of both Alberta and Canada in general or we tear apart Notley and Trudeau for being Big Oil shills.

But the person to blame for this mess is Harper. The Conservatives should sit down and shut up. This is their baby.

This phony shock about this pipeline is a joke. Everyone here recognizes it's for the interests of Alberta and the ROC. But they also recognize that it poses a real threat to the environment.

What are you going to do? The economy trumps the environment 100X out of 100.

Renewable energy,wind and solar would be great for the environment but try selling that to those working in the tarsands that are getting paid good money.

I think the feigned outrage is getting old. The pipelines are here to stay and the Trans Mountain pipeline WILL happen.

Disappointed? Blame Harper.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Everyone here recognizes it's for the interests of Alberta and the ROC.

... The pipelines are here to stay and the Trans Mountain pipeline WILL happen.

I've been hearing "the pipeline will be built" for a decade. I don't see any new pipeline. Why would anyone be shocked that the industry is trying to shove another one down someone's throat. I'm not even mildly surprised.

It  isn't in the best interests of the ROC. We don't need a petro dollar.

The workers in the oil sands don't get to decide. The ROC doesn't get to decide. The people of BC are deciding along with indigenous peoples.

As to what are we going to do? We're doing it. It is being fought to the Supreme Court and protesters are willing to be arrested. It's a game of chicken now.

It's Alberta that is out of moves not BC. The feds have some moves but no attractive ones and none that guarantee success.

Kinder Morgan is pulling  out, probably on Thursday.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

that may be true but someones going to pay a political price,even though it was under the Conservative government that this was hatched.

Notley is going to be blamed and raked over the coals by the UCP and so will the Liberals even if they are not the ones to blame ultimately.

It is a lose lose situation. Notley and Trudeau had to shill this pipeline to satisfy Alberta and their so called interests which was translated as the interest for Canada. Nothing to do with the environment at all. It was and is about money and jobs and federal taxes.

Its sad because the Conservatives are going to blame the ANDP and the Liberals and it will spill over to the federal NDP. People are very easily manipulated especially when you throw in platitudes like jobs and the over all Canadian economy.

This whole mess should be blamed on the Conservatives. They were te ones who got the ball rolling a decade ago and its failure is going to cost everyone but the CPC and the Alberta Conservatives.

If the pipeline was pushed ahead,the Liberals,ANDP and federal NDP would be torn apart by BC. It would probably save Notleys skin, I'm not sure if it would save the Liberals skin either way. This was one of many Harper booby traps built up during his 10 years of rule.

I personally hope the KM project dies. It's just who are going to be the collateral damage? It's going to come at a cost to everyone but the people who came up with this plan.

I guess we'll all have to wait and see. Either way the wrong people are going to be blamed. Harper is a chess master.   

Mighty Middle

Andrea Horwath blames Harper for Trans Mountain standoff

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/05/23/news/ontario-ndps-horwath-bl...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..while it's true that harper is an authoritarian right wing conservative. even he didn't have a real choice had he wanted one. to just blame the politicians demonstrates a misunderstanding of the power behind the tarsands project. it's a misunderstanding of the power of the transnational oil industry in conjunction with their financiers the banks. or the power of trade deals. not to mention that the us military is the tarsands number one customer.    

eta:

..i'd like to also point out that while the politicians aren't able to confront that enormous power the resistance to the pipelines by communities has. there is a lesson to be learned here.

Pondering

Harper didn't get a pipeline through in a decade. Trudeau has only been trying for 3 years. The Conservatives can throw stones but everyone knows they failed first.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

wage zombie wrote:

Mostly I don't understand how ecosocialists are going to be able to take over the country if we're not up to the task of taking over the lowly NDP.

..if the mountain won't come to muhammad, then muhammad must go to the mountain. :)

..this is not how things work. ecosocialist are not under one umbrella nor are they of one mind. you don't ask that of the labour movement nor even the ndp membership. yet you ask the ecosocalist to do it.

..what has happened under corbyn and sanders makes more sense though. where young people decided to come together from the outside to support someone or something they see as a way forward. this is not planned in the backrooms by lefties but spontaneous uprisings.

..not since the npi has such a thing happened with the ndp. and that was thoroughly squashed. 

Rev Pesky

epaulo13 wrote:

..now show me proof that the leap is calling for site c to be built please. show me proof that the leap is standing against the struggle going on by indigenous folk and ranchers in the area to have it stopped.

The Leap Manifesto cites this document as a source for it's claims of being able to have completely renewable electricity by 2050. Here is a link to the Leap Manifesto page with the citation

Leap Manifesto citation

Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I - 

- Mark Z. Jacobson a, Mark A. Delucchi b,
a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA
b Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA

what the cited document says will be needed:

We estimate that 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, 40,000 300 MW solar PV power plants, 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, 270 new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and 490,000 1 MW tidal
turbines

270 Hydroelectric dams of the same capacity as Site C. In that there are only 195 countries in the world, and in that many of them have no ability to create hydroelectricity, that means many countries will have to host two or more of those hydroelectric dams.

Strangely enough, the two people who wrote the document cited by the Leap Manifesto believe that hydroelectricity is both renewable and clean. With which the Leap Manifestians apparently agree.

Pogo Pogo's picture

And current power needs may be covered without Site C, but Leap demands the replacement of the burning of fossil fuels.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..your ignoring the demands rev. i won't play your game.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pogo wrote:

And current power needs may be covered without Site C, but Leap demands the replacement of the burning of fossil fuels.

..so do i.

eta:

..an example. instead of site c lets use the money to build awesome transit sytems. offer a zero fare ride.

Pogo Pogo's picture

epaulo.  I agree with your direction, we have to use less energy of whatever type.  We differ from LEAP.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pogo wrote:

epaulo.  I agree with your direction, we have to use less energy of whatever type.  We differ from LEAP.

..glad to see we agree on this pogo. but i don't really differ with the leap. the leap is all about community decision making which is at the heart of my politics. the leap was never meant to be dogmatic document though some may see it that way.

Rev Pesky

Pogo wrote:

And current power needs may be covered without Site C, but Leap demands the replacement of the burning of fossil fuels.

Had it occurred to you that Alberta currently generates nearly 84% of their electricity by coal or gas? If Site C isn't needed in BC, it could very well be sold into Alberta, decreasing by a significant percentage the CO2 produced by Alberta electrical generation.

Rev Pesky

epaulo13 wrote:

..your ignoring the demands rev. i won't play your game.

I'm merely stating the facts. The fact is the Leap Manifesto cites a supporting document that calls for a huge increase in hydroelectric power generation. 

​If you want to abandon the Leap Manifesto that's fine by me. It's a non-starter in any case, but let me ask this question of you. This 'community decision making' you talk about. What constitutes a community, according to you? 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..your ignoring the demands rev. i won't play your game.

I'm merely stating the facts. The fact is the Leap Manifesto cites a supporting document that calls for a huge increase in hydroelectric power generation. 

​If you want to abandon the Leap Manifesto that's fine by me. It's a non-starter in any case, but let me ask this question of you. This 'community decision making' you talk about. What constitutes a community, according to you? 

..i disagree. you were asked 2 specific questions

..now show me proof that the leap is calling for site c to be built please. show me proof that the leap is standing against the struggle going on by indigenous folk and ranchers in the area to have it stopped.

 ..you didn't answer those questions at all let alone with facts. you answered with assumption while ignoring the facts (the demands) that define the supporting document you quoted.

Rev Pesky

​Well, I certainly showed you proof that the Leap Manifesto is in agreement with hydroelectric power generation. I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean Site C, but those dams have to be put somewhere. Why not on a river that already has two hydro dams? I mean, there's no point considering someplace where they have neither a river nor a drop.

As far as communities and their right to influence such decisions, I'll just point out that region is very strongly pro-rightwing, and has been for a long time. It it was based on a vote of the local population, Site C would have been built a long time ago.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..for the last time. the power isn't needed by bc. it's a financial disaster for bc when these monies are needed elsewhere. and not built on the backs of people to power lng.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean Site C, but those dams have to be put somewhere. Why not on a river that already has two hydro dams? I mean, there's no point considering someplace where they have neither a river nor a drop.

Is anyone aware of ANY community in Canada that could feasibly support a project on the scale of Site C, and in which the locals, including Indigenous locals, would support or encourage such a development?

I just can't think of the last time I heard of anyone saying "yes, we would like a dam" -- and yet without them, how shall we generate hydroelectric power?

Where would be the BEST choice?  The answer cannot just be "anywhere but Site C".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Either the money for Site C or Trans Mountain could buy a lot of new ideas and technologies that are just waiting for capital.  I do not understand how all our politicians whether federal Liberals or BC and Alberta NDP'ers have been captured by the oil and gas industry when the people seem to be hoping for a better future not climate chaos.

Site C is being built to power LNG not to keep the lights on in my house. Building it will mean I am going to pay more for turning on the lights for the rest of my life and therefore I am being forced to fund LNG development by the backdoor.

http://www.marinerenewables.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Campbell-River...

Rev Pesky

epaulo13 wrote:

..for the last time. the power isn't needed by bc.

As I pointed out above, the power could easily be sent to Alberta to cut down on emissions there (where a large percentage of the electricity is fossil-fuel generated). And since when are green opposed to spending money. Every green project ever implemented was subsidised by taxpayers, with nary a word of disapproval from the conservationists.

Rev Pesky

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Site C is being built to power LNG

It would be interesting to see some evidence to confirm this. 

Pages