Rachel Notley tours Canada to advocate for pipelines

333 posts / 0 new
Last post
cco

progressive17 wrote:

In the production of an electric car, just as much environmental damage is done as in the production of a gasoline car. The mining of lithium is one of the most disgusting businesses on the planet.

Not as much environmental damage is done, however, in the use of an electric car, which is the actual point.

Quote:
Not only that, but in Montreal alone there are 20,000 km of roads which are paved and patched with bitumen (which I can determine from the stench). So they can drive their E-cars made using mining (and energy mostly derived from fossil fuels), and on roads made with heavy oil. But they can feel good about themselves, I suppose.

When I take transit to somewhere the metro doesn't serve, I board a bus. It drives those same roads. Should I feel just as guilty as someone driving? Would it be no improvement whatsoever if every transit bus in the city were electrified?

Quote:
Yeah, reducing pollution is a great idea. But the answer is to get as many cars off the road as possible, gasoline or electric. That means making it easier for people to get to work and to where they want to shop, get care, and be entertained. Uh, much more accessible transit.

I don't think anyone on this board is arguing against expanding accessible transit. Some people don't use it, whether it's because they can't given their commute, they're truck drivers hauling cargo, or they're just the stereotypical selfish driver we all love to hate. Surely it's better to have them driving electric cars than the gasoline-powered variety. In the face of a climate catastrophe, every little bit helps.

lagatta4

I found it very weird for progressive to attack me on this when I'm a known enemy of private cars. I was simply talking about electrification to reduce pollution, above all the number of private cars on the road. I know about the pollutants in batteries; there are a lot of pollutants in conventional cars as well.

 

Pondering

lagatta4 wrote:

I found it very weird for progressive to attack me on this when I'm a known enemy of private cars. I was simply talking about electrification to reduce pollution, above all the number of private cars on the road. I know about the pollutants in batteries; there are a lot of pollutants in conventional cars as well.

I think it's pretty funny even though I am on your side of this debate.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If you haven't seen this, just read (actually, scroll through) it.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/kinder-morgan-tra...

Sure it's the corporate media, but even without getting into the problems inland, and the Fraser valley aquifers, this takes this debate from theory to logistical reality.

This is excellent and I have shared it a few times on Facebook.  The reason why those vessels have Canadian pilots on board are because of what mariners call cabatage laws. Those laws are under attack around the globe because it adds a "unnecesary" cost to what shipping companies have to pay for transit through internal shipping lanes. In Canada February 23 is a day of protest over the Liberal intention to adopt the Emerson Report that would do away with the cabatage laws at the same time as the tanker traffic increases expotentially.

https://ilwu.ca/ilwu-protest-the-upcoming-changes-to-cabotage-february-2...

quizzical

Unionist wrote:

Rachel Notley finds herself in pipeline battles at home and away

Quote:

The New Democratic Party Leader finished a cross-country tour this week designed to capture people's affections for Alberta's oil in general, and Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain planned pipeline expansion in particular. She finished her excursion in Vancouver on Thursday, speaking to an audience of mostly pipeline boosters at the board of trade. The hearty standing ovation she received at the conclusion of her speech was no great surprise.

A greater test of her message would have been a chat before the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. While Ms. Notley was getting easy applause in front of a pro-business crowd, the union's grand chief, Stewart Phillip, was issuing a news release promising more delays on the Trans Mountain project. He vowed a drawn-out and expensive legal battle that would not end well for the pipeline.

I'm still shaking my head after reading this sentence - guess I haven't managed to fully plumb the depths of Ms. Notley's obsessive crusade:

Quote:
It's Ms. Notley's belief that Mr. Kenney and his supporters have been cheerleading for opponents of the pipeline all along, quietly hoping it fails for their own political reasons.

Is this true? Asking those who are closer to the antediluvian politics of Alberta.

yep Kenneys win is by no means assured

the pcs might plug their nose and vote now even

and now Kennedy has knifed Derek fildebrandt he might lose even more wild rosters.

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I wasn't attacking anyone. To say that I was should probably not be unexpected. I was trying to make a few points to dispel the illusion that electric cars are a panacea. 

- Reducing car driving and keeping the roads for busses and delivery vehicles will drastically reduce wear and tear on those roads. In Germany, they charge trucks a per-kilometer charge for road usage, which pays for road repairs.

If you still have a car, drive behind just one truck during the summer, and witness for yourself the depression its wheels make in the asphalt in real time.

I mean, electric cars are so cool we have one orbiting around the sun now. Brought there by millions of pounds of thrust. Way to go, Elon!

lagatta4

I've never owned a car in my life, though of course a lot of people don't  have that choice, and not only in rural or remote areas. We do need alternatives. Town planning is another facet of this transition, to mean more walkable neighbourhoods and towns.

Unionist

Alberta launches petition, email tool to rally support for Trans Mountain pipeline

Quote:

Last week, Notley announced Alberta would no longer import wine from British Columbia for sale in the province's retail outlets.

She said on Monday she would give talks between B.C. and federal officials a couple of days before taking further action.

Bombing raids?

 

Unionist

Premier Notley praised by Alberta's energy industry for tough stance in pipeline dispute

Quote:

"We are very supportive of Premier Notley. She has shown some incredible leadership on this file," Mark Scholz, head of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, said Thursday at a panel discussion in Red Deer.

After imposing a boycott on B.C. wine last week, Notley formed a panel of experts to advise her on Alberta's options if B.C. blocks the federally approved pipeline expansion.

[...]

"We are very pleased that the government of Alberta is standing up for Alberta, standing up for jobs and standing up for fairness in Canada," said Jeff Gaulin, vice-president of communications for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), adding he backs Notley's creation of a panel to further explore Alberta's options.

Gaulin said the energy industry in Canada has three main needs right now: additional investment, more infrastructure like pipelines, and innovation.

"We're really challenged right now, and Canada is falling behind with increasing costs and new rules and complex regulatory systems from government," he said. 

I'm confident Ms. Notley will help reduce those costs, delete those rules, and simplify the regulatory systems. After all - jobs.

 

Mobo2000

Good lord.  So depressing.  I was really excited when the NDP won in Alberta, and I suppose I can add the obligatory "I understand the politics" caveat about their position now but everything about this situation sucks.   The chasm between the NDP's stated and traditional principles and their relentless shilling for the oil industry is so disheartening.   I would say they don't deserve to stay in power, but that's not my call, and unfortunately their position is playing well locally.

Unionist

Thanks for finding this short video essay, NorthReport!

Pipeline champion Rachel Notley casts herself as Alberta’s Iron Lady

Quote:

What do Richard Nixon, Margaret Thatcher and Rachel Notley have in common? According to Edmonton Journal columnist Paula Simons, more than you might think.

6079_Smith_W

Except the comparison wasn't that she was like Nixon or Thatcher, but that (at least in Nixon's case) her action is similar because she is playing against type That's why "only Nixon could go to China".

As political theatre commentary, Simons is bang on. Though more interesting is the one after it, about Notley casting Horgan as a someone who would see Canadian oil sold off to Trump at U.S. prices rather than world market prices.

 

Unionist

My questions: 1) Other than re-election, does Notley have any motive for what she's doing? 2) Can the NDP possibly be re-elected with this strategy?

6079_Smith_W

I expect she seriously supports it as the best thing for Alberta industry and I expect she is also serious about the jurisdictional argument.

And yes, possibly. Though it is still a longshot.

 

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I expect she seriously supports it as the best thing for Alberta industry and I expect she is also serious about the jurisdictional argument.

And yes, possibly. Though it is still a longshot.

 

Let's just say that her chances of being re-elected, whatever they may be in absolute terms, are far better if she pursues a pro-pipeline policy than if she doesn't.

6079_Smith_W

Absolutely. Not to mention that she is pushing Jason Kenney to do things like this in order to keep up with her:

http://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/bell-kenney-goes-after-teachers...

And certainly if she did not do this there would be little chance of re-election.

But Unionist was asking if there was any other motive. I think she honestly opposes B.C.'s decision on jurisdictional grounds, and that she honestly does want that pipeline expansion.

voice of the damned

Just listened to the Simons piece. The Thatcher comparison is lame, built entirely around their both being political leaders who took strong stands on certain issues(ie. The Falklands, Pipelines) that helped them(well, might help, in Notley's case) win re-election.

The Nixon comparison is slightly better, but only because "Nixon goes to China" has become the standby metaphor for a politician successfully doing the polar opposite of what would normally be expected of them.

https://tinyurl.com/yd5vclv6

 

voice of the damned

Smith wrote:

I think she honestly opposes B.C.'s decision on jurisdictional grounds, and that she honestly does want that pipeline expansion.

I would tend to agree. I think that, as far as "Nixons in China" go, this is probably at least as sincere as John Turner's opposition to the FTA in '88, and likely moreso.

 

6079_Smith_W

Though the comparison isn't actually about her (or Nixon) at all. It is about how seriously people are going to take her. If it was a Democrat doing it they would have been called a commie stooge. Nixon had enough anti-communist cred that no one could make that assumption, therefore only Nixon could to to China.

Similarly, although she is a shill for the oil companies here on babble, many people in Alberta are not going to see it that way, because unlike Brad Wall, she instituted a carbon tax, and held a royalty review.

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Though the comparison isn't actually about her (or Nixon) at all. It is about how seriously people are going to take her. If it was a Democrat doing it they would have been called a commie stooge. Nixon had enough anti-communist cred that no one could make that assumption, therefore only Nixon could to to China.

Similarly, although she is a shill for the oil companies here on babble, many people in Alberta are not going to see it that way, because unlike Brad Wall, she instituted a carbon tax, and held a royalty review.

Yeah, I oversimplified the metaphor. "Only Nixon could go to China", because, as you say, only Nixon was such a staunch anti-Communist.

Oh, and this is the wikipedia link I meant to post earlier...

https://tinyurl.com/ybohj4hr

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Given the decision to have only one thread, does the title need to be so mean-spirited?

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

Given the decision to have only one thread, does the title need to be so mean-spirited?

Point taken.

6079_Smith_W

Mean-spirited? babble? Heaven forbid!

Seriously though, it is fair, if biased, comment. Can't say I entirely disagree, though I think there is more too it.

voice of the damned

Well, I never thought I'd be defending a thread title on the opposite side of the argument from the person who came up with it, but this was by no means the first thread-title to have biased wording, even as the only thread dedicated to that topic. "Uber needs to be run out of town" certainly isn't winning any prizes for even-handedness.

That said, in order to be as conducive as possible for the expression of a variety of opinions, probably best to make the change.

 

Unionist

What change??

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Let us not offend any Albertan's. After all they need to get foreign owned oil to tidewater for a Texas scam artist so that it can be shipped overseas and add to climate change. Its in the national interest. What is not in the national interest is the environment of the Salish Sea or UNDRIP.  When you look at it cloaely how could she be shilling when it is clear what is in the national interest.  Think of all the jobs people in Fort McMurray will have fixing robotic trucks as Suncor and other companies gallop to full automization. 

NorthReport
NorthReport

Horgan and Notley are now best buddies again. That didn’t take long.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

dp

Pages