babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
NDP Environment Critic
You're making shit up. I never said Leslie said anything of the sort. Mulcair did.
There's nothing at that link that would help anybody understand the "economics of the situation of the Tar Sands". Mulcair talks only about how federal environmental laws apply to the tar sands and he says they should be enforced.
The link was quite educational, however, in reminding us of Mulcair's reactionary role in the Libby Davies affair. This quote in particular:
in my opinion completely disqualifies Mulcair as a suitable leader of any progressive party.
Please finish this sentence. When you use capitals what happens?
She is THE NDP Environment Critic. The party only has one at a time and she is it currently. What ever you were trying to say is still not clear? Let me guess. If you capitalize THE it means that he is NOT the Critic. Is that what you meant?
I would expect that like most NDP critics she will just speak the policy line. I believe the NDP current policy is still that new licenses should not be granted to expand. However of course by the time Harper loses government all the available leases and properties will have been gobbled up by petrol companies who will sue under NAFTA if we try to take away their tar babies.
Does Mulcair explain where the money for reparations to oil companies is going to come from when he shuts down the tar sands and opens the federal government up to law suits that will likely start in the hundred billions. If t is unreasonable to argue we must get out of the corporate trade deals then how is not naive to say we can just shut down the tar sands with a snap of a finger.
Stand together against the tar-sands scourge
by Robert Redford, November 21, 2011
excerpt:
bitumen |biˈt(y)oōmən; bī-| (noun) 1. a carbon intense viscous oil trapped in a combination of sand and clay; 2. the (un)official sponsor of Canada's climate policy
Environmentalists say plan to pipe crude across Alberta and load it onto supertankers bound for Asia could lead to 'catastrophe'
Globe and Mail on Monday:
from guardian.co.uk ...
UK secretly helping Canada push its oil sands project
Tar sands issue needs closer examination
Northern Gateway Pipeline: First Nation Leaders Say They Are Closing B.C. Borders To Pipeline
excerpt:
VANCOUVER - First Nations' leaders in British Columbia say they've built "an unbroken wall of opposition" from the U.S border to the Arctic Ocean against a proposed $5.5 billion petroleum pipeline. The leaders announced Thursday that several First Nations have added their names to the Save the Fraser River Declaration, bringing the total number of signatory nations in B.C. to 61 and effectively closing the province's borders to the Northern Gateway project proposed by Enbridge (TSX:ENB).
The leaders announced they are also opposed to any efforts by Kinder Morgan to export Alberta tar-sands crude oil from B.C.'s south. "North or south, it makes no difference. First Nations from every corner of B.C. are saying absolutely no tar sands pipelines or tankers in our territories," said Jackie Thomas, chief of the Saik'uz First Nation, in a media release.
Update: Gitxsan Chiefs announce deal with Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline to partner in ownership of the $5.5 bill project to export oil.
Two things to say about the Gitxsan/Enbridge deal.
1) The news release makes it clear that Enbridge is LENDING the Gitxsan Nation money to purchase their ownership stake. So this is essentially a leveraged investment. What happens if there is another drop in commodity prices and the ownership stake becomes worth less than the loan? It's just like being underwater on a subprime mortgage, except it's an entire First Nation indebted to a corporation. What would be the consequences of this coming to pass?
2) I saw Nathan Cullen last night at a Vancouver talk, and he is of course quite familiar with many members of the Gitxsan community. I asked him for his take on this announcement, and he told me that he had elders and community members calling into his constituency office, upset that apparently a decision had been made on their behalf without any consultation whatsoever. Cullen essentially said to "wait for the other shoe to drop". There is already backlash but it just hasn't hit the mainstream media.
http://www.cjfw.ca/News/Story.aspx?ID=1580903
Cullen shocked at Gitxsan announcement MP seeking answers from Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Sahar Nassimdoost 12/2/2011Shock, upset, confusion and disbelief... is how Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen is describing the announcement that the Gitxsan Nation is in support of Enrbidge's Northern Gateway pipeline project.
Cullen says not only was he blind-sided by the news but says he's been getting calls all day from members of the Gitxsan nation including board members who say they were also completely shocked by the announcement.
"This was a very surprising and disappointing decision for me to hear. I'm going to have to verify this much further with the Gitxsan community and find out what the real message is and what's gone on here because it makes no sense. I've been in the Gitxsan territory a lot and met with many many people at forums and individually about Enbridge and the opposition to this is as overwhelming as it is in any other community."
Cullen says projects like that of Enbridge create a divide between communities and says supporting the project despite the tribe's financial challenges is economic and environmental suicide. He says he expects to speak with hereditary Chief Elmer Derrick as soon as possible to see what prompted the decision.
http://www.globaltvbc.com/money/bc+first+nations+community+split+over+su...
In announcing the agreement, Chief Elmer Derrick heralded his community's "trusted" relationship with Enbridge, and he estimated the deal would be worth at least $7 million for the Gitxsan.
But shortly after the announcement, a group claiming to represent other hereditary chiefs, including Geri McDougall, and four Gitxsan bands issued a news release denouncing the agreement.
The news release came from the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Gitxsan Treaty Society and the B.C. Treaty Commission over complaints about ongoing treaty negotiations with the federal and provincial governments.
The release said members of the Gitxsan nation weren't consulted about the Northern Gateway agreement, and argued it was wrong to sign a deal before the environmental impact assessment process is finished.
"Elmer Derrick and the Gitxsan Treaty Society/Gitxsan Economic Development Corp. does not speak for all Gitxsan," the news release said.
"The representatives say that Mr. Derrick has embarrassed and shamed the Gitxsan people by undermining the 61 First Nations who are opposed to the project. The representatives say, 'We stand in solidarity to those opposing it.'"
NASA has a revealing sequence of satellite photos of the Tar Sands, one shot per year from 1984 to 2011, and superimposed for easy comparison.
"A startling new study from the Center for Global Development shows that full development of the Canadian Tar Sands would have a devastating effect on global food production, especially in climate vulnerable continents such as Africa.
"A loss in agricultural productivity due to climate change will affect more than 3 billion people around the world. Because of the massive carbon emissions from the Canadian Tar Sands, full exploitation of the resource would lead to a 5.6 percent loss in productivity, with 25 countries experiencing losses of 7.1 percent. Countries with especially damaging impacts include the already drought stricken Ethiopia, Sudan, and other Horn of Africa nations, as well as major population centers like India." --Jamie Henn
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/03-8
This is what Ezra Levant and his ilk call "ethical oil."
And now for some Enbridge-funded lies...
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/residents+support+Northern+Gateway+...
B.C. residents support Northern Gateway pipeline project: pollThe devil, as always, is in the details. Check this out:
The online poll, involving 1,000 British Columbians during the Dec. 12-15 period, began by describing Northern Gateway as a proposal to build an underground pipeline from the Edmonton area to Kitimat, B.C.
"One pipeline will transport oil to Kitimat for export by tanker to China and other Asian markets. A second pipeline will be used to import condensate (a product used to thin oil products for pipeline transport) to Alberta."
Do you see something wrong here? Well, this Enbridge survey says the pipeline will transport "oil". That's not really correct. It's transporting bitumen, which will be shipped by tanker to be processed into "oil" and other products abroad. There's a significant difference, because "oil" would imply that we're exporting a refined product that was processed here in Canada.
There are other critiques of course, but this is the first one that comes to mind.
And it's the weakest of the many critiques. Who wants to argue that Canada should be in the business of processing bitumen into oil? We don't need more oil production. We need less. We need to stop the mining and processing of fossil hydrocarbons, for the sake of the planet. We must begin the transition NOW to a low-carbon economy.
Arguing over whether bitumen should be processed in Canada or elsewhere is like arguing over the length of the rope we want to hang ourselves with.
Just to be clear, what I meant was a critique of the survey methodology that led to a result implying majority support for the pipeline. There are absolutely dozens of urgent environmental critiques of the pipeline itself - I'm just looking at the poll and asking, how did the framing affect the responses, and how can we critique that?
The first thing that jumped out at me as counterfactual was the bitumen/oil terminology. I have not actually read the whole report on the survey but I'm sure there are many other biases in it introduced by Enbridge's involvement.
Now the Cons (Joe Oliver on Question Period today) are attacking American environmental lobbyists, calling them radical environmentalists active in Canada, and saying environmental lobbyists will now have limited access to the northern gateway pipeline hearings. Oliver calls the northern gateway pipeline a bonanza for aboriginals, as they will have equity and job opportunities like never before. The prick is obviously lying through his teeth.
Then he went to say the oil sands will produce three trillion dollars of revenue, of which governments will get hundreds of billions of dollars to use in social programs and aboriginal funding.
Okay, let's say governments will get a thousand billion dollars (one trillion). Who gets the other two trillion dollars??? The oil companies???
ETA: a friend in the USA writes about this: "That sounds like a great idea - a liberal social engineering tax on conservative projects that despoil the environment. You canucks are geniuses."
ETA: 'Radical' environmentalists slammed by Tory minister
Some of the comments that follow the CBC article are interesting. I like this one: "It really looks indefensible for the Ministry of Natural Resources to be out shilling for the tarsands and pipelines. Isn't it the job of Natural Resources to, you know, actually *protect* our natural resources, instead of selling them out to the highest bidder?"
A good 2/3 of P&P tonight was on the Oliver story, he really got taken apart by almost everyone, including Evan Solomon, the only ones who came to his defense were (predictably) the Conservative pundits. But Geoff Norquay huffed and puffed and tried to intimidate the panel into submission, but Rebecca Blaikie, bless her heart, easily shot him down. Dion was difficult to undertsnad, but he did get a couple of good points across - particularly when the debate brought in the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline. Elizabeth May was also very good, as was the NDP guy on the frst or second panel - can't remember his name, I think he's the NDP Environment critic. The Cons are just totally out to lunch on this matter.
So can we expect to be able to shut out radical foreign pro-oil activists from the assessment process too?
Not likely. The Koch Bros. have their reps at the hearings.
Whoever he was, he isn't the NDP Environment Critic, at least not federally.
Maybe he was filling in for Megan Leslie? She's been on P&P many times, I was surprised not to see her on the show last night.