Rachel Notley tours Canada to advocate for pipelines

333 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2017-11-10 17:43

Unionist

Notley looks to rally national support for pipeline as counter to UCP

Quote:
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley will embark on a speaking tour this month to ask Canadians to gather national support for a new pipeline project, in an effort to neutralize a sustained political attack from a United Conservative Party energized by the recent crowning of Jason Kenney. [...]

"There is not a school, hospital, road or bike lane anywhere in the country that doesn't owe something to oil and gas," Ms. Notley said in a statement. [...]

Two years into her term as Premier, Ms. Notley's tone on energy development has become harder – even in relation to those in her own party.

She said in Question Period on Monday that federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh's position against the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is "dead wrong."

"But just as important, he is irrelevant," she said.

Hopefully Alberta voters will soon turf this pathetic excuse for a "social democrat" and elect the real thing - Jason Kenney. Then we can all look the enemy in the face without feeling conflicted.

Fri, 2017-11-10 18:14

epaulo13

..txs for the tread unionist

Sat, 2017-11-11 17:25

contrarianna

Thanks Unionist.
This situation with Notely has been around a very long time.
Not much comment so far because no matter who is wearing the NDP jersey, criticism of team members, even if they are in conflict with other NDP governments is avoided by the fan base here.

The pipeline/tanker proposal is a major issue here in BC. Before the present BC NDP govenment, it would have proceeded without a hitch with the previous exceptionally vile BC Liberals.

Aside from the promotion of climate killing fossil fuels, and the tar sands destruction of northern Alberta; indigenous lands and all the other land-based environmental issues involving a massive pipeline, the MAJOR fear in BC is the 7-fold increase in bitumen supertanker traffic in BC's treacherous coastal waters.
Any major coastline spill will be an utter disaster.

Notely with her ally Trudeau and the other corporate shills that constitute the Canadian Government will likely be successful in pushing this through.

Pipeline approval put Alberta's needs ahead of B.C.'s oil-spill concerns

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pipeline-approval-put-alberta-s-needs-ahead...

Sat, 2017-11-11 19:57

Mr. Magoo

It's kind of understandable that Alberta's government, no matter who they are, would be in favour of oil and pipelines and suchlike, in the same way that the government of Nova Scotia might suggest we should all eat more fish.

But to be fair, while Alberta produces more oil than the other provinces combined, I'm not sure that they use more than the other provinces combined. Any Canadian who wants to leave dinosaur juice behind is always free to walk, or bike, or buy an electric car (and hope their hydro isn't made of dinosaur juice). But a lack of demand for gas is really what it will take, not one province "growing a backbone".

Sat, 2017-11-11 21:24

NorthReport

Alberta will be getting their oil out to the West Coast as well although many could end up being surprised how Kinder Morgan does it

Sat, 2017-11-11 20:54

epaulo13

Any Canadian who wants to leave dinosaur juice behind is always free to walk, or bike, or buy an electric car

..there's a whole political and economic system that says different. you can't just imagine a truly functional transit system or pretend that a trade deal doesn't protect the rights of corporations to pillage this resource no matter the cost to the population. biking doesn't resolve the real conditions like it being dangerous or winter or a multitude of other reasons.

..to change a direction you need country wide supports both political and financial and that is seriously lacking. you can't just transfer the responsibility and blame onto individuals. for one it's a terrible analysis of why the problem exists. for another much of the populations has been engaged for the past 10+ years trying to force a different path. for indigenous folk it's been a multi generations of struggle.

..we can exist without the tar sands with it's acceptance we continue to support a system that will surely kill any decent prospects for a future.

Sat, 2017-11-11 21:16

Unionist

Um, Magoo, old buddy, this thread isn't about whether we should use oil and gas or not. It's about Big Oil and its slavish Alberta politicians (Kenney, Notley, etc.) looking for way to get their toxic product out of landlocked Alberta to refineries and ports. Québec stood up, as one, and told them in graphic terms where they could put their bitumen en route to Irving - somewhere else. To the shock and horror of the Notleys of this world, Energy East died. Now, in her/their desperation, they're looking for alternatives. I believe the people of B.C. will be no less unanimous in their opposition than we were.

So please, please, try and pay attention. We'll use oil and gas if we feel like it. But no one will use our towns and villages and waterways - and our lives - as a highway for their filthy profits. Not if we can help it.

I do trust, Magoo, that my attempt to explain the issue raised in this thread is better understood now.

Sat, 2017-11-11 21:20

NorthReport

Mind you, whoever thought up this stupid tactic needs to have their head read

How unpleasant for a bunch of kayakers out of Deep Cove to encounter something like this!

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/kinder-morgan-erects-razor-wire-fence-around-trans-mountain-terminal-in-burrard-inlet-1.4398678

Sat, 2017-11-11 22:26

(Reply to #8) #9

Pondering

contrarianna wrote:

Notely with her ally Trudeau and the other corporate shills that constitute the Canadian Government will likely be successful in pushing this through.

So far pipeline opponents have been winning through the courts and through physical protest. The mayor of Burnaby is willing to get arrested it if comes to that. So far demonstrations haven't been massive but I think they will get that way if all other avenues fail and construction starts.

My bet is the citizens of BC along with provincial and municipal governments will prevent it from going through. The oil industry is so used to bullying its way though that it can't believe it is being stopped. They arrogantly put down mats to prevent salmon from spawning in an area without permits that they plan on disrupting with construction which has not yet been approved. Then they said they were doing it to protect salmon because it would be disrupted when the construction begins. Then finally they said not doing it would cause unacceptable delays that will cost them millions of dollars.

Every legal means possible will be used to stop the pipeline. That alone is going to continue causing expensive delays. The mayor of Burnaby is refusing to step in to push Kinder Morgan permits through faster. He is claiming they have to get in line like everyone else. I don't think the NEB can order the city to give Kinder Morgan special treatment. If they try to I smell a Supreme Court case which takes forever. Even if they lose their cases along the road the delay alone could cause Kinder Morgan to have to give up the same way the industry had to give up on EE. If Kinder Morgan is still determined at that point citizens will physically block construction, even the mayor. As long as there is a critical mass of peaceful protesters they can't arrest everyone. They aren't going to put 10,000 people behind bars.

I'm not in BC so I can't get a feel for how strongly people are opposed but it seems to me this issue is powerful enough to be a deal-breaker. So much so that it could start an independence movement.

Whatever the constitution says about federal/provincial division of powers ultimately both require the consent of the governed.

Sat, 2017-11-11 23:08

#10

Pogo

When Quebec stops buying oil being delivered by ships powered by bunker fuel I will salute them.

Sun, 2017-11-12 09:37

(Reply to #10) #11

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

When Quebec stops buying oil being delivered by ships powered by bunker fuel I will salute them.

I don't think Québec needs to be saluted, nor do I see it as a leader in the fight against climate change. I merely think its right (like that of B.C. and all other provinces and communities) not to be forced to become highways for Alberta's big oil masters should be respected. And Ms. Notley could stop her travelling sales job and stay home and ponder the development of a sustainable economy and the expansion of social justice.

Sun, 2017-11-12 12:00

#12

epaulo13

..from june

B.C. grand chief responds to Alberta premier on Trans Mountain, warning it 'will never see the light of day'

quote:

"Mark my words, that pipeline will be built, the decisions have been made," Notley said.

"Mark my words," Phillip said in response. "The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project will never see the light of day."

quote:

'Speaking out one side of her mouth'

Phillip called Notley a hypocrite, saying she supports the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples in Alberta while disregarding it through the pipeline project.

"She's speaking out one side of her mouth that they need to uphold and embrace the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and then on the other hand completely rejecting the notion that we have the right to free, prior and informed consent to protect and defend the health, safety and well-being of our people and the environmental integrity of our respective territories," said Phillip.

The Squamish Nation, located in the Lower Mainland region of B.C., is opposed to the pipeline and disappointed by Notley's remarks.

Squamish Chief Ian Campbell said Notley is forgetting to consider Indigenous rights on the issue.

"I was very disheartened to see a public official in Canada using such offensive language that completely disregards Aboriginal rights and title," said Campbell.

Sun, 2017-11-12 12:07

#13

epaulo13

How the oil industry created a ‘deep state’ in Canada

quote:

Democracy depends on a wide range of institutions: political parties; courts, police, and media; non-partisan civil servants and arms-length regulators; and universities with experts who pursue truth wherever evidence may lead. A key feature of democracy is that these institutions are genuinely independent. They are not beholden to any private interest, and are instead loyal to the public interest and obedient to the rule of law.

But what happens when public institutions lose their independence? Even more, what happens when a whole series of democratic institutions falls under the sway of one private interest? This would occur, for example, when the governing party, the opposition party, the civil service, universities and regulators all follow the lead of the same private interest.

When several key democratic institutions are captured and held by the same private interest, a “deep state” forms. A deep state is an unofficial system of government that arises separately from, but is closely connected to, the official system. It is a public-private hybrid that operates outside public view. In a modern democracy like Canada, a deep state typically comprises leading owners and executives of major private interests and their allies, together with a selection of politicians and bureaucrats tied to the success of those private interests. A successful deep state captures and harnesses the institutions of democracy for its own use.

Very few private interests have the resources to establish a deep state. In Canada, one that does is the oil industry.

Sun, 2017-11-12 12:26

#14

Unionist

Great posts, thanks epaulo. Now I have to go find Kevin Taft's book! Why hadn't I heard about this??

Sun, 2017-11-12 12:31

#15

Pogo

@11. I have been to Burnaby Mountain to join the protests (much as I detest Derrick Corrigan). I see the environmental problems particularly for oil travelling west. But in the climate change battle it is at most just a tool to build awareness. Shutting off one faucet of world full of faucets is not the answer. It does not make gas/oil any less available either locally or on the grand scale.

We need to turn our energy to reducing the uses of energy. Either by being smart (expand our rail system) or by taking a a hard look at personal use. Cherry picking the local oil producer is a way of putting off that discussion.

Sun, 2017-11-12 12:38

#16

epaulo13

..that is not how it's being used pogo because the corporations are in charge. and that is what we must deal with.

Sun, 2017-11-12 12:52

#17

epaulo13

Tailings ponds: The worst is yet to come

The sheer size and scope of Alberta's some 20 oil sands tailings ponds is unprecedented for any industry in the world. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, one of these ponds — the Mildred Lake Settling Basin — is the world's largest dam by volume of construction material. Since oilsands mining operations started in 1967, 1.3 trillion litres of fluid tailings has accumulated in these open ponds on the Northern Alberta landscape (Figure 1). This is enough toxic waste to fill 400,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Sun, 2017-11-12 13:08

#18

epaulo13

..and yes there are alternatives

A Bold Clean-Up Plan for Alberta’s Giant Oil Industry Pollution Liabilities

‘RAFT’ proposal would replace energy jobs with needed clean-up work.

quote:

So here goes.

RAFT is built on several premises. The first is that the time for fossil fuel extraction has ended in Alberta. The low fruit has been picked and nobody saved anything for the future.

The second is that climate change has become a clear and present danger. “We need to start making a real reduction in man-made emissions so our future generations have the same opportunities we once did” says the RAFT proposal.

The best way to respond to this emergency — as well as increasing oil price volatility — is to wind down the industry and re-employ people in a massive environmental clean-up, RAFT proposes. While industry has a legal obligation to clean up its inactive wells and abandoned pipelines, it probably won’t spend the money unless government tackles some surprising legal obstacles.

Sun, 2017-11-12 13:17

#19

NorthReport

Yes let’s blame Alberta’s first social democratic government for the oil industry’s transgressions, and I’m sure having the political alternative is going to make the situation much, much better

Go figure!

Well said Pogo

Sun, 2017-11-12 13:14

#20

epaulo13

..i'll post this then stop for a while to allow for discussion.

..the tarsands aren't even good for folks in alberta as a whole.

Ralph Klein's multibillion dollar liability is about to blow up in Alberta's face

quote:

Which brings us back to Redwater Energy and the government-owned ATB. The 2016 decision by Alberta’s chief justice “flies in the face of any conception of the polluter-pays principle,” says Nigel Bankes, University of Calgary Chair of Natural Resource Law.

“Any effort to restore the pre-eminence of the polluter pays principle will require statutory amendments [and] changes in regulatory practice. The most obvious candidate for amendment is the BIA itself but this may well prove to be an immovable object given the desire to protect the interests of secured creditors.”

Alberta needs a super-priority to prevent producers from escaping liability through bankruptcy, but the changes can only come federally. Because the Redwater decision has national implications, all Canadians need that super-priority to hold all polluters accountable for cleaning up mines and pulp mills in bankruptcy. Without it, polluters will simply walk away with their pockets stuffed full of money, leaving taxpayers burdened with the cost of cleanup.

Sun, 2017-11-12 13:22

#21

NorthReport

http://www.bnn.ca/notley-s-pipeline-tour-will-attract-more-opponents-than-supporters-ex-energy-minister-1.909476

Sun, 2017-11-12 15:37

(Reply to #21) #22

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Yes let’s blame Alberta’s first social democratic government for the oil industry’s transgressions, and I’m sure having the political alternative is going to make the situation much, much better

You support her stand on this issue, NorthReport?

Sun, 2017-11-12 20:27

#23

Pogo

Corporations are not driving the cars, buying the goods or taking plane trips to exotic locations. If all the oil came from state owned corporations the problem would not change. Corporations evil as they may be are just a convenient scapegoat so individuals can avoid taking responsibility for their own action.

Sun, 2017-11-12 20:37

#24

Unionist

Corporations buy governments, which refuse to build affordable and rational mass transit infrastructures, which subsidize tar sands, which withdraw Canada from the Kyoto accord, which create economies based on non-renewable resource extraction...

Should we blame individuals for not taking action and replacing their car with a horse? Maybe. Should we blame individuals for not standing up and overthrowing these corporate-owned governments? Maybe. Should we blame ourselves when, instead of mobilizing people to stand up in their millions, we lecture them to change their lifestyles without changing the socio-politico-economic system? Yes.

Pogo wrote:
If all the oil came from state owned corporations the problem would not change.

Good refutation of an argument no one made.

Sun, 2017-11-12 20:42

#25

epaulo13

..i disagree pogo. what is easy is to blame those with the least power in the equation. much more difficult to take on the governments and transnational corporations which must be done if you want to lessen the environmental destruction or fund transit to the extent that is needed for folks to get out of their vehicles. to suggest that those entities are at the mercy of the population who refuse to give up their cars is ridiculous. it's the other way round.

Sun, 2017-11-12 20:44

#26

epaulo13

‘There’s a New Normal’: Canadians Fear Consequences of Not Taking Action on Climate Change in New Poll

A new poll on Canadian attitudes on climate change reveals some pretty stunning numbers about public desire for politicians to act.

The poll by Abacus Data found 85 per cent of Canadians are convinced the consequences of not taking action on climate change will result in “catastrophic,” “very severe” or “severe” consequences to wildlife and animal habitats, agriculture and farming, coastal cities and towns and human health and safety.

“There’s a new normal in Canada on the issue of climate change,” said Abacus chairman Bruce Anderson. “Half of voters won’t consider politicians who don’t take the issue seriously – and most other voters also believe action is needed and inaction will result in catastrophe.”

Sun, 2017-11-12 21:07

(Reply to #26) #27

Pogo

So the argument is not with them producing oil but rather using their muscle to promote an oil culture? And the response is to attack the production of oil. Clever end run.

Yes we need to make different decisions individually and as community to reduce the footprint. I spoke with a truck driver a few years ago who noted that Thrifty Foods (a mainly Vancouver Island food chain) has a tractor trailer leaving LA every day full of bananas. If these were travelling by rail the fuel cost shrinks drastically. Imagine the fule logistics of our daily lives and what we need to do - the task is massive. That is what we need to focus on, and yes attack any entity that is distracting us from that which we must do.

If I had two rallies at the same time. One is to highlight the oil companies blame in our problems and another was to highlight our need to change, I would go to the second one.

Sun, 2017-11-12 21:23

#28

epaulo13

..it's not an end run. even ndp governments haven't stepped up to the plate so we stop the corporation directly. maybe it will be different now in bc..we'll see. in any case we need to do everything at once on all fronts. there is hope when i see european cities starting to ban cars.

Sun, 2017-11-12 21:25

#29

NorthReport

Yea let's kick the shit out of Notley because having Jason Kenney would be so much better.

Alberta puts up $40M to help workers transition during coal-power phase-out

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/alberta-puts-up-40m-to-help-workers-trans...

Sun, 2017-11-12 21:29

#30

epaulo13

..no it wouldn't but notley chose her side. what did you expect..that people would shut up because she's ndp? that people would allow the pipelines?

Sun, 2017-11-12 21:46

#31

NorthReport

Funny, some folks think Notley is the oil hater. Maybe we should be targeting the real enemy, eh!

The battle of Notley the oil-hater vs Kenney the bully

And for their turn, Kenney’s surrogate MLAs—he’s not one himself yet—hammered away daily with scripted attacks on pipelines, and picked up Kenney’s campaign theme of equal-time bashing of Notley and Trudeau, in hopes of tying an unpopular NDP premier to an unpopular-in-Alberta Liberal PM and arguing she won’t defend Alberta’s energy sector. (Prediction: UCP campaign slogan for 2019: “Stand up for Alberta”—just like Harper’s first winning campaign in 2006.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-battle-of-notley-the-oil-hater-vs-ke...

Sun, 2017-11-12 21:50

#32

epaulo13

..the corporations are the real enemy. the rest are just stooges for the corporations.

Sun, 2017-11-12 22:00

#33

NorthReport

Yea, abdicate any personal responsibility

it is easy to find a scapegoat when folks don’t want to do the hard work themselves

Sun, 2017-11-12 22:19

(Reply to #33) #34

Pondering

Pogo wrote:
We need to turn our energy to reducing the uses of energy. Either by being smart (expand our rail system) or by taking a a hard look at personal use. Cherry picking the local oil producer is a way of putting off that discussion.

That discussion is happening all the time. No one is cherry picking the local producer. We aren't doing anything to the local producer at all.

Nobody trusts the oil companies to build safe pipelines because so far they haven't managed to do it. The oil industry as a whole focused on cutting costs and maximizing profits over safety only doing what they have been forced to do. Lac Megantic happened because the oil industry wanted to shave costs. Even now they don't want to pay to clean up the old oil wells in Saskatchewan. They expect taxpayers to do it.

The rest of the country doesn't trust oil companies and with excellent reason.

Pogo wrote:
Corporations are not driving the cars, buying the goods or taking plane trips to exotic locations. If all the oil came from state owned corporations the problem would not change. Corporations evil as they may be are just a convenient scapegoat so individuals can avoid taking responsibility for their own action.

What does any of that have to do with pipelines? There is no oil shortage.

Pogo wrote:
So the argument is not with them producing oil but rather using their muscle to promote an oil culture? And the response is to attack the production of oil. Clever end run.

No one is attacking the production of oil. Alberta can produce as much as it wants. It can't impose dangerous pipelines on other provinces regardless of who owns the oil companies.

Refine ALL of the oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Then there will be no need to transport bitumen by land or sea. You can send out fully refined fuel instead and it would be far more profitable than shipping out raw bitumen.

Alberta is being suckered by multi-national oil companies. Don't blame others for that.

Pogo wrote:
Yes we need to make different decisions individually and as community to reduce the footprint. ...That is what we need to focus on, and yes attack any entity that is distracting us from that which we must do.

Fighting pipelines isn't interfering in the attempts to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Pogo wrote:
If I had two rallies at the same time. One is to highlight the oil companies blame in our problems and another was to highlight our need to change, I would go to the second one.

I've never heard of a rally to blame oil companies for anything other than specific spills. Other than that they have been against pipelines and projects not against the oil companies themselves. Earth Day is about our need to change and there are demonstrations against all kinds of pollutants not just oil pipelines.

Laws have been passed forcing fuel efficiencies and improving home insulation. Energy efficient lighting and electric vehicles have been developed and are improving every day. Battery storage is being improved yearly.

[/quote]

Sun, 2017-11-12 22:22

#35

epaulo13

..i've posted some pretty devastating stuff in this thread nr. stuff that notley is complicit with. why don't make an argument instead of trying to make it personal?

Sun, 2017-11-12 22:32

#36

NorthReport

The naivety being expressed here about Alberta politics is disheartening

Sun, 2017-11-12 22:46

(Reply to #36) #37

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:
The naivety being expressed here about Alberta politics is disheartening

It's not about Alberta politics. It's not even about climate change. It's about not trusting the transportation of bitumen by pipeline or ship. That isn't going to change.

The solution is not in trying to force other people to accept the risk. There is a very simple workaround. Refine the oil so you don't need to transport bitumen. Problem solved.

Sun, 2017-11-12 23:13

#38

Pogo

Pondering said "I've never heard of a rally to blame oil companies for anything other than specific spills."

You should come out to BC and come to one of the rally's on Burnaby mountain. Let me know and I will save a spot for you. I am not against opposing pipelines for environmental reasons or to strike a blow against capitalism gone wrong, I just find it silly to pretend it is a significant part of the battle to stop global warming. I also did note that you said no to pipelines and containers, but nothing about rail (arguably the highest potential for enviromental damage).

Sun, 2017-11-12 23:23

#39

NorthReport

And who decides on refineries? I know there has been a push for refineries on the coast in Bc but to no avail at least so far

but yes of course it is also about global warming and eventually getting off fossil fuels

Sun, 2017-11-12 23:30

(Reply to #39) #40

Pogo

epaulo13 wrote:

..i've posted some pretty devastating stuff in this thread nr. stuff that notley is complicit with. why don't make an argument instead of trying to make it personal?

Just from reading the summary of post 20, I agree that the province under the Conservatives has allowed serious envrionmental harm, but didn't it state that the resolution would have to come from the Federal Government? In general I won't dispute environmental damage claims - isn't that the standard for resource extraction industries (thinking Mount Polly in BC as a recent example).

As for politicians I have long believed trusting politicians to do the right thing is folly. 90% of the time they are going to go where the votes are. Left politicians will be a bit better in that they are looking for 90% of the votes on their side of the ledger. I have found in local campaigns one must look past the politicians, while at the same time leaving room for them to come on side (not demonizing them so badly that they see no value in changing).

Sun, 2017-11-12 23:51

(Reply to #40) #41

epaulo13

NorthReport wrote:

The naivety being expressed here about Alberta politics is disheartening

..not naive enough not to understand that you have always been a huge proponent of pipelines. your argument used to be mainly jobs jobs jobs. now your selling fear.

Mon, 2017-11-13 00:01

#42

epaulo13

No one is attacking the production of oil. Alberta can produce as much as it wants. It can't impose dangerous pipelines on other provinces regardless of who owns the oil companies.

..the movements are more ambitious. like the treaty alliance, the leap and many others. the object is to first stop the expansion of the tar sands and eventually end it as it is today.

http://www.treatyalliance.org/treaty/

Mon, 2017-11-13 00:18

(Reply to #42) #43

epaulo13

Pogo wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..i've posted some pretty devastating stuff in this thread nr. stuff that notley is complicit with. why don't make an argument instead of trying to make it personal?

Just from reading the summary of post 20, I agree that the province under the Conservatives has allowed serious envrionmental harm, but didn't it state that the resolution would have to come from the Federal Government? In general I won't dispute environmental damage claims - isn't that the standard for resource extraction industries (thinking Mount Polly in BC as a recent example).

As for politicians I have long believed trusting politicians to do the right thing is folly. 90% of the time they are going to go where the votes are. Left politicians will be a bit better in that they are looking for 90% of the votes on their side of the ledger. I have found in local campaigns one must look past the politicians, while at the same time leaving room for them to come on side (not demonizing them so badly that they see no value in changing).

..yes that was said about the fed regarding liability. and not just conservatives. it was notley who made an agreement with big oil to provide for an tar sands expansion of 40%. this is huge and had nothing to do with the feds. this increases that liability issue. it adds more fuel to the fire.

..it is my opinion that the pipeline struggles are based on community control which can bypass politicians. the bc ndp at the time of dix, the majority of the caucus supported kinder morgan. it was the resistance that forced them to where they are today. you can see that change in the federal ndp as well for the very same reasons.

Mon, 2017-11-13 01:09

#44

Pogo

I am confused. Isn't post #20 about abandoned wells?

As for Notley are you saying that she is just not reading the Alberta voters who are itching to vote for a party that will kill the tar sands? Otherwise I am not sure what the BC comparison is all about.

And I disagree with another point - I do think that the people 'at the bottom' are going have to change their behaviours. Carbon usage is ultimate about consumption by individuals. Indeed I think that once change is made somewhat mandatory that people will turn on the moneyed interests that put us into this jam.

Mon, 2017-11-13 01:25

#45

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

The solution is not in trying to force other people to accept the risk. There is a very simple workaround. Refine the oil so you don't need to transport bitumen. Problem solved.

So, if it was refined oil, not bitumen, being transported, the people who are now protesting the pipelines in their regions would be okay with that?

Mon, 2017-11-13 07:30

(Reply to #45) #46

epaulo13

quote pogo:

I am confused. Isn't post #20 about abandoned wells?

..expansion = more abandoned wells.

As for Notley are you saying that she is just not reading the Alberta voters who are itching to vote for a party that will kill the tar sands? Otherwise I am not sure what the BC comparison is all about.

..no i'm saying that the alberta ndp offers no alternative to big oil. in fact they have been captured. post #13.

..mainly though i was referring to your comments on the 90% going where the votes are. for as long as i have been posting on pipelines i've been seeing 50%+ polls opposing pipelines and tankers in bc. that didn't sway the bc ndp until this past election. same federally. shit even the liberals understood how unpopular the pipelines where as well as climate change. trudeau was going round promising to fix the neb and indigenous rights. they lied but they understood. the ndp both prov and fed still don't have an alternative plan for extraction and change. mainly, i believe, because they continue to support capitalism. so change is being forced from below.

And I disagree with another point - I do think that the people 'at the bottom' are going have to change their behaviours. Carbon usage is ultimate about consumption by individuals. Indeed I think that once change is made somewhat mandatory that people will turn on the moneyed interests that put us into this jam.

..of course everyone has to change. no one is denying that. but instsance that, say, people leave there cars without the infastructure to support that is futile. i also find hope in the struggle for free transit.

..another point i'd like to make is that we have already targeted where global warming comes from. what is needed is the political will to confront this.

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

Mon, 2017-11-13 08:39

(Reply to #46) #47

Pondering

Pogo wrote:

Pondering said "I've never heard of a rally to blame oil companies for anything other than specific spills."

You should come out to BC and come to one of the rally's on Burnaby mountain. Let me know and I will save a spot for you. I am not against opposing pipelines for environmental reasons or to strike a blow against capitalism gone wrong, I just find it silly to pretend it is a significant part of the battle to stop global warming. I also did note that you said no to pipelines and containers, but nothing about rail (arguably the highest potential for enviromental damage).

The protests in BC are not to blame oil companies for anything they are to prevent a pipeline from being built.

There is a movement along rail lines objecting to all tankers transporting explosive products including oil. This thread is about the pipeline leading to BCs coast that will result in a huge increase of tankers which is objectionable to the people of BC.

Mon, 2017-11-13 08:45

(Reply to #47) #48

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

And who decides on refineries? I know there has been a push for refineries on the coast in Bc but to no avail at least so far

but yes of course it is also about global warming and eventually getting off fossil fuels

Why should BC build a refinery? They don't have oil. Alberta should build as many refineries as it needs to stop transporting bitumen out of province.

Climate change warriors support pipeline opponents based on climate change but the majority of people living along proposed pipelines are not protesting based on climate change they are protesting based on the local risks not global risks.

Mon, 2017-11-13 09:05

(Reply to #48) #49

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The solution is not in trying to force other people to accept the risk. There is a very simple workaround. Refine the oil so you don't need to transport bitumen. Problem solved.

So, if it was refined oil, not bitumen, being transported, the people who are now protesting the pipelines in their regions would be okay with that?

I think most would because the primary concern is the inability to clean up bitumen once it spills in a waterway. Fully refined and turned into fuel the oil would take up much less space so existing pipelines might even be enough. There would still be transportation risks but they would be much lessened.

As things stand Alberta already has enough pipelines to continue producing at the same rate, just not enough to increase production.

Mon, 2017-11-13 09:22

(Reply to #49) #50

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

No one is attacking the production of oil. Alberta can produce as much as it wants. It can't impose dangerous pipelines on other provinces regardless of who owns the oil companies.

..the movements are more ambitious. like the treaty alliance, the leap and many others. the object is to first stop the expansion of the tar sands and eventually end it as it is today.

http://www.treatyalliance.org/treaty/

That may be so but the arguments defeating pipelines like EE and Trans Mountain are rooted in local concerns not shutting down the oil sands. The indigenous court cases are about the threat of pipelines to indigenous water and lands not shutting down the oil sands. I know of no movements trying to close existing pipelines being used for oil only preventing new ones. The oil sands will be exploited until they are no longer profitable.

Mon, 2017-11-13 09:49

(Reply to #50) #51

Pondering

Pogo wrote:
I am confused. Isn't post #20 about abandoned wells?

It's proof that the oil companies are irresponsible and can't be trusted to clean up their messes. Instead they try to stick taxpayers with the expense. They put caps on their liability to protect themselves in case of spills. Obviously they think there is a huge risk that a spill would cost them too much and they aren't willing to take that risk so why should we?

Pogo wrote:
And I disagree with another point - I do think that the people 'at the bottom' are going have to change their behaviours. Carbon usage is ultimate about consumption by individuals.

And that is happening. More and more people are using bicycles, laws are reducing fuel emmissions and electricity is being generated by renewable resources. Houses are better insulated. Geothermal is being used. No one has argued otherwise so I don't know what you are disagreeing with.

We are moving towards clean energy which is why we don't need access to more oil than we already have access to.

Oil companies and Alberta brought this on themselves. It's their fault environmentalists are so successful. If the oil companies had behaved in a responsible fashion it would be much more difficult to drum up opposition to pipelines and tankers.

Rachel Notley tours Canada to advocate for pipelines

Pages