Tar Sands Hell
Mon, 2006-08-14 11:25
#1
Tar Sands Hell
Mon, 2006-08-14 11:25
#2
Did anyone else see The Nature of Things piece on the Alberta tar sands? While it is encouraging that some of the key people from the old Reform party are now questioning the project there seems to be little poltical will to stop this obscene ravishing of the province's northern region.
While there were many points of contention, surely the most salient one for all Canadians is the use of one fossil fuel, natural gas, to create another fossil fuel, oil. Right now they are reported to be using enough natural gas to heat all of Calgary. And in a few years, it will be enough gas to heat all of Toronto. And the gas is ONLY be used to extract the oil from the sands.
But don't get me started on the depeletion of fresh water in the area for the same purposes [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2006-08-14 13:40
#3
Otter, a key peice of this is it's not federal jurisdiction... It's provincial. Klien has been running the province in cruise control for quite sometime and if it isn't about his 3rd way healthcare or giving out prosperity cheques, he doesn't give 2 hoots about it. However he will be stepping down soon, and the conservatives environmental record is certainly going to be attacked by the 2 opposition parties (mind you, they are next to ineffectual currently). I'm hoping environ policy controls much more spotlight in the pronvicial elections than it has in the past few... Judging by polls and general feeling, it does mean alot more than it used to. Whether or not it translates to policy is another matter.
quote:
While there were many points of contention, surely the most salient one for all Canadians is the use of one fossil fuel, natural gas, to create another fossil fuel, oil.
Energy is required to produce the oil... I don't quite understand that as a contentious points (plus natural gas is a much different thing than oil itself, most notably due to it's abundance in coalbed, later shale, and then all the hybrids. Its alot of energy nonetheless). The water usage is a much bigger sticking point thats opening eyes here. Mind you, I'd be curious on pricing and royalties and how they work for an oil company extracting natural gas to use to extract oil.
Thu, 2006-08-17 07:57
#4
quote:
And the gas is ONLY be used to extract the oil from the sands.
I had to check with this before I posted for sure... In the industry there is a bit of a running joke... The Alaskan pipelines may as well end at Fort MacMurray.
One of the major extraction methods currently being used is to drill 2 parallel horizontal wells, one right above the other. The top well has hot steam pumped into it... The steam casues the oil to become less viscous and then drip into the well beneath it. The oil is then harvested out of the well.
2 resources consumed to do such... The large natural as component is what heats the water to steam. Water is also sed (hey steam), but this harvesting system uses a closed circuit water system (IE, once the water is first taken it is recycled within the well over and over again).
Thu, 2006-08-17 09:09
#5
quote:
The Alaskan pipelines may as well end at Fort MacMurray.
There is only one proposed Alaska pipeline and it will transport Alaskan gas to the US,not to Ft Mac
You refer to the proposed MacKenzie Gas Pipeline from Canada's arctic.It presently is projected to end just across the NWT border into Alberta and raises speculation that it will be plumbed straight to Ft. Mac.
Thu, 2006-08-17 10:23
#6
Hmmmm, I've often wondered about this. Why not build a (gasp!) nuclear reactor in/around Ft. Mac, and use it to make the power to extract/refine the oil there? Short transport leg for the uranium (an a place to put it back in the ground when done) and we aren't using up natural gas that is better used elsewhere for more vital (fertiliser etc..) purposes...
Thu, 2006-08-17 10:25
#7
Frustrated Mess
quote:
surely the most salient one for all Canadians is the use of one fossil fuel, natural gas, to create another fossil fuel, oil.
More salient than the ecological destruction?
Thu, 2006-08-17 11:17
#8
quote:
More salient than the ecological destruction?
most definitely. When one looks at ecological damage it is, invariably, only those who live near to and who are witness to that damage that become concerned about it. Sad to say, t'is always thus.
But all Canadians are potential users or beneficiaries of our natural gas reserves and, therefore, the loss of so much of the nations reserves would have far more meaning to far more people.
Thu, 2006-08-17 11:29
#9
quote:
There is only one proposed Alaska pipeline and it will transport Alaskan gas to the US,not to Ft Mac
Hehe, as I mentioned.. Tis a industry joke. Fort Mac uses such a tremedously high amount of gas that it alone would likely consume everything coming through that pipeline (note the joke ^^).
quote:
More salient than the ecological destruction?
snip
But all Canadians are potential users or beneficiaries of our natural gas reserves and, therefore, the loss of so much of the nations reserves would have far more meaning to far more people.
meh, not really... The ecological damage and changing climate will kick in long before Canadians even notice how much natural gas is used in Fort Mac, as much as anything due to the abundance of it. Simply put, the reserves will remain high enough to sustain our rate of consumption for a long enough time that we will completely destroy our natural environment before we run out of the natural gas reserves.
North shore has an interesting proposal... I'm not even sure if thats been considered. For this production all they need is steam, the source of the steam can be readily changed. Mind you a natural gas powered steam generator (fancy term for a hot water boiler) is a bit more portable then a nuclear plant would be. I wonder how far that possibility has been investigate.
[ 17 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]
Thu, 2006-08-17 12:29
#10
In other words, ecological damage is generally only a NIMBY issue and has little to no resonance for those not actually affected by it.
Thu, 2006-08-17 12:35
#11
Frustrated Mess
quote:
But all Canadians are potential users or beneficiaries of our natural gas reserves and, therefore, the loss of so much of the nations reserves would have far more meaning to far more people.
Not true. Just about all of it is for export. And further, I would argue, Canadians, and Americans, might have an illusion of benefit from raping the planet but in the end, it will not be a shortage of all that sends the human species into a final orgy of violence over the scraps of the industrial age.
I would also suggest most (not all) Albertans could care less about the environment so long as there are dollars to be counted.
Thu, 2006-08-17 14:02
#12
quote:
I would also suggest most (not all) Albertans could care less about the environment so long as there are dollars to be counted.
still disagree with that [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] ... Most (not all) Albertans are generally unaware of the environmental disaster that is the oil sands, and the ones that are aware are generally opposed (Green is the second party of choice for alot afterall... Some of them are voting green principles). Unfortunately ignorance presides and the leaders do as they plz.
Educating the peeps regarding the disaster is a better approach as opposed to critisizing the general populace. You critisize, and you know the response you receive... You've seen it a million times (and usually includes the phraise 'shutup ya ever-righteous upper canadian').
eddited to clarify
[ 17 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]
Thu, 2006-08-17 16:14
#13
Frustrated Mess
quote:
still disagree with that ... Most (not all) Albertans are generally unaware of the environmental disaster that is the oil sands
So when their grandchildren are killing each other over water and food they will say "I didn't know."
I've heard that before only it wasn't ecocide. It was a different cide.
I don't buy it. They know. How can they not? You can't have an economy founded on infinite consumption and the destrcution of the land base replete with the toxifying of air and water and not know.
The motto of a generation: 'It is not how you play the game, but how many toys you have when you die.’
Thu, 2006-08-17 18:49
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]
Not true. Just about all of it is for export. [/b]
This is the part that will really hurt in the future.Under NAFTA,exports cannot be restricted unless domestic consumption is reduced accordingly.
If Canada (or more precisely,Big Oil) uses domestic natural gas to create synthetic crude,that gas cannot be replaced for consumers at the expense of US exports.
Present technology requires 1 barrel of NG Oil equivalent to produce 3 barrels of synthetic crude.
If synthetic crude is used as an energy input,the ratio is reduced to I barrel in for 2 barrels produced.
This ratio does NOT include the energy inputs required to upgrade the crude to a product that refineries can utilise.
As a comparison, in 1914, 1 barrel of energy equivalent input produced 28 barrels of easily refined LIGHT crude.
Fri, 2006-08-18 09:00
#15
quote:
I don't buy it. They know. How can they not? You can't have an economy founded on infinite consumption and the destrcution of the land base replete with the toxifying of air and water and not know.
Until I hit this board I wouldn't have been able to tell you what 'an economy founded on infinite consumption' is. Most don't know, and sadly... Don't care to know, as long as we can continue on with the happy lil consumer lives. The political climate that most of us were raised in here tends to be conservative or don't care. Is it a surprise why Alberta has the lowest voter turnout? Most of us have chosen don't care.
I wouldn't raise this as an issue if I didn't think it had an impact... Same result (not caring bout the ecocide) mind you. But efforts to change the norm need to be towards
1. Education of whats really going on
2. Promoting people to use their voice and stand up in numbers.
The critisize angle has not and will not work for the time being, unless the critisims are aimed at ultimately educating (if you notice, most people that you critisize have no clue what you're talking about and just go defensive regardless ^^).
Sun, 2006-08-20 16:53
#16
Killer topic (so to speak).
I have written a couple articles on this problem, based on interviews with union members working in the oil patch. While everyone is glad to be working, many working folks are worried about what's going to happen in the future, both economically and environmentally--especially for those who live in the region.
There have been some efforts, thanks to some good public pressure, to enforce some clean-up measures. But the folks I spoke with say they are half hearted and grossly inadequate at best.
One would think that the government of Alberta might at least use some of the huge revenues from the tar sands to invest in new clean energy and propulsion sources and technology for the future, and push the oil firms to do the same. That's what the former BC NDP government was proposing. But that ain't happening now in BC either. It's the usual rape and run corporate capitalist economics in action, and to hell with the future.
And to add to it, you get attitudes like this:
quote:
In other words, ecological damage is generally only a NIMBY issue and has little to no resonance for those not actually affected by it.
It's certainly often true that concerns over specific cases of ecological damage are presented in a NIMBY fashion, since quite often people react to learning of a hazardous situation in a knee-jerk manner only when it becomes a direct threat.
But the truth is ecological destruction, such as air and water pollution, unplanned or poorly planned urban expansion, as well as urban decay, deforestation, sloppy logging and mining practices with no reclamation, etc. are certainly not NIMBY issues.
Rather, they are wide-spread long-term conditions that have a huge negative impact on large regions of the globe. The fact that many of these practices have been scientifically proven to contribute to global warming is a great example of this.
Mon, 2006-08-21 08:30
#17
quote:
any working folks are worried about what's going to happen in the future, both economically and environmentally
Do you think people are sufficiently worried about the environment to change their vote based on that? So far, it's only been worried if asked on camera... I haven't seen the votes translate. Judging by the number of people expressing concern, you'd think a political party (especially for Albertas nearing elections) would make this their number one issue to prod voters.
Conservatives will continue to use hot topic pushes to put Environementalism to the bottom of the voer priority list. Eventually the eco-destrution (I prefer FM's term of ecocide) will be of big enough impact that people will start standing up in numbers. The question is, when will that point be and for environmentalists, how do we make people hit this point faster?
Wed, 2008-01-02 01:31
#18
This topic has lain fallow since August 06, it appears! One guy suggested Nuke power would help! Obviously, he is unaware of the hazards and the future hazards of Nuke plants and their radioactive waste! The Tar Sands are a disgrace, but we keep on with it for there are no jobs in Nfld. (overfishing and oil exploration); no jobs in New Brunswick and dwindling ones in BC, so workers have no where to go. Forest companies are merging and just sending our raw logs abroad to process, unemploying us. In BC, the BC Libs have practically given away Crown Land--tree farm license lands--our land-- to the forest companies who have now gone into the real estate business, selling our land, and shipping the raw logs out, unemploying the rest of us. But the voters are to blame (with the help of brainwashing by the corporate media). They have to take responsibility for voting so damn stupidly! No one with a heart, brain or soul should have voted for Mulroney, Martin, Harper, Klein, Campbell, Charest, Harris-Eves or that new old gov't they just voted in Saskatchewan.
Wed, 2008-01-02 03:29
#19
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Merryblue: This topic has lain fallow since August 06, it appears!
No, not really. In [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002025]this recent thread[/url] I posted about the tar sands a few times, as did others.
I'll post an interesting link - my latest post - from that thread, again:
From: Canadian Press June 09, 2007:
[url=http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-clips/international-environm... environmental groups open Alberta offices over oilsands concerns [/url]
excerpt:
''There's a broad recognition that Canada needs to address the environmental problems with the tarsands. ''I don't think there's any question that you'll be seeing civil disobedience in the future.''
Martin said Greenpeace plans to have an office staffed in the provincial capital within the next couple of months.
The World Wildlife Fund set up an office in Edmonton last December and is currently staffing it up. That office will focus on issues including the oilsands and the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline.
The Sierra Legal Defence Fund, which provides legal expertise to fight environmental battles in court and has just filed a legal challenge of Imperial Oil's Kearl oilsands project, also plans to open an office in Alberta within the next year.
Thu, 2008-01-03 12:14
#20
M. Spector
Lots more info and resources at [url=http://www.tarsandswatch.org/]Tar Sands Watch[/url], a project of the Polaris Institute.
Thu, 2008-01-03 16:03
#21
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Lots more info and resources at [url=http://www.tarsandswatch.org/]Tar Sands Watch[/url], a project of the Polaris Institute.[/b]
Fueling Fortress America
quote:
In the spring of 2004, Canada surpassed
Saudi Arabia to become the largest foreign
supplier of oil to the U.S. Given the uncertainties of the Middle East and Venezuelan supply lines, the U.S. steadily increased its oil imports from Canada, facilitated in large measure by the proportional sharing clause on energy that had been incorporated in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As a result, Canada has
become the largest foreign supplier of oil, natural gas, electricity, and uranium for energy to the United States. This development, in turn, is taking place at a time when the U.S., as the world’s predominant economic and military superpower, has reasserted itself with imperial characteristics on the global scene. In addition, this increasing dependency on Canada to meet energy security needs in the U.S. is rapidly depleting our conventional reserves of oil and natural gas to the point where our own energy security could soon be in jeopardy.
Damnit, Jim. It looks like Baghdad and Ottawa's national energy policies are being drafted in Warshington!
Sat, 2008-02-16 20:39
#22
M. Spector
Federal Government Missing in Action on [b]Most Destructive Project on Earth[/b] - the Tar Sands
First Nation communities downriver of Tar Sands bring case to Ottawa.
OTTAWA, Feb. 15 - The federal government is failing to uphold its duty to clean up the Tar Sands, according to a new report by Environmental Defence released today on Parliament Hill. [b]Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth[/b] shows how failure to enforce federal laws is allowing the Tar Sands to become Canada's most serious environmental liability.
"Ottawa is letting the Tar Sands hold Canadians hostage on global warming," said Matt Price, Program Manager with Environmental Defence. "The federal government is not using laws already on the books to require companies to reduce emissions and clean up their toxic mess."
First Nations living downriver of the Tar Sands are also bringing their concerns to Ottawa today. The community of Fort Chipewyan made headlines last year when Health Canada launched a complaint against the town doctor for speaking out about abnormal disease rates in the community.
"Nobody lives closer to the land and water than we do, and we've seen bad changes over the past dozen years," said Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. "As goes the water so go we, and we are seeing strange diseases now."
"Elders tell us water is the boss, and without clean water we wouldn't exist. Now the boss is in trouble and needs our help," said Councillor Willis Flett, Mikisew Cree First Nation.
------------
Key report findings include:
- Weak federal "intensity" targets will allow Tar Sands greenhouse gas emissions to double by 2020, wiping out progress that other parts of Canada are making to combat climate change.
- Toxic tailings ponds, visible from space, are seeping into the region's groundwater, and pollution is rising in the Athabasca River contrary to the federal Fisheries Act.
- New federal pollution measures will let Tar Sands Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions grow by 60% by 2015.
- Tar Sands pollution is causing acid rain in Saskatchewan and beyond.
- Tar Sands upgraders and refineries are creating health "sacrifice zones" in Alberta and Ontario.
- Supertankers as big as the West Edmonton Mall are planned for the coast of BC to take Tar Sands oil to Asia.
- Federal environmental assessments rubber stamp massive new Tar Sands mines by relying on industry-driven management bodies that are known to be broken.
"When even former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, who started the Tar Sands ball rolling, is calling for change, you know this is a major disaster," said Aaron Freeman, Policy Director, Environmental Defence. "This is Canada's problem - our federal elected leaders need to clean it up or shut it down."
[b]Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth[/b] is available to download for free on the [url=http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/reports/tarsands.htm]Environmental Defence web site.[/url]
[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Sat, 2008-02-16 21:10
#23
laine lowe
I just don't get why this issue has failed to get any political traction. How could all federal parties go through that farce called the Clean Air Act without ever addressing the Alberta Tar Sands? How could Baird even dare make the demands on other nations he made at Bali when we are sitting on one of largest environmental catastrophes in North America? This is beyond reprehensible.
Sun, 2008-02-17 03:54
#24
The short answer of why it doesn't have political traction is because the basics are more complex than they look to Babblers.
Most Canadians see this as "need to do something". The kind of answers you get from Babblers [i]"What ARE we waiting for people!" [/i] are correct and reasonable, but not adequate for the public stage.
As far as electoral politics goes, it does not have traction because it isn't easy for any of the political parties to make it work for them. None have.
And to my mind worse: none are investing the hard work to get there. Green Party just as included.
Issuing press releases and other forms of hot air are not adequate when you have to do development work around the issue.
Contrast that with Afghanistan for example: where the mere release of hot air works for the NDP because the overall set-up is clear. Hell, mere hot air release probably works almost as well for the Bloc even after that shameless craven dissembling they did last year.
Sun, 2008-02-17 04:01
#25
quote:
How could all federal parties go through that farce called the Clean Air Act without ever addressing the Alberta Tar Sands?
Actually, when the opposition parties rewrote it to be the Climate Change & Clean Air Act that was good politics. It would have helped if the Liberals and Bloc hadn't stonewalled it for months. But it was still a good political opening.
I know that what to do with it was not simple... but doing nothing never works.
The Tar Sands would never have been invloved in that step of the rewrting of the Act itself. The way we have to go is set the rgulatory framework, and then work from there. The Tar Sands is the elephant in the room when you are setting the regulatory framework- and it would have come up right away had the rewritten Act been a platform for public discussion.
Sun, 2008-02-17 04:13
#26
Its always questionable how useful it is to pick over tactics in battles past. But this is the second time in the last couple weeks- with me not reading everything on Babble by any means- that reference has been made to the [alleged] mistake of in Fall 2006 not having shot down the Clean Air Act immediately, for the points that would score.
The actually re-writing of the Act was fast. The 3 months it took to get there was because the Liberals, Bloc and Elizabeth May wanted to stall the re-write to punish the NDP.
The government was seriously off balance and completely floundering. Had we used the strong public support and brought the rewritten Act out immediately the government would not have it's counter-attack in place. Environmental groups were also suprised by Jack Layton's surprising manouver.
But they got over that fast and called for all parties to get together and use the historic opportunity. Despite the fact the Liberals made it clear they were only grudging going along when they mouthed the words of support- I naively thought they would be compelled to do so.
Silly me. They continued stalling, and got away with it until the final bell rang. I was still hopeful, but it turned out to have been late.
Sun, 2008-02-17 19:44
#27
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
[b]Its always questionable how useful it is to pick over tactics in battles past. [/b]
It's almost never questionable how useful it is to pick over tactics in battles past. This is how people and organizations learn. Organizations where the dominant tendency is to say "let's not beat ourselves up over X", "let's not dwell on the past, let's move forward", blah blah, are sclerotic organizations plagued by groupthink and incapable of learning. The quality of detached deliberation and ruthless self-evaluation is one of those that sets the great strategists of history apart from the poor, the mediocre, and the deluded.
Tue, 2008-02-19 10:10
#28
quote:
The Tar Sands is the elephant in the room when you are setting the regulatory framework- and it would have come up right away had the rewritten Act been a platform for public discussion.
I don't see the Tar Sands as the elephant in the room... How utterly dependant upon the products of the tar sands combined with how fast we consume them is. Shoot the monster while ignoring how dependant on it we've become.
Tue, 2008-02-19 14:05
#29
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
I don't see the Tar Sands as the elephant in the room... How utterly dependant upon the products of the tar sands combined with how fast we consume them is.
I heard that the USA is the main consumer of the end products of the tar sands, not eastern Canada.
Tue, 2008-02-19 16:45
#30
Frustrated Mess
Read this book. It is impossible to fully appreciate the criminal culpability of Alberta's single party province until you do.
[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lZQphsOIL._AA240_.jpg[/img]
![http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lZQphsOIL._AA240_.jpg[/img]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lZQphsOIL._AA240_.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Thu, 2008-02-21 06:43
#31
quote:
I heard that the USA is the main consumer of the end products of the tar sands, not eastern Canada.
You are correct, but 'someone is consuming more!' is hardly a defence. Actually, never mind... 'America is worse' has been our environmental defence for decades.
The book FM linked, although I haven't read it, has gotten spotlight in a few major newspapers (Edmonton Journal and Calgary Hearld) as a very accurate and well written book. I beleive he was the same guy that did all the 'How Hells Angels are taking over Canada', no? It's no secret (even to most albertans) that the oil sands are destructive to no end, but nobody seems to want to give up what the sands give us (admittadely the economic conditions are part of what Albertans don't want to give up).
Thu, 2008-02-21 06:58
#32
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
You are correct, but 'someone is consuming more!' is hardly a defence. Actually, never mind... 'America is worse' has been our environmental defence for decades.
You completely misinterpreted my point, wich was that the end products of the tar sands projects do not benefit eastern Canada at all.
I'd add one thing: not only does eastern Canada not consume oil from the tar sands (according to what was said on Newman's 'Politics' broadcast last week) but the greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands [b]does[/b] affect us in very negative ways. So - not only is Alberta shipping most of the end products of the tar sands projects south to the USA, but is also f*cking us over with increased greenhouse gas emissions. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
This is clearly a situation calling for federal intervention to clean up Alberta's mess, but Harper and his merry band of neocon f*cks couldn't give a shit. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-02-21 07:10
#33
Agressive finger wagging at people to clean up their yards is every bit as effective in a nation as it is with your neighbours.
Thu, 2008-02-21 07:23
#34
quote:
You completely misinterpreted my point, wich was that the end products of the tar sands projects do not benefit eastern Canada at all.
? Are you saying Eastern Canada doesn't consume oil sands products at all? Sorry, asking for clarification before I misinterpret you again [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
I'd add one thing: not only does eastern Canada not consume oil from the tar sands (according to what was said on Newman's 'Politics' broadcast last week) but the greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands does affect us in very negative ways.
Completely correct, the jetstream travels from Alaska across the praries and through Ontario and into the maritimes. Particles from forest fires in Alaska can be detected in Halifax's air (Nova Scotia = Canada's tailpipe).
quote:
This is clearly a situation calling for federal intervention to clean up Alberta's mess, but Harper and his merry band of neocon f*cks couldn't give a shit.
Fix NAFTA, beyond that it is a provincial matter
[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]
Thu, 2008-02-21 07:54
#35
Boom Boom
What I heard on Newman's show last week was that [b]most[/b] of the tar sands products flow south to the US.
Since tar sands emissions are so extreme and affect other provinces, shouldn't it be a federal responsibility - acting on behalf of [b]all[/b] Canadians - to force Alberta to clean up tar sands emissions?
Thu, 2008-02-21 08:03
#36
quote:
Canada imports 40% of the oil it uses, with almost half of that coming from OPEC countries. This makes Canada very susceptible on a volatile region for a significant portion of its oil supply. And there are simply no pipelines or infrastructure in place to get Alberta oil to Eastern Canada in case of a crisis.“The sad reality is that our government continues to prioritize the energy security of the United States despite the needs of Canadians,” says Polaris Institute Director Tony Clarke.
Ricardo Acuсa, Executive Director of Parkland Institute, points out that “Albertans will argue that there is enough oil in the tarsands to supply for all of Canada’s needs well into the future,[b] but unfortunately people in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces do not have access to that oil it all flows south[/b].”
[url=http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2008/02/05/eastern-canada-vulnerable-to-oi... Patch Article [be a Rabble suppporter get your free subscrtiption][/url]
Thu, 2008-02-21 08:16
#37
Emissions from tar sands production are certianly a federal responsibility. but that doesn't make them only a federal responsibility, nor does it say a thing as to workable politics for getting something done.
At a minimum: the citizens of Alberta MUST be part of the solution- by rights as well as by practical necessity. The fact that Alberta, and/or the oil companies, and/or the hundreds of thousands of citzens with a stake in the Fort MacMoney gravy train, cannot be allowed to do as they see fit tells you how much about what to DO?
As to NAFTA- it is not an obstacle to finding the political will. FIRST we develop the political will to do something about the situation. WHEN we do that, NAFTA will be one of the issues.
The bigger question is developing that political will. If we get that far, tackling NAFTA will fall in place. Blaming NAFTA for being in the way obscures the political work that needs to be done.
It IS in the way. If it wasn't there we'd still have exactly the same problems getting off the starting blocks.
Thu, 2008-02-21 08:21
#38
quote:
Fix NAFTA, beyond that it is a provincial matter.
It is not by any means only a provincial matter. Politically speaking, the citizens of Alberta must be on board. But the government of Alberta per se can in the final instance be browbeaten unwillingly into a solution- given sufficient numbers in Alberta are included among supporters of a solution.
Thu, 2008-02-21 08:50
#39
quote:
Ricardo Acuсa, Executive Director of Parkland Institute, points out that “Albertans will argue that there is enough oil in the tarsands to supply for all of Canada’s needs well into the future, but unfortunately people in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces do not have access to that oil it all flows south.”
Yes, thats NAFTA regulated... We couldn't send the raw material to Ontario if we wanted. Nafta = US control of the Canadian oil supply. We were more than capable of re-routing the oil supply during Katrina to help with that disaster but had the same thing occoured in Nova Scotia, NAFTA has our hands tied and the oil would still be heading south instead of going to aid other Canadians.
I swear, people on this site keep acting like the oil sands belong to Canadians.
quote:
What I heard on Newman's show last week was that most of the tar sands products flow south to the US.
As raw materials yes. Like most of Canadian resources, we export raw materials and import the finished products.
quote:
Since tar sands emissions are so extreme and affect other provinces, shouldn't it be a federal responsibility - acting on behalf of all Canadians - to force Alberta to clean up tar sands emissions?
Heh, you sound like theres some magical wand that will clean up the tar sands that Alberta is simply refusing to wave. There is really no clean up the emissions short of changing the primary fuel source (Natural gas runs most of the sands, nuclear is really the only valid alternative to that right now). The only real way to reduce emissions (currently anyway) would be to scale back on production (and for the record, I and most Albertans I'll talk to agree that it should be scaled back).
Thu, 2008-02-21 09:03
#40
Looks like we're posting at the same time Ken. I'll respond to what you've got:
quote:
FIRST we develop the political will to do something about the situation.
Political will is there but needs to be developed further, the provincial election should help display the numbers a bit better. If anything, it needs better guidence (and lose the image of a bunch of SUV driving easterns simply bitching that it's 'all *insert scapegoats*'s fault' as the driving factor. I've gotten a couple 'Let the Eastern Bastards freeze!' comments recently. Ya, this might not be the setup, but enough peoples beleive it).
quote:
But the government of Alberta per se can in the final instance be browbeaten unwillingly into a solution- given sufficient numbers in Alberta are included among supporters of a solution.
Given the choice between siding with our Conservative gov't and the constant 'browbeaten' attempts from the East, is it a wonder why the trend is to side with the Conservatives here? Part of Kliens reign is inspired by the need to fight back vs Ottawa doing exactly that.
(I should point out that some of this posting is inspired by a lil campaign frusteration, sorry if I'm a bit snippy)
[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]
Thu, 2008-02-21 09:47
#41
quote:
Given the choice between siding with our Conservative gov't and the constant 'browbeaten' attempts from the East, is it a wonder why the trend is to side with the Conservatives here?
But as you know, these aren't the only two possibilities. First a Canadian crusade gets sufficient support in Alberta, then you don't wait for everybody in alberta and the government to come on side.
No one has seriously attempted the first half yet. In practice, no one is talking about going after the tar sands first. It's just that not talking about where it fits into a solution is fantasyland.
Thu, 2008-02-21 10:01
#42
quote:
But as you know, these aren't the only two possibilities.
Me and you perhaps... We're talking about the majority of Albertans here and for the most case, this is the only 2 options that are presented.
quote:
First a Canadian crusade gets sufficient support in Alberta
We're in the 1 in 10 range and growing... Concentrated in a few area's more than others.
quote:
In practice, no one is talking about going after the tar sands first.
Because of how utterly dependant on oil we are, any talk of going at tar sands brings this point right to the surface. Unfortunately any action that pushes up consumer goods in price is going to be unpopular.
Thu, 2008-02-21 17:40
#43
In a way, I guess I'd say it's just as well on a national level that the tar sands are not featured first.
Things like the BC govt moves help- for the debate ratcheting value whether or not one approves of the steps.
It would be unwise politics- and poor fairness wise- to start out talking serious national action with much of a focus on the tar sands... even if it is the toughest nut in the horde.
Thu, 2008-02-21 19:28
#44
If we get rid of two third of the cars on the road. The tar sands will stay where they are. It is our car/consumer addiction that creates the demand for fossil fuel.
Go after the cause.
Thu, 2008-02-21 21:12
#45
Open for suggestions how.
Fri, 2008-02-22 07:39
#46
Exactly bubbles... I'm really having problems understanding the point Boom Boom is making with the 'oil flowing south' comment, how is it justifiable to consume another nations oil that we import yet attack our own production?
Why not complain about the impact the beef industry has on the world while chewing back on your 5th steak of the night while we're at it? Does it matter where that particular cow that your chewing came from, or just that your consumption added to the total demand and need to clear cut land to raise additional cattle? The electric grid isn't much different, whether your specific electricity comes from hydro or coal doesn't matter, your consumption (all of ours) adds to the total demand requiring coal to meet the demand.
It's a global market... Global supply and global demand. You demand adds to the same overall demand which fuels the need for supply. The best way to strangle the oil sands is to push the oil price down to $40 where the oilsands are no longer massively profitable.
KenS:
quote:
Open for suggestions how.
Nation-wide free municipal transit for starters, high speed 'trains' or other options to connect close cities eliminating the need to drive or fly, scrutinize the ditribution system (make it easier for consumers to by local products instead of long distance imports)... etc, I could go on for a while. Maybe this is for a new thread?
Fri, 2008-02-22 09:47
#47
Fodder for another thread or not- not solutions for what to do about the tar sands.
Of course it's all related. And even a political program for the next election should have longer term programatic proposals [though those have to be at least something we can start towards now, with a minimum dependence of 'begin wide ranging public discussion on ________ and _______ '].
But the political program has to bear right down on what we are going to do here and now. Including, more regulation of the tar sands... with the already noted implications of major slow down in projects.
[And as noted also, you don't START out targetting the tar sands before everyone else's ox has also been assessed, and before a more developed political engagement with Albertans. Which would mean, if the election were soon- and even Oct 2009 might be too soon, there isn't time for political development to be specifically making an issue of the tar sands in particular.]
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
Fri, 2008-02-22 11:01
#48
How to get cars of the road?
Good question, KenS.
For example:
We provide busses for our kids to go to school. Why not extend that practice to the work force. Let the employers provide transportation to the work place, if public transportation is not available and walking distance is more then two kilometers. It would give public transit a tremendous boost if it becomes a cost saving need for the employers.
I am sure there are many other ways to reduce the status of the car.
Fri, 2008-02-22 11:23
#49
KenS - I agree with what you are saying... A large majority will feel the oil sands are the problem, dismissing the ties between our consumerism and the oil sands. It's linked to the fanatasy that someday very soon we'll discover a completely free and renewable source of electricity (the primary drive behind 'eletric cars will solve all problems!' like somehow changing the power source or hiding the emissions from sight is a massive improvement). The oil sands are not the problem, simply the painful symptoms of a much larger cause.
Bubbles - Telecommunting (ie, working from home) and relying on communications to work is another possibility, pending the type of work. There's an amazing number of steps that can be taken from the large scale society level right down to the individual... Unfortunately they all have a cost that we are resisting.
Mon, 2008-02-25 18:24
#50
Polly B
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/02/25/oilsands-moratorium.h...
quote:
For the first time, major oil producers are calling on the Alberta government to introduce a partial moratorium on oilsands development in the province's north.Nine energy companies — including Petro-Canada, Suncor and Shell Canada — signed a private letter last month asking the province to freeze land lease licences until 2011 in three areas around Fort McMurray that have not yet been developed.
Too bad King Stelmach doesn't want to "touch the brake" on Alberta's economy.
Tue, 2008-02-26 03:12
#51
Catchfire
[url=http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=0529ba89-d54e-4f9c-a... Brakes on Oilsands[/url]
quote:
Conservative Leader Ed Stelmach signalled Monday he'll ignore a call from some of Canada's largest energy companies to control expansion in the oilsands to protect fragile lands. He also brushed aside a plea from the province's aboriginal chiefs to halt approval of new projects.Stelmach, who famously said he doesn't believe in "touching the brake" on development, dismissed as preliminary a call for an immediate suspension of government land-lease sales in three massive environmentally sensitive swaths of northern Alberta.
The call, sent to the province less than three weeks before the election began, comes from Environment Canada and several oilsands companies, including Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy.