BC Election May 9 '17

466 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2017-01-08 21:01

jerrym

Sorry about the misquote above Edzell.

Renewable energy projects not only cause far less environmental damage, they generate far more jobs for the same size of investment, making a far more effective economic driver for the BC economy than the BC Liberals LNG pipe dream.

Quote:

Robert Pollin, the President of Pear Energy and a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has studied this matter [green energy jobs versus fossil fuel jobs and found:]

“The basic facts are simple. When we invest, say, $1 million in building the green economy, this creates about 17 jobs within the United States. By comparison, if we continue to spend as we do on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, you create only about 5 jobs per $1 million in spending. That is, we create about 12 more jobs for every $1 million in spending — 300 percent more jobs — every time we spend on building the green economy as opposed to maintaining our dependence on dirty and dangerous oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.” ...

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/20/over-3-times-more-green-jobs-per-mil...

Sun, 2017-01-08 21:01

#53

jerrym

The 2013 election turned on the BC Liberals creation of a trillion dollar, 100,000 job return from LNG. BCers have the right to judge what has or has not been accomplished in this regard and to look at the economic and environmental risks that have arisen as a result of this path. When NR keeps repeating that the jobs will trump every issue in the election, I am simply providing evidence that this is based on false assumptions about the risks and the economic benefits involved.

Here is more evidence that the LNG bonanza or anything like it is never going to arise in the manner promised.

It's time to compare the LNG path to its alternatives.

Quote:

The BC government has repeatedly claimed that development of an LNG ex- port industry will create 100,000 jobs in the province. In the 2013 pre-election speech from the throne, the government asserted: ...

Petronas claims its 12 million tonne (phase one) Pacific NorthWest LNG project would employ 3,500 workers at peak construction. After the terminal opens, there will be permanent jobs for only 200 to 300 operational workers.

An estimated 39,000 new full time jobs, on average, will be created during a 9 year construction period. Once all facilities reach full production, there could be over 75,000 new annual full time jobs. These jobs can be created in every part of our province, in many different sectors and sustained for generations to come. Construction jobs. Facility jobs. Highly skilled trades jobs. Jobs in the professional services. Jobs for First Nations. Jobs for businesses that support the industry. Technology jobs.1

Prior to the 2013 throne speech, however, the BC government’s expectations for LNG jobs were substantially lower. Its Liquefied Natural Gas Strategy, released February 2012, argued that three LNG plants in BC would create 800 new long-term jobs in the LNG sector, up to 9,000 more jobs during construction and several thousand more indirect jobs.2 Later in 2012, government ambi- tions for LNG had grown to five plants, with internal modelling for the government estimating the plants would create 2,400 new jobs, with 15,000 temporary jobs during the construction period.

The shift in rhetoric about LNG jobs came from a single study commissioned by the BC govern- ment just weeks before its 2013 throne speech.4 This brief provides a reality check by reviewing projections from the companies themselves about how many jobs can realistically be expected from LNG (if any plants are actually built). We then look more closely at how LNG job claims were inflated to 100,000 through a series of exaggerations and the misuse of input-output modelling techniques. Finally, we consider some of the challenges for realizing employment benefits in BC due to the use of FIFO workers, which is increasingly commonplace in resource industries.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publicatio...

Sun, 2017-01-08 21:03

#54

jerrym

Unfortunately, both at the provincial and federal levels governments have continued the extraction of natural resources mentioned by quizzical above, with all its associated environmental costs, even though renewables produce far less environmental damage and far more jobs. While we do have a renewable sector so much more could be done if the BC provincial and federal governents started to focus more resources on renewables, as much of the rest of the world has already done.

Quote:

About $25-billion has been invested in Canada’s clean-energy sector in the past five years, and employment is up 37 per cent, according to a new report from climate think tank Clean Energy Canada to be released Tuesday. That means the 23,700 people who work in green energy organizations outnumber the 22,340 whose work relates to the oil sands, the report says.

“Clean energy has moved from being a small niche or boutique industry to really big business in Canada,” said Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada. The investment it has gleaned since 2009 is roughly the same as has been pumped into agriculture, fishing and forestry combined, she said. The industry will continue to show huge growth potential, beyond most other business sectors, she added.

While investment has boomed, the energy-generating capacity of wind, solar, run-of-river hydro and biomass plants has expanded by 93 per cent since 2009, the report says.

Clean Energy Canada says the industry’s growth has been accelerated by supportive policies in a handful of provinces. However, despite its increased importance to the national economy, clean energy is still not a priority in Ottawa, it says.

Government backing is crucial for this industry, Ms. Smith said, as it has been for our other strategic industries. “Every major industrial sector in Canada – from the aerospace industry to the oil sands – has gotten off the ground with support from the federal government. But in the clean-energy sector, the federal government is really missing in action.”

Not only does the oil industry still get more substantial subsidies, she said, it also eats up a good deal of the country’s diplomatic relations efforts – through the lobbying for the Keystone XL pipeline, for example.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-a...

Sun, 2017-01-08 21:04

#55

Edzell

jerrym wrote:
You are free to read it or not read it as you wish.

Indeed. But I object to you flaming the whole damn thread with pages & pages of it.

Sun, 2017-01-08 21:11

#56

Edzell

Ken Burch wrote:
Just sent you a pm with a question about this. Thought I'd mention that here since the alert system for pm's doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Ken, so far I do\n't see any PM in my inbox. But I admit I'm not expert at navigating the site. MAybe it will show up later.

Sun, 2017-01-08 21:14

#57

Edzell

Duplicate post removed

Sun, 2017-01-08 21:32

#58

kropotkin1951

Edzell wrote:

jerrym wrote:
You are free to read it or not read it as you wish.

Indeed. But I object to you flaming the whole damn thread with pages & pages of it.

Been here two months and you feel the right to tell people how to post. If you don't want to read something then don't and don't comment. We went for over a decade without your approval of how we post so I think we would survive without your intense direction.

Sun, 2017-01-08 22:20

#59

jerrym

You are free to read it or not read it as you wish. Like I said I am simply replying to NR's many assertions about LNG jobs are the future of the province by providing contrary evidence.

Mon, 2017-01-09 00:20

#60

jerrym

Edzell wrote:

This thread, and NR's comment quoted above, are about the BC election, not global warming

What one believes about global warming and employment related to the type of energy jobs developed in BC will be central in this election. In addition, NR's whole argument for voting BC Liberal is based on it providing lots of jobs. I dispute this electoral approach on environmental, economic and employment grounds.

Mon, 2017-01-09 02:58

#61

Ken Burch

Edzell wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Just sent you a pm with a question about this. Thought I'd mention that here since the alert system for pm's doesn't seem to exist anymore.
Ken, so far I do\n't see any PM in my inbox. But I admit I'm not expert at navigating the site. MAybe it will show up later.

I sent it to epaulo, not you. Sorry.

Mon, 2017-01-09 03:00

#62

Centrist

Edzell wrote:

jerrym wrote:
You are free to read it or not read it as you wish.

Indeed. But I object to you flaming the whole damn thread with pages & pages of it.

I completely agree. This whole thread has turned from an election thread and morphed into a bizarre "jerrym" climate change/renewable energy thread. Jerrym, just start another thread as it is not even worthing reading this thread anymore with your constant bombardment of erroneous matters. Seriously.

Mon, 2017-01-09 06:52

#63

quizzical

what erroneous matters?

i object to your objections as derailing the thread. plz take your derailing to another thread like in rabble reactions i enjoy reading jerry's stuff counter weighting the BC Liberal bs..

Mon, 2017-01-09 09:29

#64

Centrist

Huh? Alrighty then. The few posting here can have the thread to themselves. This site has gone downhill and few are posting here these days in any event.

Mon, 2017-01-09 10:11

#65

KenS

Agreed.

I agree with the substance of jerrym's posts. Or at least I think so- there is SO much, I only skim the material.

It is a bizarre "strategy". I also think that climate change is likely the most important issue facing us, and the electoral system. But you do not get that across by every time someone does not prioritize the same, you post reams of material. It would be bad enough to simply leave it as saying (again) to the contributions of othere: "But what about climate change?" Adding more reams of material is bizarre.

Mon, 2017-01-09 11:31

#66

KenS

quizzical wrote:

i enjoy reading jerry's stuff counter weighting the BC Liberal bs..

So ask jerrym to start a thread "Climate Change Info, fighting back against the BSLib BS"

Mon, 2017-01-09 13:59

#67

kropotkin1951

In BC we are facing the BC LIberal's going ahead with Site C, Kinder Morrgan and hopes of LNG. There is no other issue in BC except for maybe the corruption that comes along with allowing the BC Liberals do to business with corrupt oligarchs from around the globe.

Mon, 2017-01-09 14:21

#68

KenS

Fine, you argue that climate change is by far the biggest issue in the election. It would hands down be the most important to me. Is that a reason to flood an election discussion with very long general material on why we should care about climate change?

... and to boot, flood in all that material where there is no one who would argue to the contrary.

Mon, 2017-01-09 15:08

#69

Edzell

KenS wrote:
... climate change is by far the biggest issue in the election. It would hands down be the most important to me....why flood in all that material where there is no one who would argue to the contrary.

Indeed. It's the same reason I no longer go to the local - I'll call them "activist" - meetings. They keep bombarding us with more & more films to demonstrate the same things over and over again, things I already believe or support. Ultimately it's just VERY boring and I lose all interest in their over-the-top propaganda, with never any questions about the possible balance of benefits vs ill-effects of any strategy or course of action. Everything thay talk about is either all bad or all good, and they go over every issue again and again as if the audience are all juveniles who can't think for himself. it's the same audience every time. so maybe they are :(.

Mon, 2017-01-09 15:37

#70

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Edzell wrote:

jerrym wrote:
You are free to read it or not read it as you wish.

Indeed. But I object to you flaming the whole damn thread with pages & pages of it.

Been here two months and you feel the right to tell people how to post. If you don't want to read something then don't and don't comment. We went for over a decade without your approval of how we post so I think we would survive without your intense direction.

Isn't there a babble policy about hijacking? You may be ok with it but a very interesting discussion was turned into a shitshow because one crank couldn't stay in his lonely climate thread home. .... I left one post there agreeing with him and he started ranting at me being a 'denier'. I read many more threads than I post on and continuity is very important to keep differing povs in mind.

Mon, 2017-01-09 15:42

#71

Martin N.

Edzell wrote:

KenS wrote:
... climate change is by far the biggest issue in the election. It would hands down be the most important to me....why flood in all that material where there is no one who would argue to the contrary.

Indeed. It's the same reason I no longer go to the local - I'll call them "activist" - meetings. They keep bombarding us with more & more films to demonstrate the same things over and over again, things I already believe or support. Ultimately it's just VERY boring and I lose all interest in their over-the-top propaganda, with never any questions about the possible balance of benefits vs ill-effects of any strategy or course of action. Everything thay talk about is either all bad or all good, and they go over every issue again and again as if the audience are all juveniles who can't think for himself. it's the same audience every time. so maybe they are :(.

I hear you. It's amazing how quickly they can greenwash that dirty oil money when the opportunity presents itself though.

Mon, 2017-01-09 16:30

#72

kropotkin1951

KenS wrote:

Fine, you argue that climate change is by far the biggest issue in the election. It would hands down be the most important to me. Is that a reason to flood an election discussion with very long general material on why we should care about climate change?

... and to boot, flood in all that material where there is no one who would argue to the contrary.

I tend to try agree that it really is preaching to the converted. However I see it as a reaction to NR who is promoting a government's policies that are going to have a significant negative effect on our ability to get our emissions lowered.

The endless articles dont bother me that much but then I have a mouse that has a scroll feature and I find it works wonders for going past redundant material from many sources.

Wed, 2017-01-11 00:57

#73

jerrym

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quote:

However I see it as a reaction to NR who is promoting a government's policies that are going to have a significant negative effect on our ability to get our emissions lowered.

Apparently North Report can not just do endless posts but endless threads also promoting the BC Liberals because they may create a few thousand jobs (and that is very iffy) by means of LNG projects repeating the same argument again and again for months and months and these posters see nothing wrong with that.

The 2013 election turned on Christy's 100,000 jobs $ one triliion dollar LNG promise. The 2017 election will turn in large part on this issue because her main argument is that the NDP is the no jobs party. It worked in the last election and may work in the upcoming election. My comments illustrate why her LNG plan is disaster for environmental, economic and employment reasons and are therefore germaine to the discussion.

No one has offered a single argument against any of the evidence that I have provided.

Wed, 2017-01-11 11:47

#74

Martin N.

For the same reason no one visits you in your lonely climate change, justice, cult home. You don't converse with anyone, you shout past them. You are completely deaf to any opinion but your own - an ideological zealot who bashes anyone who isn't 100% onside. ... Just like the previous election. The climate justice warriors ( meaning all the disparate grievance-mongers who claim to be one but have differing goals) will find that their claims of majority support will fall flat when the electorate holds its collective nose and votes Liberal...... Your problem is that you only accept support from those who agree with you - a cult - rather than listening and forming policy based upon majority opinion. .... Why don't you and your 'climate justice' cohort stand for election yourselves instead of sniping from the sidelines?

Wed, 2017-01-11 13:24

#75

oldgoat

Hi all. this thread has been brought to my attention a couple of times, so I'd like to address these.

First, personally thread drift bugs me a bit, but over my 16 years on this board I've realized it's kind of a fact of life. Sometimes I'll encourage someone to take it to another thread. I would point out that environmental issues in BC are at least peripheral to the subject of the election.

Second, I'm not pointing any fingers (that's only really effective when you're on skype) but this thread is starting to get a bit chippy, perhaps even hostile. Everyone who has posted here so far has in common the quality of being pretty articulate, and I believe everyone is coming from a good place in thier hearts, so can we dial back the ad hominems a bit.

Thanking you in advance...

Wed, 2017-01-11 13:25

#76

kropotkin1951

Martin N. wrote:

The climate justice warriors ( meaning all the disparate grievance-mongers who claim to be one but have differing goals) will find that their claims of majority support will fall flat when the electorate holds its collective nose and votes Liberal...... Your problem is that you only accept support from those who agree with you - a cult - rather than listening and forming policy based upon majority opinion. .... Why don't you and your 'climate justice' cohort stand for election yourselves instead of sniping from the sidelines?

So WTF are you doing for the cause other than riding on a big white horse and wearing a white hat. Tell me oh saviour what is the way forward. Do you believe that the BC NDP could win an election if it supported the pipelines and Site C and LNG plants?

Wed, 2017-01-11 13:33

#77

kropotkin1951

Sorry Oldgoat cross posted with you. Some of us are a little testy since promotion of the BC Liberal agenda is similar to promotion of the old Harper agenda prior to the last election.

Wed, 2017-01-11 14:27

#78

KenS

jerrym wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quote:

However I see it as a reaction to NR who is promoting a government's policies that are going to have a significant negative effect on our ability to get our emissions lowered.

Apparently North Report can not just do endless posts but endless threads also promoting the BC Liberals because they may create a few thousand jobs (and that is very iffy) by means of LNG projects repeating the same argument again and again for months and months and these posters see nothing wrong with that.

You are right he can get away with it. But he is the loud neighbour with a talent to get on your nerves, and there is nothing to be done about the jerk, so you do your best to ignore him.

Keep it up jeery and you too can have that rep.. with the twist that your posts physically take up so much of the field of vision, and are so visually complex, that it is harder to skip over them than NR's drive by dropping of links, maybe with a predictable sentence or two preface.

Wed, 2017-01-11 16:50

#79

epaulo13

..and here is another political reality that goes to the heart of jobs via lng and pipelines.

Luutkudziiwus and Gwininitxw file judicial review to save the wild salmon of the Skeena- and stop the Petronas LNG pipeline

quote:

“We have a message for the Pacific Northwest LNG project’s investors in Asia. Sell your stock. The Canadian government’s decision to approve this project did not respect our fishing rights protected under the Canadian Constitution. We were not consulted,” said Yvonne Lattie, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief of Wilp Gwininitxw from Vancouver.

“This LNG project will be stopped. We don’t give a damn about Christy Clark’s re-election, Trudeau’s deal-making, or Petronas’ hopes to sell fracked gas. That terminal is bad news for our salmon up the Skeena River,” said Richard Wright, a spokesperson for Luutkudziiwus hereditary chief Charlie Wright.

quote:

“The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation sneaks into our communities, cherry picks supportive chiefs, and makes back room deals to make the appearance of Aboriginal buy-in,” said Richard Wright.

Thu, 2017-01-12 14:12

#80

kropotkin1951

Here is a great joke that highlights BC's healtcare system. It is horrific and we have to pay a monthly tax to access it. We need lots more people employed in healthcare services, not building pipelines for toxic gunk.

Fri, 2017-01-13 19:46

#81

NorthReport

Dix is no Don Davies. Nguyen could win. As I have said the the BC NDP will probably lose 10 seats this election.

B.C. Liberals nominate ex-citizenship judge Trang Nguyen to run against Adrian Dix

http://www.straight.com/news/853376/bc-liberals-nominate-ex-citizenship-...

Sat, 2017-01-14 00:01

#82

NorthReport

https://www.google.ca/amp/globalnews.ca/news/3181182/new-york-times-bc-w...

Sat, 2017-01-14 06:47

#83

josh

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/world/canada/british-columbia-chri...

Sat, 2017-01-14 17:54

#84

NorthReport

https://thetyee.ca/Bios/Andrew_MacLeod/

Sun, 2017-01-15 01:50

#85

NorthReport

Bye, bye Cowichan Valley and bye, bye BC NDP

https://www.google.ca/amp/vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bitter-ndp-no...

Tue, 2017-01-17 18:19

#86

NorthReport

Guess which party will pick up all these North Shore seats. Guess which party is actually listening to the voters, eh!

http://www.nsnews.com/news/raised-homeowners-grant-benefits-half-of-nort...

Tue, 2017-01-17 18:40

#87

NorthReport

Wow, that's gonna rake in the votes for the NDP. isn't it!

Political donations cost B.C. taxpayers millions annually

http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/political-donations-cost-b-c-taxpa...

Fri, 2017-01-20 11:12

#88

NorthReport

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/animal+rights+activist+contin...

Fri, 2017-01-20 11:23

#89

NorthReport

As election season looms, Clark stumps on lumber

http://www.630ched.com/syn/112/264504/264504

Fri, 2017-01-20 18:24

#90

kropotkin1951

NorthReport wrote:

As election season looms, Clark stumps on lumber

http://www.630ched.com/syn/112/264504/264504

Thx for the daily update on your parties election campaign. Clark smiles for camera with a hard hat on and idiots all over the province cheer her on.

Fri, 2017-01-20 19:49

#91

Ken Burch

North, why are you still doing this? You know that bashing the BCNDP on jobs isn't going to make them support Kinder Morgan, and you should know after all this time that campaigning for a right-wing party on Babble is a complete betrayal of the spirit of the forum.

Mon, 2017-01-23 18:40

#92

NorthReport

What was Christy Clark doing today? Oh yea that's right she was doing what a politician should be doing, talking about jobs

Where was John Horgan? Who knows, and more importantly who cares!!

May 9th is going to be a very painful evening for BC NDP supporters as this election is looking more and more like a blowout by the Liberals over the NDP

Mon, 2017-01-23 18:54

#93

NorthReport

Duh!

http://globalnews.ca/news/3173651/businesses-pay-for-attack-ads-targetin...

Thu, 2017-02-09 16:49

#94

NorthReport

And the BC NDP can't even beat this clown. Pathetic!

Christy Clark's explanation of B.C. NDP hacking accusation sets off social media

Premier says repeatedly in radio interview and on Twitter that she 'jumped to conclusions'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/christy-clark-ndp-hacking...

Thu, 2017-02-09 16:53

#95

NorthReport

https://twitter.com/MikeSmythNews

Thu, 2017-02-09 16:54

#96

NorthReport

https://twitter.com/garymasonglobe?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Thu, 2017-02-09 21:24

#97

quizzical

how does it feel North supporting an open liar of te worst Trump sort?

Fri, 2017-02-10 13:40

#98

kropotkin1951

The NDP are contemplating suing if they don't get an apology. Here is what apparently really happened. It wasn't even the NDP that leaked the fact that the BC Liberals had posted private information in a public area of their website.

Quote:

Clark’s comments infuriated Huntington, who has now relieved me of the promise of anonymity I made to her and her staff.

“When I heard the premier’s comments, accusing the NDP of criminal activity and saying this ‘hacking’ of their website was subverting democracy — I couldn’t take it anymore,” Huntington told me.

“I said, ‘Enough is enough. We have to go public on this now.’ ”

Here’s what happened:

Last week, a member of Huntington’s staff told me they stumbled across the private information of B.C. citizens publicly displayed on the B.C. Liberal website.

Huntington wanted to alert me to this apparent breach of B.C.’s privacy laws and directed me to the “uploads” section of the Liberal website at this address: www.bcliberals.com/wp-content/uploads/

http://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/mike-smyth-independent-mla-was...

Fri, 2017-02-10 18:39

#99

quizzical

they should sue. it's a crimial offense and she outright lied. and continues to.

Fri, 2017-02-10 23:29

#100

Basement Dweller