# Say no to Enbridge!



## stratos

Thank goodness some of our provincial politicians have finally had the guts to stand up to Ottawa and state the obvious - the Enbridge pipeline proposal is not in the interests of BC (no royalties, potential oil spills), or of the world (Co2 emissions).

Thumbs down from B.C. NDP on Enbridge pipeline - British Columbia - CBC News

Let's hope the BC Liberals make it unanimous and also state their public opposition soon.


----------



## TomC

stratos said:


> Let's hope the BC Liberals make it unanimous and also state their public opposition soon.


 I wouldn't bet on that part.


----------



## stratos

I would say the odds are getting better by the day:

Piping bitumen east may make better sense, Dodge says

High-profile NHLer skates into Northern Gateway debate - The Globe and Mail


----------



## stratos

The tide of public opinion seems to be having an effect:

As West Coast protest builds, Enbridge looks east for growth


----------



## IceBlue

Damn straight man, no pipeline. Don't want to be big oils stooge.


----------



## cpool

IceBlue, you drive a car? Use plastic? Take the bus? 

If you answered yes to any of the 3 and I bet you did, you already are a big oil stooge!


----------



## Ursus sapien

Wild salmon runs are one of the greatest resources BC has, yet we seem oblivious to their fate - open-pen fish farming, lame logging/development water-way set-backs, oil tanker breathing down our necks and now the pipe line. it's all so short sighted.


----------



## stratos

Unfortunately, we are all "oil stooges"; none of us can claim we do not depend on the oil economy for our survival. But we can and must adapt and change. I remember my great grandmother when I was a child; she grew up in a world without cars, never learned to drive, lived a perfectly fine and happy life without all the trappings of an oil enriched economy. We can change the way we live, but we need government leadership to make the change happen. Relying on "market forces" to determine our fate is stupid. We need to invest in the alternative energy sector. We need to implement higher graduated tax rates on high income earners, we need an estate tax on inheritence, we need higher capital gains taxes, - and then we need to invest that money as a society in promoting alternative transportation and energy sources. Think more sky train ( a lot more!), more bikes (with tax credits!), more encouragement of 100 mile food zones (cities should get their food from within a 100 mile radius), government homeowner and business grants for solar and wind power generation. But first we need progressive political leadership. The very term "conservative" sums up the problem. If we continue to be "conservative" and do not radically change our way of life our kids and grand kids are going to pay a hell of a price.

On a related note, the Conservatives have come out hard against foreign controlled environmental groups; two can play that game. Look who controls the "Canadian" oil companies:

Oilsands critics put spotlight on foreign ownership - Politics - CBC News

Another "foreign radical" (intended sarcasm) I am sure our federal government does not approve of is - wait for it - an old senior civil servant working for NASA in the USA. Check out his op-ed piece in yesterdays New York Times:



> Game Over for the Climate
> 
> By JAMES HANSEN
> 
> GLOBAL warming isn't a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves "regardless of what we do."
> 
> If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
> 
> Canada's tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet's species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
> 
> That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California's Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.
> 
> If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.
> 
> The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events - they were caused by human-induced climate change.
> 
> We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising - and it's because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.
> 
> The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon - 240 gigatons - to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. - a level that would, as earth's history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.
> 
> We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price.
> 
> But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world's governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, longwall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling.
> 
> President Obama speaks of a "planet in peril," but he does not provide the leadership needed to change the world's course. Our leaders must speak candidly to the public - which yearns for open, honest discussion - explaining that our continued technological leadership and economic well-being demand a reasoned change of our energy course. History has shown that the American public can rise to the challenge, but leadership is essential.
> 
> The science of the situation is clear - it's time for the politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and business. Every major national science academy in the world has reported that global warming is real, caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The cost of acting goes far higher the longer we wait - we can't wait any longer to avoid the worst and be judged immoral by coming generations.
> 
> _James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is the author of "Storms of My Grandchildren_."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html


----------



## The Guy

Don't count on the BC Liberals, "remember" their past! on the tough issues, good talkers till it comes down to the crunch.


----------



## monocus

if they don't use a pipeline,they will transport it by train,and with their safety record,there won't be any fish streams


----------



## stratos

The Guy said:


> Don't count on the BC Liberals, "remember" their past! on the tough issues, good talkers till it comes down to the crunch.


You might be right: Pressure mounts on B.C. Liberals to end silence on Northern Gateway pipeline - Yahoo! Finance Canada

Come on Christy, show some leadership!


----------



## overlord1957

Hi Stratos.
DO NOT COUNT ON BC & ALBERTA>
They are in Harper pocket, pipe line here it comes.
It is just too bad the politicians do not think long term, some one would loan them a calculator so they can figure out the price tag of the oil 10, 20 year from now.
Cheers.

Van


----------



## stratos

Be part of the solution, apply political pressure via social media. Send a link to this discussion thread to people you know on Facebook; post a link to this discussion thread on other social media sites; email links to this thread to friends and relatives. If the voters make Enbridge an issue at the ballot box, the politicians will listen.

Meanwhile, another daily article for this thread, this time from the Vancouver Courier:

Shale gas extraction a big fracking problem


----------



## Ursus sapien

We may all be stooges, but we've had some help getting there. Oil based plastics replaced plant based plastics with the onset of WW2, and the industry has never looked back. With the post-war boom, plastics morphed into something huge and we were encouraged to go disposable. 

Today we can choose to reduce our use of oil. We can build better homes, requiring less energy to heat. We can use transit rather than drive; fly less; we can use reusable cloth bags; we can select glass over plastic, local over import. Use rechargable batteries; electric over gas powered lawnmowers. We can give up bottled water (a fabricated, oil-heavy industry if ever there was). We can buy used equipment and tools; LCD over plasma; bulk fish foods rather than plastic-shakers. Cut back on the hours of light on our tanks. Maybe not choose the ozone destroying HumVee or Ram as the family car.

Point is, these are lifestyle choices, and there are dozens we could make everyday that would help. Cynical nay-saying aside, a less entitled, greedy, consumption-obsessed public would simply require less oil.


----------



## overlord1957

Hi All.
I remember in the 80 we were laughing when we see Peking street was full of bicycle , now they have problem breathing due to heavy smog!!!!!!
And here we are trying to build a pipe line just to export TAR to the far east so they can make more smog and the 1% of people here get richer...and the rest of us are paying for the 1%.
It is time tell our Government to do better, oil driven economy is not sustainable period.
enjoy sun shine, it is finally here.
Cheers.

Van


----------



## stratos

Today we have word of a major oil spill feeding into the Red Deer River:

Alberta pipeline spews oil into Red Deer River tributary - Calgary - CBC News

If Enbridge goes ahead the same crap will happen in BC except it will be in remote watersheds and near impossible to clean up.

And don't forget the big earthquakes we are due for. God only knows what kind of oil spills we would get along the pipeline route when the expected richter 9 earthquake hits.

Meanwhile, on another note: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120606/bc_enbridge_first_nations_support_sham_120606/


----------



## Ursus sapien

Stratos, the 'like' button isn't working... so, thanks for your last post.


----------



## IceBlue

Stratos, now you are touching on the issue which made me comment in the beginning saying don't be big oils stooges. Unlike many I am somewhat resigned to the exploitation of oil reserves. My concern is simply that if the pipeline goes through BC residents will be on the hook for the pending environmental disaster with absolutely no benefit. No jobs, no royalties, no profits, just environmental liability. Imagine Spanish Banks, Kits Beach, Burrard inlet, Ambleside Park, Coal harbour all covered in bunker oil. The smell permeating all through the city. This is a credible possibility, and what do we get in return? empty promises. To agree to this fate is by definition "a stooge"

The oil will be exploited, of that you can be sure, but we have alternatives. Those need to be explored. 

You of course are correct with the need to reduce consumption. I guess we can all hope.


----------



## stratos

This is either a comedy of just plain obscene:



> Premier Alison Redford says "*it's unfortunate but there are always effects, such as oil spills, that come with economic development*."


The quote above was taken out of the news article here: Oil spill worries Albertans - Calgary - CBC News

Greenpeace should hire Alberta Premier Alison Redford as a spokesperson for the cause against the proposed Enbridge pipeline!


----------



## jsmith11618

"We can use transit rather than drive;"

Unless of course you live in the part of the province that's not in metro Vancouver, where transit can be well lets say not good and not a viable alternative to the car.


----------



## TomC

jsmith11618 said:


> "We can use transit rather than drive;"
> 
> Unless of course you live in the part of the province that's not in metro Vancouver, where transit can be well lets say not good and not a viable alternative to the car.


 True, but unless we get our act together and make some major changes, nobody will be driving anywhere.


----------



## Momobobo

Just saw a ad for Enbridge today..."The way to the future", I scoffed at that, the way to the future of our untimely demise? okay


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> Unfortunately, we are all "oil stooges"; none of us can claim we do not depend on the oil economy for our survival. But we can and must adapt and change. I remember my great grandmother when I was a child; she grew up in a world without cars, never learned to drive, lived a perfectly fine and happy life without all the trappings of an oil enriched economy. We can change the way we live, but we need government leadership to make the change happen. Relying on "market forces" to determine our fate is stupid. We need to invest in the alternative energy sector. We need to implement higher graduated tax rates on high income earners, we need an estate tax on inheritence, we need higher capital gains taxes, - and then we need to invest that money as a society in promoting alternative transportation and energy sources. Think more sky train ( a lot more!), more bikes (with tax credits!), more encouragement of 100 mile food zones (cities should get their food from within a 100 mile radius), government homeowner and business grants for solar and wind power generation. But first we need progressive political leadership. The very term "conservative" sums up the problem. If we continue to be "conservative" and do not radically change our way of life our kids and grand kids are going to pay a hell of a price.
> 
> On a related note, the Conservatives have come out hard against foreign controlled environmental groups; two can play that game. Look who controls the "Canadian" oil companies:
> 
> Another "foreign radical" (intended sarcasm) I am sure our federal government does not approve of is - wait for it - an old senior civil servant working for NASA in the USA. Check out his op-ed piece in yesterdays New York Times:


To be honest, what your grandmother did, was very passive. And to succeed in today's world, you must move with times and not struggle behind.

Relying on market forces to determine our fate is not "stupid" its the natural way. If you did any social studies or econ, you would realize the world is in a state of "globalization" you can't just mind your own business and call it a day. I mean if you did that, whats the difference between us and the mayans? In addition, don't forget Canada built a majority of it's "first world country" status through world trade, and not by lobbying and protesting about each and everything.

in terms of alternative energy, i agree, we should invest more into alternative energies. However BC is already a leader in terms of alternate energy sources. Majority if not all our electricity comes from hydro power. There are two sides to this, you can build more dams, which in turn slows down and harms our salmon runs. Theres just no such a thing as a free lunch in this world. Even if you look at wind power, we are using materials/smelters etc to build them, which bring about quite a bit of ecological damage.

In terms of applying even higher graduated tax rates. Just NO. Plain no. There is a reason why 99% of the world's biggest companies don't choose Canada as a headquarters. The taxes are immense! For example. I make ~100k a year, after taxes i make almost no more than a person making 80k a year. So why work my ass off? Promote laziness? I guess that explains why there are so many homeless in Canada.

Estate tax on inheritance? really? Put it this way. If your dad gave you a toy train, that he bought and paid taxes for. Would you and should you pay taxes again on it when it's given to you? Yea, no.

Investing into transit? that is the worst idea anyone could even come up with? Have you seen how translink spends our money?

Giving bikers tax credits? How about no, and in fact, make it mandatory for them to buy insurance too, i mean they share the road with us drivers, so why don't they have to pay taxes? why can they run redlights? hog one lane all the time, and have EVERY tax payer pay for their stupid bike lanes that no one ever uses.

As far as encouraging 100 mile food radius, sure. I don't see how you could implement this without our food prices going up dramatically. I mean where in BC could you find Thai Rice? Yea doesn't make sense economically. Ideas are just ideas until you actually look at how to implement it without screwing everything up.

Grants for homeowners and business owners for using eco-friendly power sources!? i'm all for that. But again ideas are ideas until you actually think about how to implement them. If we all started to go hippylongstocking and recieved government grants for solar power panels and stuff, BC Hydro would go broke, the government would be broke from giving out money. So where does this money come from?

what we need is less socialism and more capitalism.

Anonymous: Peter Schiff Speaks for one Percent at Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

I highly recommend you check out that video, and maybe you'll see how the other side of the story and maybe grasp how real world economics work.


----------



## stratos

Interesting last post, but I disagree with the conclusion that we need more "capitalism". Instead I think we need moderation - not too much socialism, not too much unregulated capitalism. We need a mixed economy with regulation and enforcement mechanisms. Too often now the economy "privatizes profits and socializes the losses". Think of the trillions of dollars of government $ being used to bail out banks around the world. This is done largely to maintain the status quo and make sure that the 1% continues to receive loan bond dividends and that the value of stock portfolios does not collapse. The problem with maintaining the status quo is that it is not sustainable. All we have done collectively (as a species) by supporting bank and corporate bailouts with public money is kick the problem down the road. The global economy is facing structural problems that are not going away and will return to bite us again. Here is something to ponder: Can you imagine how different the USA would be (and Europe) if the governments were investing trillions of dollars now on transit infrastructure and "green energy" programs instead of spending the money on bank bail outs? Can you imagine how many jobs would be created? How much we could be improving our long term prospects? Of course the rich 1% would be upset to lose money, but the unemployment rate as a whole would drop I think. Think of it as an "FDR New Deal" for a new age. It is a fun thought experiment.

As for the need for radical approaches to our current problems, I would accept rolling brown outs every week for the sake of the greater good. Since this is an aquarium forum, I would adjust my fish keeping by investing in a battery system to tide me over the power cuts. I notice that in Japan the government wants to restart several nuclear reactors, for the sake of industry. Thousands of protesters are saying "no way" and would prefer to live with the inconvenience of brown outs every week or so. I would agree with the protesters.

As for fossil fuel burning car use in BC, I would accept a two tiered system for cars - cheaper for rural areas, more expensive for urban. Cheaper gas for rural, more expensive for urban. In many ways we are headed in that direction already (ex. purple gas for agriculture use, fuel sur-tax for GVRD, etc.).

On an optimistic note, here is some common sense at the national political level:

Energy lobby


----------



## J'sRacing

Actually i think what you just wrote. In a world of PURE capitalism and not crony capitalism, socialism or facism etc, the free market is self balancing. "Privatizing profits and socializing the loss" is due to the government! If the government didn't tax and regulate everything, the employers would not pass on those additional costs to the consumers. Which in turn drives up the cost of everything. If the cost isn't passed on, then the money would stay on main street instead of wall street. Like Schiff said, in a pure capitalism world, there would be no bail outs. And the reason why the bail outs were done is not to ensure the 1% still get to make their pay cheques but because if those companies fail, do you know how many people would be out of a job? and how many people would lose all their savings? If the government stopped insuring bank investments and loans, then they(the banks) wouldn't invest blindly into ludicrous stocks and then fail miserably. Oh and as an added bonus, maybe people would start looking at the banks investment portfolio.

Yes i can imagine how different the world would be if the governments were investing money into transit and "green energy" we would enter a phase of global recession and possibly a depression. This petrol infused economy is simply NOT going to go away. And those jobs would only be temporary, what happens after all the wind generators are built? Who's going to buy all this excess "sustainable energy"? Again, like Peter Schiff said, stimulating the economy by throwing money at projects DON'T HELP. The problems are at the root, what investing money into private and public sectors do is just going to make it worse.

The rich would not lose money, where do you think the government is going to get the money to build these proposed projects of yours? The rich will be the primary stake holders. If you want it to be a government owned entity, then the rich won't even back those projects. And if you entice them with credits or what not, whats the difference between your proposed plan and before?

The unemployment rates would drop temporarily, but again once all those projects are done, then what? You can't just keep building windmills all day. As far as FDR's "new deal" for the new age, I can't comment on that. I don't have enough economic knowledge to get the full grasp of it. But i know of someone who does: Peter Schiff

As far as being radical to solve our current problems, i'd semi-agree. Just because you're rolling brown outs and using batteries to store power, it doesn't make a single difference on your carbon foot print, as you're still using the same amount of power! In fact i'd say its worse, because you're losing power whenever you transfer/store energy. As no device is 100% efficient. Nuclear power is actually very safe: read this article. Again i re-state: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

As far as fossil fuel burning car use in BC, a two tier system would be ludicrous! We already pay a crap tonne of levies and taxes on our gasoline. I'm also paying more for my house and other expenses to be living in the city. Now you propose that city dwellers should pay even more? No wonder Vancouver is one of the most expensive cities to live in. We should just remove all those taxes and levies, and that way money stays will us! the main street people and not translink and our silly government.

On a deeper note, here is some REAL knowledge from a person that ran for US SENATE, and not spewing BS out at our joke of a parliament.
Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street: Full Version, Almost 2 Hours Long! - YouTube

Remember this is the guy that predicted all this happening way before. I think i'd believe in his philosophies and ideas over some dude with a shaggy bearded hippy.

Look into austrian economics. Quite a good read.


----------



## TomC

J'sRacing said:


> This petrol infused economy is simply NOT going to go away.


 That's where I think you're wrong. This petrol based economy is unsustainable. It IS going away. It is up to us whether it goes gradually, through an orderly transition, or suddenly when it comes crashing down around our (or our children's) ears. Left entirely to free market forces, the latter scenario is more likely.


----------



## TomC

J'sRacing said:


> Investing into transit? that is the worst idea anyone could even come up with.


 But then how do the rest of us (who do not pull in 100k) get around? And if there is no transit, where do you plan to park all those cars?


----------



## J'sRacing

TomC said:


> That's where I think you're wrong. This petrol based economy is unsustainable. It IS going away. It is up to us whether it goes gradually, through an orderly transition, or suddenly when it comes crashing down around our (or our children's) ears. Left entirely to free market forces, the latter scenario is more likely.


It's only "unsustainable" because of speculation. The exact amount of petrol that is left on Earth is unknown. For what its worth, we may have another 1000 years worth of petrol. And i would say 99% of the time it is going to come down gradually, oil prices are just going to go higher and higher, and then there will be lesser and lesser buyers. And thats exactly what the free market will do, the buyers dictate the market, not the government! If the market wasn't free, the government dictates the price of end-consumer prices, through levies and taxes!



TomC said:


> But then how do the rest of us (who do not pull in 100k) get around? And if there is no transit, where do you plan to park all those cars?


That'll be up to those who can't pull in 100k, now before i come off as cold-hearted, a successful public transit system doesn't need to be subsidized by EVERYONE. 
Look at Hong Kong, their system is profitable. The core problem with that is our lifestyle. We don't have a densely populated population. It even makes sense that our gas and cars are cheaper than theirs. But really, if the market were free to act for itself, instead of the government intervening on everything, translink might actually be profitable.


----------



## TomC

J'sRacing said:


> It's only "unsustainable" because of speculation.


 It's unsustainable because we can't continue to pump unlimited amounts of smoke into the atmosphere forever. The economy doesn't operate in a vaccuum. There are physical consequences to our actions.



J'sRacing said:


> That'll be up to those who can't pull in 100k, now before i come off as cold-hearted, a successful public transit system doesn't need to be subsidized by EVERYONE.
> But really, if the market were free to act for itself, instead of the government intervening on everything, translink might actually be profitable.


 If not subsidized by everyone, then by whom? Transit is too expensive to pay for itself directly. Everyone, including non users, benefits from a workable transit system. Those office towers downtown wouldn't be able to function if everybody had to drive to work.


----------



## J'sRacing

TomC said:


> It's unsustainable because we can't continue to pump unlimited amounts of smoke into the atmosphere forever. The economy doesn't operate in a vaccuum. There are physical consequences to our actions.
> 
> If not subsidized by everyone, then by whom? Transit is too expensive to pay for itself directly. Everyone, including non users, benefits from a workable transit system. Those office towers downtown wouldn't be able to function if everybody had to drive to work.


You're right. We can't continue to pump unlimited amounts of smoke into the atmosphere forever, but in a REAL free market, that wouldn't happen. Costs for getting oil will eventually make other alternatives more popular and feasible compared to oil. Some flawed logic that i find green heads always have, is that they think solar energy and other renewable energies are CLEAN. When the truth is far from that, the risk of photovoltaic panels leaking or the greenhouse gases emitted when constructing them and constructing of the actual solar farms is a very real threat; the glass panels on top of these solar farms need to be made specially; which guess what? Also requires and produces more green house gases. Oh and you need vasts amounts of land for such solar farms to be erected; its also the same with wind farms. Now what about smaller cities and highly populated areas? where are you going to put these farms that require massive areas to power their densely used power grid?

A successful transit system shouldn't need external funding. What we're doing wrong; is using public money and then asking for more from the employers/investors (basically the 1%) through taxes and other fees. That is taking away all the capital that they have, slowing down our economy. Again, i stress that a successful transit system shouldn't need external funding, look at Hong Kong, Shanghai, Japan, or rather most of Asia. I fail to see how non users benefit from a workable transit system; explain to me how say for example, someone like me, who doesn't use transit, can benefit? Those office towers in down town would function perfectly fine, people would car pool, cycle, get dropped off etc. Time and time again, i tell this to people, the lower mainland is too sparse to support a well scheduled transit system.


----------



## cpool

I 100% whole heartedly think bikes should have to be insured. Why? Because I hit a guy on a bike. He was driving the wrong way down the sidewalk, he then went across the road in front of me and I was turning right, I started to go and stopped as I hit him. Was he wearing a helmut? Nope, was he following any laws he should have been? Nope! The police where called, as was the ambulance, and the fire department, everyone was there. I felt like a tool, but hey I did nothing wrong. So the cop preceeds to chew this guy out for not following the rules and what not, he had a few scrapes but was mostly ok, but the cop looks at me and say's you have to pay to fix his bike. I asked him why and he said because he doesn't have insurance it is your fault. It cost me a good chunk of change. Anyway I think bikes should need insurance because of my experience. 

J's racing, I can't help but agree with you.

I would even go so far as to say I think global warming is a joke and if anyone is going to try to convince me that 100PPM extra of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the end of the world, you are wasting you time. That is .001% extra of CO2, not even a drop in the bucket of what it would take to cause significant warming in my opinion. I just can't believe it, it is to hard for me to wrap my mind around little amount making suck a different because it would reflect so much heat back to earth, sorry, but it simply doesn't compute for me. 

I think capitalism is already changing the way people drive and consume gas. They are making cars to be more fuel efficiant all the time, why? Because people want them because they can't afford gas. So the people who design cars (capitolist) figured out they could make more money (that doesn't make them evil by the way) if they made something that people wanted. Capitalism works, why? Because it is worth while for it to work for the capitolists. It will always solve the problems because it will always make financial sense for them to solve the problem. 

I also really disagree with raising taxes on everything, not a good way to solve any problem. Raising taxes just evens out the playing field and gives people who have a chance to get a head less reason to. Often the people who get ahead have also taken the biggest risks and or the most school or training, so why punish them for taking risks or extra school. They also are the ones who employ most everyone else so they can put food on thier tables.

I am currently thinking about starting my own business (true story) because the reward could be a lot bigger than my current employed position. My business will involve getting jobs for many trades for things that wouldn't get done unless I start my business up. Hopefully lots of money will exchange hands because of it employing many people and keeping taxes getting paid to the government. If taxes were high enough that it just gave the extra money I would make by having my own business to the government to re-distribute, I wouldn't even think about taking the risk of starting my business, Why? What would be the point of risking some of my current capitol to just be in the same sitation as I was in before? 

Yes we need some taxes for the governemt to support lots of different aspects of our society, I totally agree with that. But I don't agree with just claiming a tax on the rich will solve everything, I certainly dont think it will. That would lead to a downward spiral that could have really really bad consiquences for everyone. To much government involvement in to many things and you end up like greece, where they just can't pay for all of the handouts that they have given to the people and then everyone suffers.


----------



## stratos

The problem with free market capitalism is that it assumes that the "commons" or "natural inputs" are free and unlimited. However, clean air, water and soil are not unlimited and should not be "free". Once destroyed or polluted, the natural environment can rarely be brought back to full health. Furthermore, the pollution of the "commons" is rarely priced into the cost of the products/services created. Thomas Mulcair of the federal NDP has mentioned this lately, how the petroleum industry needs to be held financially accountable for the damage it is doing to the natural environment. Assuming the worst and the Athabasca River one day becomes heavily polluted, and this pollution migrates to the Mackenzie River Delta and destroys a whole biosphere, how do we get the billions/trillions from the petrol companies to pay for reclamation? Further, is reclamation even possible? Assuming not, then free market capitalism will have let us all down by not preventing this environmental destruction in the name of "economic development".

The world is approaching an environmental tipping point. Even big business realizes this:

See: IMF chief Christine Lagarde warns world risks triple crisis | Business | guardian.co.uk

The world will not run out of oil, there is lots of oil. The costs of an oil economy to the environment (rising sea level, species loss, etc.) outweigh the short term benefit an oil based economy provides. It is an unsustainable economic model that will lead to a ruined global environment - and mass migration of humans and war/social instability.

Getting back to the topic of Enbridge, if it were to sign a binding agreement with the BC government to accept 100% liability for any and all damage done to the BC environment (both watersheds and coastline) and were to get third party insurance for unlimited liability, then maybe we here in BC could take seriously their commitment to not screw up. However, no insurance company would offer such a policy and even if they did, Enbridge shareholders would never accept unlimited liability. Thus, there is NO reason to trust Enbridge. If they screw up they will just declare bankruptcy and we in BC will be left with the problem and the bill (i.e. socializing losses again). And what are we in BC being offered to take on this horrible risk? No royalties, a handful of construction jobs during construction of the pipeline, and even fewer jobs for the actual running of the pipeline.

The only winners will be big oil companies, Enbridge and its shareholders, the Alberta government, and to a lesser extent the federal government. BC gets next to nothing yet all the risk. Makes no sense for us at all!


----------



## J'sRacing

Exactly. 

I think global warming is a joke as well, or rather a money making scheme. There are many studies as to whether global warming is a reality or just a political move. And i tend to believe the other side more. The sun is heating up, not the Earth. 

To add to the business development portion, removing money from the hands of the employers is not a good trend to be moving towards, in fact its the opposite, the government needs to stop it's spending, and start giving out tax breaks to the employers.


----------



## stratos

If people deny the science behind climate change, then there is no further reason to debate. The evidence connecting man made CO2 emissions to global temperature increase is overwhelming but people are free to deny it if they want.

We need a paradigm shift in thinking about our environment and our economy; we need government leadership to help implement it.

Paradigm shift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## stratos

Someone just sent me a great link:

Guest Blog: Franke James asks "What's Harper afraid of?"

Or better yet, watch this video: http://www.frankejames.com/debate/?p=12247

A picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## jcgd

I feel aquarists should be ashamed when they say global warming is a hoax. It should be easy for us to understand how a whopping hunk of the co2 released into the atmosphere is eventually stored in the oceans. This makes the oceans more acidic and thats where we can personally relate. It's not as simple as the wording - global warming. 

Temperatures are already up 1 degree Fahrenheit. The poles have melted considerably, animals are changing migration and breeding patterns...

How can you actually argue its not real? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


----------



## TomC

jcgd said:


> I feel aquarists should be ashamed when they say global warming is a hoax. It should be easy for us to understand how a whopping hunk of the co2 released into the atmosphere is eventually stored in the oceans. This makes the oceans more acidic and thats where we can personally relate. It's not as simple as the wording - global warming.
> 
> Temperatures are already up 1 degree Fahrenheit. The poles have melted considerably, animals are changing migration and breeding patterns...
> 
> How can you actually argue its not real? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


 The only thing to do is keep putting out reasonable and thoughtful arguments on the subject. There are people who just cannot, or will not, understand. Nothing is ever 100% certain, but enough evidence has been found to suggest with reasonable certainty that CO2 levels are rising at unprecidented rates, and that more CO2 means higher temperatures.


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> If people deny the science behind climate change, then there is no further reason to debate. The evidence connecting man made CO2 emissions to global temperature increase is overwhelming but people are free to deny it if they want.
> 
> We need a paradigm shift in thinking about our environment and our economy; we need government leadership to help implement it.
> 
> Paradigm shift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No one is denying the temperatures have risen, however i think you need to stop looking at media hype, and instead look at what scientists with huge credentials are saying. Like the Nobel prize winner for Physics that recently resigned because he didn't agree with that connection being made. 
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News



stratos said:


> Someone just sent me a great link:
> 
> Guest Blog: Franke James asks "What's Harper afraid of?"
> 
> Or better yet, watch this video: Franke James » What's Harper Afraid of? [animated video]
> 
> A picture is worth a thousand words.


again i highly stress the idea of reviewing the sources of your articles before you consume their ideas. She is an artist and at most a journalist. I think i'll take the words of a former nobel prize winner more highly, oh not to mention; a physicists.



jcgd said:


> I feel aquarists should be ashamed when they say global warming is a hoax. It should be easy for us to understand how a whopping hunk of the co2 released into the atmosphere is eventually stored in the oceans. This makes the oceans more acidic and thats where we can personally relate. It's not as simple as the wording - global warming.
> 
> Temperatures are already up 1 degree Fahrenheit. The poles have melted considerably, animals are changing migration and breeding patterns...
> 
> How can you actually argue its not real? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


Ignorance? no, i refuse to be fed media bs, and i've actually done research onto the subject by reading papers backed by heavy credentials. I feel aquarists should be ashamed of themselves when they can't see in proportions, maybe its because we stare into our little closed eco systems too much. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere PALES in comparison to the amount of CO2 we inject. Do you not see that? Or let me rephrase, the amount of CO2 being released LOOKS big, but in reality the extra 0.001 PPM will not and does not affect much. In fact out of that .8º c increase, i would say 0.000001º c is caused by the extra co2 in the air.

As far as the poles melting, its because of something called "arctic oscillation", animals changing migration and breeding patterns are just because they are changing to follow the weather. And to say that certain animals are becoming extinct. THIS IS NATURAL. We are just in that phase.



TomC said:


> The only thing to do is keep putting out reasonable and thoughtful arguments on the subject. There are people who just cannot, or will not, understand. Nothing is ever 100% certain, but enough evidence has been found to suggest with reasonable certainty that CO2 levels are rising at unprecidented rates, and that more CO2 means higher temperatures.


Yes put out more thoughtful and reasonable arguments, but please let those arguments be well thought out and backed up. Yes Co2 levels are rising at unprecedented rates but compared to what? 1% to 2% is a 200% gain, but 50% to 75% is only a 150% gain. So which number is more detrimental? The biggest issue i have with this hoax, is that CO2 isn't the leader in causing our higher temperatures. I mean how would you explain the Ice age and the other important climate change events, when humans didn't create this additional CO2?


----------



## stratos

J'sracing, if you want hard science, check out this site with strong local academic support at UBC:

350 Science | 350.org

When I Google Dr.Ivar Giaever, ( https://www.google.ca/search?q=dr.+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a ) I get a couple mainstream websites with repetitive posts about his resignation, along with a lot of "Tea Party" type questionable sites that cater to the US Republican right wing. I will take my locally well informed artist over Fox News and The Coming Crisis any day thanks. 

I would hope you could rebut my concerns about the problem of free market economics and the "commons".


----------



## IceBlue

JsRacing,

I can't help but chuckle at your pretzel logic. You have as much spin as a BC Liberal. You state that you would prefer to believe a Nobel Prize winning Physicist, sure that part is true but he was a disedent from his entire association. The American Physisists jointly state that there is "irrevocable truth" that CO2 emmisions are the main cause of global warming. You keep refering to Hong Kong's transit. Well correct we don't have the population but Hong Kong should not be used as an example of anything. It is the land of corruption, billionaires and squaller. No in-between. In western countries public transit is subsidized, that includes your car dude! That shiny bridge across the frazer is paid by everyones tax dollars. All the highways in this province are paid for from general revenue, whenever there is a cost comparison regarding transit ie rail, buses compared to highway, you never see all the capitol costs of construction in the highway portion.

I know I'm not going to change anyones mind but that's why I refer people to my original comment and say the exploitation of these resources is inevitable, let's just make the best deal for BC. Gasp.


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> J'sracing, if you want hard science, check out this site with strong local academic support at UBC:
> 
> 350 Science | 350.org
> 
> When I Google Dr.Ivar Giaever, ( https://www.google.ca/search?q=dr.+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a ) I get a couple mainstream websites with repetitive posts about his resignation, along with a lot of "Tea Party" type questionable sites that cater to the US Republican right wing. I will take my locally well informed artist over Fox News and The Coming Crisis any day thanks.
> 
> I would hope you could rebut my concerns about the problem of free market economics and the "commons".


Your link is broken. 
Again our local academic support is not as great as say how about Nasa's own scientists? who previously supported Nasa's statements:
Astronauts condemn NASA

Or how about over 1000 scientists ? 
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot
Oh by the way in those 1000 scientists there is:
Dr Robert Laughlin Nobel Prize winner for physics in 1998
and other various other key IPCC members.

Oh and if you want to read the full report from the scientists, here it is : 
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663f...1ce3dae902ea1d01cb8e32d9c0585fbc&c_id=2869473

As to free economics and the "commons"
Please clarify what you mean by the "commons" 
Oh by the way, i don't see how just because you find a few websites that look like tea-party websites that cater to US republican views; means that the scientists ' words are not credible.
Well especially now that i've pointed out over 1000 scientists in different countries, not related to the us.



IceBlue said:


> JsRacing,
> 
> I can't help but chuckle at your pretzel logic. You have as much spin as a BC Liberal. You state that you would prefer to believe a Nobel Prize winning Physicist, sure that part is true but he was a disedent from his entire association. The American Physisists jointly state that there is "irrevocable truth" that CO2 emmisions are the main cause of global warming. You keep refering to Hong Kong's transit. Well correct we don't have the population but Hong Kong should not be used as an example of anything. It is the land of corruption, billionaires and squaller. No in-between. In western countries public transit is subsidized, that includes your car dude! That shiny bridge across the frazer is paid by everyones tax dollars. All the highways in this province are paid for from general revenue, whenever there is a cost comparison regarding transit ie rail, buses compared to highway, you never see all the capitol costs of construction in the highway portion.
> 
> I know I'm not going to change anyones mind but that's why I refer people to my original comment and say the exploitation of these resources is inevitable, let's just make the best deal for BC. Gasp.


You forget that the APA is backed by the American government and we all know how uncorrupted that is. Yes that bridge is payed for by the public. But that road is also used to transport cargo/freight and other goods. Does the skytrain do that? Does the bus do that? You realize that the maintenance of the bridges and what not are less than the revenues that freight companies and what not pay right?

By saying Hong Kong is the land of corruption, billionaires and squallers, you seem to think that Canada is all clean and pristine. When in fact it is quite the opposite.

So you're right, I also know that I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but as a bio-chem student and researcher. It pains me to see people being blinded by media hype funded by the government.


----------



## stratos

Almost all your links are to climatedepot, a right wing Republican linked site; a basic search reveals: Climate Depot - SourceWatch Other climate science skeptics you site are not climate scientists.
You don't seem to accept the mainstream scientific views.

Looks like the best we can do is agree to disagree on the science of climate change.

Getting back to the point of this thread, do you support or oppose the Enbridge Pipeline Project?


----------



## cpool

Because I don't believe Global warming is true, I haven't done my research? Interesting. I have spend many, many, hours on the subject, pobably more than most. I have my conclusions based on all of the info I have gathered. Because your conclusion is different than mine, does that make me ignorant? I don't think it does. For every article that you can put up a link to regarding global warming there is one someone can put up against it. 

Again I will state this. After all of the research I did, and articles I read and lectures I listen to on both sides I just couldn't believe that .001% extra of CO2 is going to have an impact on the earths tempeture. It is just 2 hard for me to believe. I work in science (nothing to do with climate science) and I know just how little 100-200 ppm is, and because of that I just can't wrap my head around how that little amount of CO2 would reflect enough heat back to the earth to cause any impact at all. I am not ignorant for my views, I am very well informed thanks.


----------



## stratos

Let's try to move beyond the climate science debate here, it is a side-track; getting back to the thread's purpose, do you support or oppose the Enbridge Pipeline for BC? Is it in BC's best interest to have it?


----------



## donjuan_corn

I support it! Maybe bring a couple jobs in here and there. I'm not at all worried about oil spills if they build it up to code, not like in the States. They'll be spending less oil to transport it, which indirectly is better for the environment.


----------



## stratos

Do you think a couple jobs are worth the risk of oil spills along the coast or in our watersheds? You do know that the recent oil spill of 3000 barrels into the Red Deer River involved a pipeline that was all up to code? Do you really trust Big Oil companies to put our environment ahead of profit? Exxon Valdez, the Gulf of Mexico disaster...


----------



## J'sRacing

My view is against enbridge, for one simple reason, we aren't getting any royalties.


----------



## stratos

Former Conservative Fisheries Minister is publicly against Enbridge Pipeline:

Enbridge pipeline opposed by former Tory minister - British Columbia - CBC News



> "What's Canada doing? We're getting rid of our natural resources as quickly as we can at the lowest possible price," said Siddon





> "Our Pacific salmon stocks and the inland species that inhabit those watersheds - a big part of it being the Fraser basin and Skeena watersheds - are significantly at risk if we have the kind of event that unfolded on the Red Deer River last week."





> "By this point in a major project, with the federal government pushing legislation in a hurry through Ottawa and some kind of a deal signed with the Chinese that nobody has disclosed to us, I think it's time the province did the homework required and took a position," he said.


----------



## stratos

Another day, another article against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline:

DFO, Enbridge disagreed over fish protection along pipeline route: documents

This one shows that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had problems two years ago with the Enbridge proposal and fish habitats; now Harper's Conservatives have gutted the Fisheries act (as part of the Budget, Bill C-38).


----------



## stratos

Another day, another report of another Enbridge Pipeline spill:

http://www.vancouversun.com/busines...pill+releases+litres+heavy/6810820/story.html

The spill outlined in the article above (apparently due to a faulty gasket) is exactly the kind of spill we can expect if Enbridge comes to BC...except it will happen way up in the mountains and be practically impossible to clean up!

The problems with Enbridge are making serious headlines in Canada, as calls for a full review of the pipeline industry in Alberta grow:

Third oil spill fuels calls for Alberta pipeline review - The Globe and Mail

And this story is going international: Canadian Oil Spills Raise Pipeline-Safety Worries - WSJ.com

It is beginning to look like Enbridge is their own worst enemy when it comes to selling their agenda.


----------



## stratos

Today news that Enbridge had an editorial cartoon pulled from the Vancouver Sun because it made fun of them...

Enbridge's Attempt to Kill Spoof Backfires as Censored Cartoonist Goes Public


----------



## hbb

Anyone paying any attention to this gateway project has to be aware of "Pipes leak & ships sink" Its a fact of life & a cost of doing bisiness. Ships that size at 8 knots in Douglas channel is insane. The worst part is they are to be filled with "condesate diluted bitumen" If you don't know is the toxic dregs of natural gas prossessing used to thin the heavy tar so it will move through a pipe It will be the environmetaly scaryest cargo to travel inside waters, it hardly floats, can't be held in an oil spill boom & will bounce around in the 25' tides globing things up till it collects enough material to sink. & the volitiles of the condesate will gas off leaving behind the fun stuff. We have no technology on this planet to effect the clean up of a marine dilbit spill & everyone in the industry knows it. But as we are hearing the risk of a spill is so low we don't realy need to worry about it, if all goes right! hbb


----------



## stratos

Expert testimony pointing out that Enbridge's form of corporate structure - a limited partnership - is designed to shield the parent company (Enbridge) and the other major investors in the pipeline from having to pay all of the costs associated with a spill. The BC taxpayer would be on the hook.

B.C. taxpayers need protection in event of Northern Gateway spill, says former insurance executive


----------



## stratos

Enbridge related, in so far as CO2 emissions are messing up the ocean (and coral reefs) much faster than anticipated:

Ocean acidity increases surprise researchers - CSMonitor.com

One more reason to stop Enbridge and limit the tar sand development.


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> Enbridge related, in so far as CO2 emissions are messing up the ocean (and coral reefs) much faster than anticipated:
> 
> Ocean acidity increases surprise researchers - CSMonitor.com
> 
> One more reason to stop Enbridge and limit the tar sand development.


Just my take on the situation. But how is it that you can relate every single "climate change" article to enbridge? It actually amazes me. What i've found interesting as of late is actually the frequency of volcanic eruptions have been steadily increasing this century.


----------



## stratos

No need to play the climate card to oppose the Enbridge project, the Enbridge company provides enough ammunition on its own:

Enbridge handling of U.S. leak likened to 'Keystone Kops' - Calgary - CBC News


----------



## stratos

A funny excerpt from a Vaughn Palmer opinion piece about Enbridge in today's Vancouver Sun:



> The company has proved to be singularly clumsy in its understanding of B.C., a point that was reinforced for me the other evening in a movie theatre in the provincial capital.
> 
> I was awaiting the start of the movie, when suddenly, amid the usual flow of advertisements for automobiles, communication services and cold drinks, there was one of those Enbridge spots touting the Northern Gateway as "more than a pipeline, it's a path to the future."
> 
> Sparkling colours. Relentlessly cheery. Nice production values, as one would expect with a campaign priced in the millions of dollars.
> 
> But here's the thing: The audience actually booed the pro-pipeline pitch and did so with considerable enthusiasm.
> 
> How often that has been happening in movie theatres, I have no idea. But I was struck by the thought of Enbridge launching a campaign to - in the words of a company representative - "help British Columbians understand what the project is all about" only to have its best efforts greeted by a chorus of boos.


You can read the whole opinion piece below:

Read more: Opinion: NDP leader makes political hay out of Enbridge

Meanwhile, federally the political pressure against Enbridge continues to grow too:

Pull plug on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, says NDP's Thomas Mulclair


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> A funny excerpt from a Vaughn Palmer opinion piece about Enbridge in today's Vancouver Sun:
> 
> You can read the whole opinion piece below:
> 
> Read more: Opinion: NDP leader makes political hay out of Enbridge
> 
> Meanwhile, federally the political pressure against Enbridge continues to grow too:
> 
> Pull plug on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, says NDP's Thomas Mulclair


Quite frankly, while i don't agree with enbridge myself: seeing as we don't get any royalties or incentives. I don't like the NDP's stance on what Canada should be.


----------



## stratos

The NDP is a work in progress, still figuring out its position; I personally hope they fuse with the Liberals in time for the next election.

But back to Enbridge. Here is something scary to think about: Christy Clark's chief of staff used to work for Enbridge as a lobbyist and worked for Harper!

Clark's new chief of staff advised Harper, lobbied for Enbridge - The Globe and Mail

I am seriously scared that Christy is selling out BC to Big Oil and Enbridge; when she loses the election next year she will get what is called a "golden parachute" and land a really cushy job as lobbyist of some kind with a Big Oil company or else with Harper. A worst case scenario has the provincial Liberals committing us to Enbridge in a binding contract _signed before _the next election, one that the next elected government could not get out of. This Enbridge deal has the same kind of stink to it that the privatization of BC Rail had.

But even Christy Clark seems to be trying to hedge her bets, cover her rear end. Note what she had to say about the Enbridge fiasco in Kalamazoo Michigan:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/0...ill_n_1666316.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business


----------



## effox

Well it wasn't an educated comment, but before the movie trailers started I immediately saw that Enbridge ad that was mentioned previously, and yelled out "'EFF' ENBRIDGE IN BC!" and surprisingly I actually heard no "shut up"'s but a whole lot of applause, and even from the younger crowd shouting back in positive response.

I hope they listen to the majority who don't think jobs for a temporary point of time will be worth the risk of environmental disaster.


----------



## stratos

effox said:


> Well it wasn't an educated comment, but before the movie trailers started I immediately saw that Enbridge ad that was mentioned previously, and yelled out "'EFF' ENBRIDGE IN BC!" and surprisingly I actually heard no "shut up"'s but a whole lot of applause, and even from the younger crowd shouting back in positive response.
> 
> I hope they listen to the majority who don't think jobs for a temporary point of time will be worth the risk of environmental disaster.


That's the spirit! 

As for the jobs, Enbridge says the Northern Gateway Pipeline would only create 560 long term jobs in BC.


----------



## effox

560 jobs wouldn't even employ the "block" I live in, in Surrey, and it's not as highly dense as Vancouver with all the sky scrapers.

I wouldn't risk it even if we did get royalties, however I'm not overly educated in the matter, I think big oil is going to win this battle, but I'll oppose it anyways.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

The longer this debate can be drawn out, it seems the more Enbridge is sticking its own foot in its mouth as their past "less than stellar" performances in spillage, clean-up and overall safety come to light.


----------



## stratos

Here is an article by a mainstream Edmonton paper about Enbridge:

Thomson: Report on Enbridge damning



> There are moments reading the U.S. government's report on the 2010 Enbridge pipeline leak in Michigan where you want to toss the document across the room in frustration.
> 
> Moments where pipeline operators at the company's control centre in Edmonton can't seem to figure out why the pressure in the line keeps dropping no matter how much oil they pump in. It's dinner time on Sunday, July 25, and alarms are going off in the control room like fireworks. The pressure in the pipeline keeps dropping so operators add more oil to the line. They're pumping oil in at one end and not getting it out the other - and you want to yell at the report "Oh, for crying out loud, you've got a leak! Stop pumping oil into the line!"
> 
> At one point in the chain of events, an operator suggests that maybe they've got a leak or, then again, maybe they should just keep trying to get the pressure up by pumping in more oil. They declare the alarms to be false and when the possibility of a leak was raised again, one operator glibly replies, "Whatever, we're going home and will be off for a few days."
> 
> Pumping more oil to the line to get the pipeline flowing is like CN trying to clear a derailment by sending more trains speeding down the track.
> 
> This goes on page after page as the report documents how three separate shifts of operators failed to recognize what was going on for 17 hours, from when the pipeline ruptured to when operators finally shut down the pumps.
> 
> And they didn't shut them down because they figured out on their own they had a problem; on the contrary they had to be told by a gas company employee in Michigan who noticed the leak.
> 
> In the end, of the 3.8 million litres of crude oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River, more than 80 per cent was pumped into the line after the pipe had ruptured.
> 
> Reading the report, you don't know whether to laugh or cry.
> 
> There's plenty to cry about: the largest inland spill of oil in U.S. history that is costing more than $800 million to clean up. But there are also shake-your-head moments when you almost have to laugh out loud, moments that prompted Deborah Hersman, head of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, to compare Enbridge to a silent-film-era comedy troupe.
> 
> "Learning about Enbridge's poor handling of the rupture, you can't help but think of the Keystone Kops," said Hersman, whose organization wrote the damning report. "Why didn't they recognize what was happening? What took so long?"
> 
> And it wasn't just the failure of operators on July 25, 2010, that has Hersman scratching her head, it was Enbridge's failure as a company to properly maintain what it knew to be an aging pipeline: "Yet, for five years they did nothing to address the corrosion or cracking at the rupture site - and the problem festered."
> 
> You have to marvel at the clarity, the conviction and the courage of Hersman, who does not dull her rhetoric or pull her punches. She's as blunt with U.S. regulators as she is with Enbridge, placing part of the blame on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: "Delegating too much authority to the regulated to assess their own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse."
> 
> Enbridge has been reluctant to say much about the report, except to vaguely reassure us it has made improvements to its safety system. The only response more vague than the company's is that from Canadian officials, including Alberta's, who say they're studying the report.
> 
> There is a quiet glibness among Alberta officials that what happened in Michigan couldn't happen here, that our regulations are more stringent, that our regulators are more vigilant.
> 
> But that is to ignore the spill of 4.5 million litres of oil from a Plains Midstream pipeline in northern Alberta in 2011, a spill that was vastly underreported at the time compared to the Enbridge spill because it happened in a relatively remote area. Also, Albertans tend to take oil spills in stride as a price of doing business. We're so unconcerned about Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to the West Coast that a public meeting on Wednesday in Edmonton to review the project had to be cancelled because nobody registered to speak to it.
> 
> Public hearings by the federal Joint Review Panel in British Columbia, of course, have generated much more interest because many residents there see the proposed Enbridge pipeline as nothing but an environmental time bomb waiting to blow up in their backyard.
> 
> Enbridge argues that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be modern, state of the art and less prone to leaking than any pipeline ever built.
> 
> However, the pipeline will be run by people and, as the Michigan spill so graphically illustrated, people make mistakes.
> 
> Enbridge has to explain exactly and in great detail how it has improved its system of inspecting and operating its pipelines.
> 
> The governments of Alberta and Canada have to explain how regulators will keep an eye on the regulated.
> 
> Even that is probably not enough to convince British Columbians that the Northern Gateway pipeline is a good idea.
> 
> And their fears are not mere paranoia. You just have to read the report on Enbridge's spill in Michigan and pretend it happened in Kitimat, not Kalamazoo.
> 
> [email protected] com
> 
> © Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal


As the article points out,_ human error is the time bomb _to any pipeline. Sooner or later...


----------



## donjuan_corn

Meh, how many oil tanker trucks are driving around? How many trains going across Canada carrying oil or gas? I would feel safer with it in a pipeline then putting it on tracks or in trucks wasting gas to move gas is just silly.

How can you compare this project to exxon, the worlds reason for 1/8 of the worlds pollution from their terrible procedures and not up to code.


----------



## neven

The pipelines are geeat if thwy are maintained and had better fail safes in place but they do not. A pipeline disaster is much worse than a tanker truck or rail car disaster though. North american business practice too often places cuts in preventative maintenance and they cut much needed low end jobs to increase profit. The result is tired workers and a system ready to fail, all for the savings of a few benefit packages. Look at the us power grid

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I896 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2


----------



## stratos

Finally our premier seems to be addressing the high risk and low benefits for BC in relation to Enbridge:

Christy Clark: Northern Gateway pipeline a 'very large risk' with 'very small benefit' for B.C.


----------



## donjuan_corn

stratos said:


> Finally our premier seems to be addressing the high risk and low benefits for BC in relation to Enbridge:
> 
> Christy Clark: Northern Gateway pipeline a 'very large risk' with 'very small benefit' for B.C.


She absolutely said nothing in this post that was worth mentioning except the fact they are spending an extra 500,000,000 to make sure that it is extra safe over water areas.

She's on the fence and is afraid to go either way, sounds like a great leader. Don't piss anyone off and you'll keep most of the votes.

Obviously we are taking the hugest risk versus the least benefits, the oil fields are in Alberta, that is the dumbest statement i've ever seen.


----------



## neven

Whenever there is an oppurtunity for a good photo up with little sustenance, leave it to the bc christy party

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I896 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2


----------



## Hammer

The Northern Gateway pipeline flows through a number of really ecologically and culturally important watersheds. Given the declining state of the Fraser, the Skeena and Nass area probably the best of what we have left. Putting an Enbridge pipeline through that area is "garage sale" mentality (and not even a garage sale where we can keep the quarter for the old matchbox car). As an interesting economic point, there is an extremely popular, catch and release sports fishery around the summer steelhead fishery of the SKeena, Nass, and their tributaries. Revenues from this are significant (more the one hundred million dollars annually) as non-residents have to hire local guides for about (300-500$ daily) as well as have classified waters licenses, gear, hotels, gas, etc. All for a chance at a fish they don't intend to kill. This would be in addition to significant revenues from commercial fisheries as well as the culturally and economic value to First Nations along the SKeena. It's fine and dandy to think that tourism and recreation dollars aren't always enough to put food on your table (an in some cases something for our province something does need to be cut, killed, or mined to pay the bills). In that cases, 5-20 million high quality Skeena sockeye will certainly adding to groceries. All cheek aside, it don't think we should risk our ability to produce massive amounts of sustainable, high quality food in order to transport gas to Asia. However, I think our province needs revenue. I, for one, would like to see B.C. get more out of it and way tighter environmental restrictions put on this if it going ahead. My first answer is no.


----------



## Ursus sapien

so, if my email in-box is to be believed, |Ms Clark is "calling for a robust spills response plan and a share of the profits ".

sounds like she's interested.


----------



## neven

She's playing the fence as usual. BC Christy doesn't want to piss off the powers that be, and she wants to appear to be concerned for our province. But in reality, a spill response plan that would be adequate and world leading doesn't exist for bitumen spills.


----------



## J'sRacing

for an 8% share, i don't think that this is a reasonable amount of return for the risk.
At 35% i'd say go for it.


----------



## stratos

Yet another Enbridge spill to report today: U.S. agency investigating Enbridge oil spill - Canada - CBC News

It is getting hard to believe that this company can be screwing up so regularly.


----------



## stratos

Looks like the Enbridge company needs to be micro-managed:

U.S. regulator blocks restart of Enbridge Line 14 | Business | Reuters


----------



## stratos

Increasing national attention being paid to the Enbridge issue; the article below is out of Toronto:

Growing opposition to northern British Columbia pipeline will test Canada PM Stephen Harper - thestar.com


----------



## neven

Bill Tieleman: Alberta's atrocious record of thousands of pipeline leaks a strong warning to BC

i had no idea there has been that much spilled oil in alberta in recent years...


----------



## stratos

Thanks for that link Neven. I want to do some more research of the article for sure.

Another article I read today that counters BIG OIL's spin on Enbridge: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/bl...-spill-british-columbia-really-be-good-canada

I heard an Enbridge exec on the radio yesterday and found myself asking why I should believe a word she said.


----------



## Ursus sapien

this just showed up in my in-box. Enbridge's ads promoting pipeline safety shows a map of BC coastline around Kitamat with all those pesky little tanker-sinking islands removed.


----------



## roshan

There is simply not enough money that could could make up for a major spill/leak. The damage to the enviroment would be irreversible, jobs and money are one thing but WHEN there is a spill all those jobs will probably be in trouble. There are those that believe that Mrs Clarke is taking a stand for us, but really all she is doing is putting a price tag on mother nature. DONT believe the HYPE from the "experts" that are for this idea, all you have to do is look up the situation in Kalamazoo and what happened with BP Oil a few years back. Too many with ulterior motives trying to push this thing through.


----------



## neven

Remember its just a bit over 200 jobs for both alberta and bc. the rest are construction and a good portion of them will be from crews outside both provinces and foreign workers on temp permits. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I896 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2


----------



## stratos

Things are looking good from an anti-Northern Gateway Embridge pipeline perspective:

Northern Gateway's unpopularity may force Tories to rethink project


----------



## Ursus sapien

from Dogwood Initiative, Sept. 13, 2012

"The Union of B.C. Municipalities is voting for a third straight year on a resolution related to oil pipeline and tanker proposals...

Sponsored by the municipality of Saanich, Resolution A8 recognizes that:

"A crude oil spill would have devastating and long lasting effects on British Columbia's unique and diverse coast, which provides critical marine habitat and marine resources that sustain the social, cultural, environmental and economic health of coastal and First Nations communities".

It calls on the Union of B.C. Municipalities to:

"Oppose projects that would lead to the expansion of oil tanker traffic through B.C.'s coastal waters&#8230;and urge the Premier of British Columbia, the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of the Legislative Assembly to use whatever legislative and administrative means that are available to stop [this] expansion of oil tanker traffic."

...This would be the strongest statement in defence of our coast ever passed collectively by B.C.'s local governments. It would signal opposition not only to Enbridge and Kinder Morgan's proposals, but any other project folks in the oil patch can dream up to bring more crude oil tankers through B.C. waters.

You can help pass this motion... Please don't demand, just say "It would be awesome if you did this." The more love and support our local politicians receive to support this resolution the higher the chance it will actually pass. That's it. One important step and you help make history. "

Click this link to ask your local mayor and councillors to support Resolution A8


----------



## stratos

David Suzuki lives in Vancouver and has been known to own more than one aquarium in his time. Check out what he has to say below that could affect the proposed Enbridge pipeline project:



> You might be surprised to learn that on Oct 31, the federal government plans to quietly approve the "Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement." This deal will bind Canadians for 31 years -- a full generation.
> 
> There is no plan for debate in the House of Commons or examination by a legislative committee or provincial governments.
> 
> Why do you need know about this?
> •The agreement would allow China to sue Canada, outside of Canada and behind closed doors, if its investment interests were hindered. For example, if the B.C. government decided to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline over concerns about environmental impact, Canadians could be on the hook for millions, or billions in damages.
> •The deal requires Canada to give Chinese companies "the right to full protection and security from public opposition." Should we put trade agreements before the protection of air, water, soil and biodiverse ecosystems that sustain us all?
> •That the deal is being concluded with no public input, provincial consultation or parliamentary debate makes it part of a disturbing trend to ignore democratic processes and rush policy and legislative changes that could significantly affect the protection of our natural environment, as we have seen with the government's two omnibus budget bills.
> 
> Raise your voice for more transparency and more democracy.
> 
> Tell the Prime Minister that Canadians want to examine, discuss and debate this important trade deal before it's too late.
> 
> The David Suzuki Foundation


A companion piece that goes with the above is here:



> *Why, when so many people oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project, would government and industry resort to such extreme measures to push it through?*
> The problems with the plan to run pipelines from the Alberta tar sands across northern B.C. to load unrefined, diluted bitumen onto supertankers for export to China and elsewhere are well-known: threats to streams, rivers, lakes and land from pipeline leaks; the danger of contaminated ocean ecosystems from tanker spills; rapid expansion of the tar sands; and the climate change implications of continued wasteful use of fossil fuels.
> 
> The benefits aren't as apparent. Some short-term and fewer long-term jobs, possibly for foreign workers, and increased profits for the oil industry - including state-owned Chinese companies - are all we're being offered in exchange for giving up our resources, interests and future, putting ecosystems at risk, and forfeiting due democratic process.
> 
> Our government is ramming through another omnibus budget bill, and is set to sign a deal with China, both of which seem aimed at facilitating the pipeline and other resource-extraction projects. Its first budget bill gutted environmental protection laws, especially those that might obstruct pipeline plans. It also limited input from the public and charitable organizations, and included measures to crack down on charities that engage in political advocacy.
> 
> The recent 457-page omnibus budget bill goes even further. Among other changes, it revises the Navigable Waters Protection Act (renamed the Navigation Protection Act) to substantially reduce waterways that must be considered for protection and exempt pipelines from regulations.
> 
> Meanwhile, the government is set to sign a 31-year deal on October 31 that will give China's government significant control over Canada's resources and even over Canadians' rights to question projects like Northern Gateway. The Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement would allow China to sue Canada, outside of our borders and behind closed doors, if the pipeline deal were blocked or China's interests in our resource industry hindered; for example, if the B.C. government were to stop Northern Gateway. It also gives the Chinese state-owned companies "the right to full protection and security from public opposition", as well as the right to use Chinese labour and materials on projects in which it has invested.
> 
> According to author and investigative journalist Andrew Nikiforuk, writing for the Tyee, "The deal does not require provincial consent. It comes without any risk-benefit analysis. And it can be ratified into law without parliamentary debate."
> 
> Why would anyone want to sell out our interests, democratic processes and future like this? And why would we put up with it? On the first question, Gus Van Harten, an international investment law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, told Desmog Blog we must consider the possibility that government and industry know that changes in attitudes about fossil fuel extraction "may lead to new regulations on the oil patch, in that, climate can't just be wished away forever, and that governments might take steps to regulate the oil patch in ways that investors wouldn't like." He continues, "If you bring in a lot of Chinese investments, and you sign the Canada investment deal, you kind of get the Chinese investors to do your dirty work for you."
> 
> In other words, as the world recognizes the already extreme and increasing consequences of global warming and shifts from wastefully burning fossil fuels to conservation and renewable energy, tar sands bitumen may soon become uneconomical. The goal is to dig it up, sell it and burn it as quickly as possible while there's still money to be made. It's cynical and suicidal, but it's the kind of thinking that is increasingly common among those who see the economy as the highest priority - over human health and the air, water, soil and biodiverse ecosystems that keep us alive.
> 
> What can we do? Prof. Van Harten has written to provincial governments urging them to ask the federal government to "stop the rushed ratification" of the China deal. We should all demand that our leaders put the interests of Canadians now and into the future ahead of short-sighted and destructive industrial ambitions. The budget bill and trade deal are not democratic in content or implementation. We need to take back democracy.
> 
> By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.


More available here: David Suzuki Foundation | Solutions are in our nature


----------



## Lamplighter

I don't have any objection to foreign investment in Canada. Once a company invests whatever deal they made should be grandfathered. The Canadian government is democratically elected so it can do what it pleases within the confines of the law. Companies that invest need protection and if they don't get it they'll take their money elsewhere. 

Whether I approve of the Enbridge pipeline project or not is moot.


----------



## stratos

The question is, why are we not debating this major agreement with China publicly? Why not allow parliament to have a look at it and debate it?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comm...-canada-china-investment-pact/article4629358/


----------



## Lamplighter

stratos said:


> The question is, why are we not debating this major agreement with China publicly? Why not allow parliament to have a look at it and debate it?
> 
> Why aren


The Harper democratically elected dictatorship doesn't debate. He does what he wants!!!!!


----------



## IceBlue

Sorry Lamplighter but I have a problem following your logic on your last two comments. Regardless, the pipeline will not be built. Harper may bind us to an agreement that leads to large lawsuit where tax payers are on the hook but so be it. Exxon sued and won a lawsuit that netted them millions regarding some extraction, don't recall where but I think it was in the maritimes. Very disturbing, the international deals we are making behind closed doors without proper discussion in the legislatures and parliament are astonishing but don't worry people. Neocons only concern is getting the money out of your pockets into the proper hands....theirs.By courts are backroom deals makes no difference to them. And Harper and his minions are only too happy to help, or too ignorant of what is really happening.


----------



## Lamplighter

All I'm saying is that governments do what they feel like. 

I think the pipeline will be built so let's see if I'm right.


----------



## stratos

Lamplighter said:


> All I'm saying is that governments do what they feel like.
> 
> I think the pipeline will be built so let's see if I'm right.


But do you want it built? Do you feel this is the right thing to do?

I am getting involved politically to fight the Enbridge pipeline project, as well as the Kinder Morgan expansion. All three mainstream political parties, along with various environmental groups are open to help from the public in fighting these projects. If you are opposed to these projects I suggest you participate in protest marches (like the one at the Victoria legislature last week, or the march to Christy Clarke's constituency office at 4th and Alma), or at the very least fire off an email to the Prime Minister to register your opposition:

Speak out against an undemocratic Canada-China trade deal | David Suzuki Foundation

The more people speak out, the more it becomes a political issue and the more the politicians are likely to pay attention to the growing opposition.


----------



## stratos

Enbridge is one irresponsible company...



> VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - More than two and a half years after a pipeline rupture spilled heavy oil into the Kalamazoo River, the US Environmental Protection Agency is ordering Calgary-based Enbridge to dredge the river to remove submerged oil.
> 
> The agency says it has repeatedly found oil in sections of the river, and it wants that crude removed before it flows downstream to areas where it will be more difficult or even impossible to clean up.
> 
> The agency is also ordering Enbridge _ proponent of the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline through northern British Columbia _ to maintain sediment traps throughout the river to capture oil outside the dredge areas.
> 
> EPA documents note that Enbridge challenged the agency's science, and the need to either contain or recover the remaining oil.
> 
> The July 2010 spill near Marshall, Michigan, has dogged the company as it proceeds through a federal review of the Northern Gateway to deliver oil sands products to a tanker port in Kitimat.
> 
> The ability to clean-up diluted bitumen from Alberta's oil sands has been raised at the hearings by project opponents.


Enbridge ordered to dredge Kalamazoo River | News1130


----------



## nigerian prince

its all bureaucrats and opposers trying to get the biggest slice of the pie possible, and backstopping any deal with the taxpayers, its all for money and getting reelected, get the government and environmental extortionists out of it and let the people of the cities and towns directly effected make their own deals and if necessary live with the consequences of those decisions..


----------



## stratos

Another day, another pipeline spill: 10,000 barrels of oil spilled in Arkansas pipeline rupture - Technology & Science - CBC News

I wonder what 10,000 barrels of oil would look like spilled in the upper Fraser river?


----------



## stratos

This was a lead opinion article in the Sunday New York Times. Makes for interesting reading. 



> The Tar Sands Disaster
> By THOMAS HOMER-DIXON
> WATERLOO, Ontario
> 
> IF President Obama blocks the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all, he'll do Canada a favor.
> 
> Canada's tar sands formations, landlocked in northern Alberta, are a giant reserve of carbon-saturated energy - a mixture of sand, clay and a viscous low-grade petroleum called bitumen. Pipelines are the best way to get this resource to market, but existing pipelines to the United States are almost full. So tar sands companies, and the Alberta and Canadian governments, are desperately searching for export routes via new pipelines.
> 
> Canadians don't universally support construction of the pipeline. A poll by Nanos Research in February 2012 found that nearly 42 percent of Canadians were opposed. Many of us, in fact, want to see the tar sands industry wound down and eventually stopped, even though it pumps tens of billions of dollars annually into our economy.
> 
> The most obvious reason is that tar sands production is one of the world's most environmentally damaging activities. It wrecks vast areas of boreal forest through surface mining and subsurface production. It sucks up huge quantities of water from local rivers, turns it into toxic waste and dumps the contaminated water into tailing ponds that now cover nearly 70 square miles.
> 
> Also, bitumen is junk energy. A joule, or unit of energy, invested in extracting and processing bitumen returns only four to six joules in the form of crude oil. In contrast, conventional oil production in North America returns about 15 joules. Because almost all of the input energy in tar sands production comes from fossil fuels, the process generates significantly more carbon dioxide than conventional oil production.
> 
> There is a less obvious but no less important reason many Canadians want the industry stopped: it is relentlessly twisting our society into something we don't like. Canada is beginning to exhibit the economic and political characteristics of a petro-state.
> 
> Countries with huge reserves of valuable natural resources often suffer from economic imbalances and boom-bust cycles. They also tend to have low-innovation economies, because lucrative resource extraction makes them fat and happy, at least when resource prices are high.
> 
> Canada is true to type. When demand for tar sands energy was strong in recent years, investment in Alberta surged. But that demand also lifted the Canadian dollar, which hurt export-oriented manufacturing in Ontario, Canada's industrial heartland. Then, as the export price of Canadian heavy crude softened in late 2012 and early 2013, the country's economy stalled.
> 
> Canada's record on technical innovation, except in resource extraction, is notoriously poor. Capital and talent flow to the tar sands, while investments in manufacturing productivity and high technology elsewhere languish.
> 
> But more alarming is the way the tar sands industry is undermining Canadian democracy. By suggesting that anyone who questions the industry is unpatriotic, tar sands interest groups have made the industry the third rail of Canadian politics.
> 
> The current Conservative government holds a large majority of seats in Parliament but was elected in 2011 with only 40 percent of the vote, because three other parties split the center and left vote. The Conservative base is Alberta, the province from which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and many of his allies hail. As a result, Alberta has extraordinary clout in federal politics, and tar sands influence reaches deep into the federal cabinet.
> 
> Both the cabinet and the Conservative parliamentary caucus are heavily populated by politicians who deny mainstream climate science. The Conservatives have slashed financing for climate science, closed facilities that do research on climate change, told federal government climate scientists not to speak publicly about their work without approval and tried, unsuccessfully, to portray the tar sands industry as environmentally benign.
> 
> The federal minister of natural resources, Joe Oliver, has attacked "environmental and other radical groups" working to stop tar sands exports. He has focused particular ire on groups getting money from outside Canada, implying that they're acting as a fifth column for left-wing foreign interests. At a time of widespread federal budget cuts, the Conservatives have given Canada's tax agency extra resources to audit registered charities. It's widely assumed that environmental groups opposing the tar sands are a main target.
> 
> This coercive climate prevents Canadians from having an open conversation about the tar sands. Instead, our nation behaves like a gambler deep in the hole, repeatedly doubling down on our commitment to the industry.
> 
> President Obama rejected the pipeline last year but now must decide whether to approve a new proposal from TransCanada, the pipeline company. Saying no won't stop tar sands development by itself, because producers are busy looking for other export routes - west across the Rockies to the Pacific Coast, east to Quebec, or south by rail to the United States. Each alternative faces political, technical or economic challenges as opponents fight to make the industry unviable.
> 
> Mr. Obama must do what's best for America. But stopping Keystone XL would be a major step toward stopping large-scale environmental destruction, the distortion of Canada's economy and the erosion of its democracy.
> 
> Thomas Homer-Dixon, who teaches global governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, is the author of "The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization."


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/the-tar-sands-disaster.html


----------



## Clownloachlover

Don't kid yourselves, this pipeline will be built, it will just be a matter of how much Enbridge has to pay to all the protest groups. I hate to say this but not even the environment is priceless, everything and everyone has a price. I have a friend of mine that is up north doing sheet metal work for the processing plant that will process a lot of oil that will come out of the pipeline. All that you hear in the media is spin doctoring of the truth...the pipeline will be built...people will make billions of dollars and sooner or later it will spell disaster...whether it be a tanker running aground, a leak in the pipeline or the irreparable damage to the environment...but it will be built...they cant afford not too...it will bring in billions of dollars to the economy that we as taxpayers will never see a dime of!


----------



## effox

I can't disagree with that.


----------



## stratos

Clownloachlover said:


> Don't kid yourselves, this pipeline will be built, it will just be a matter of how much Enbridge has to pay to all the protest groups. I hate to say this but not even the environment is priceless, everything and everyone has a price. I have a friend of mine that is up north doing sheet metal work for the processing plant that will process a lot of oil that will come out of the pipeline. All that you hear in the media is spin doctoring of the truth...the pipeline will be built...people will make billions of dollars and sooner or later it will spell disaster...whether it be a tanker running aground, a leak in the pipeline or the irreparable damage to the environment...but it will be built...they cant afford not too...it will bring in billions of dollars to the economy that we as taxpayers will never see a dime of!


I disagree with you. I think a natural gas pipeline will be built, and maybe the Kinder Morgan twin line, but I don't think that the Enbridge pipeline will be.

The provincial NDP is opposed to the Northern Gateway Pipeline and this opposition is part of their election platform. Assuming the provincial NDP win the upcoming election then there will be no Northern Gateway pipeline. Even if the provincial Liberals win the upcoming election there is still fierce and growing opposition in the province to the Enbridge pipeline for them to deal with. Don't underestimate the power of the First Nations and other committed British Columbians to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to see that the Northern Gateway is not built. I remember the "War in the Woods" back in the early 1980's when South Moresby, the Carmanah and Stein Valleys were all set to be logged of their old growth forest. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of thousands of ordinary people across BC those areas are still there to be enjoyed in their natural beauty today. 

To quote a famous line:


> Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.


----------



## Clownloachlover

Sorry to state Stratos, you are making far to many assumptions. First off the NDP have to win the election...if they win, that is an if...yes they may be in opposition of the pipeline right now, however once they take a hard look at the economics and their ability to fulfill their election promises to "we the people" they will have to allow the pipeline to be constructed. It is simple economics. The Natural gas pipeline I agree will be built...they have too, there is far to much world demand for LNG and we have a direct supply from northern BC and a direct link to the Asian markets. Protest groups are only as strong as their weakest link and sorry to state but oil trumps trees...protests of the 80's are far different then than they are now...the world economics demand oil and we have an abundant supply. Like I said it will just be a matter of time before a disaster happens, but unfortunately not even the environment is safe to the all mighty buck! I hope you are right because I would not want to see an environmental disaster off our coast, but I really think that in the end Enbridge will be delivering oil to the west coast through a pipeline that will be given the green light by our government...they will succumb to the pressure of the feds and the world markets as well as the pressure of the people of the province and their demands for more and greater public programs and program funding!


----------



## stratos

Clownloachlover said:


> they will succumb to the pressure of the feds and the world markets as well as the pressure of the people of the province and their demands for more and greater public programs and program funding!


No "we" won't succumb to the pressure of the feds. If the feds (i.e Harper) decide to try and impose the Enbridge line then the First Nations will launch dozens of constitutional challenges based on the absence of land claims agreements and the consequent lack of federal jurisdiction to impose on First Nation land title without there being treaties. Without First Nations signing on there is no legal way for the project to go forward. Furthermore, the joke of this Enbridge project for BC is that it only creates a handful of long term jobs for us here and something like a billion dollars over decades for the BC government. One small spill would potentially wipe out any benefit for us here and even leave us in the hole financially. There really is nothing in the deal offered us by Alberta or Enbridge to make the risk worth our while. If there must be a "compromise" it will be the twinning of Kinder Morgan, though even that one is going to have a tough go of it.

I agree that the environmental lobby alone won't be able to stop Enbridge. But with the help of the First Nations - and the compelling logic that the project is not in the financial interest of BC, which even now has led to a majority of public opposition in BC - I think it will be stopped.


----------



## Clownloachlover

We can Agree to disagree...it will come down to money...how much will Enbridge be willing to pay the feds, the province and the first nations people for the use of their land for their pipeline...Money Greed and Politics...Money Talks! Hate to say it but in the end it will get built!


----------



## stratos

Rarely has a political party's views on the environment in BC fit more closely with my own than now:



> KAMLOOPS - New Democratic Party leader Adrian Dix shut the door almost entirely Monday on a proposed twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta into Burnaby, saying an NDP government would not support a major increase of tanker traffic in and out of Metro Vancouver.
> 
> "We do not expect Vancouver to become a major oil-export port, as appears to be suggested in what Kinder Morgan is suggesting to the province and to the country," Dix said, in his strongest comments on the project so far.
> 
> "I don't see that transformation as being the right approach for our economy or our port."
> 
> Dix would not definitively rule out a twinning of the proposed TransMountain pipeline, saying Kinder Morgan has yet to submit a formal proposal. But he made clear the province under his leadership would strongly resist the idea.
> 
> "It seems to me that increasing from 80,000 barrels a day to 450,000 barrels a day (exported from Metro Vancouver in tankers) is a massive change in the nature of that operation," he said.
> 
> "That's a real problem."
> 
> The comments follow a long-standing commitment by Dix to wait until after Kinder Morgan submits a formal proposal before making any pronouncements.
> 
> To emphasize the strengthening of his position, the NDP on Monday launched a television ad where Dix pushes the pipeline issue.
> 
> "British Columbians are not willing to trade our coast and wilderness for an oil pipeline and risky oil tanker traffic," he says in the ad.
> 
> "Some things are too valuable to sell."
> 
> Environment Minister Terry Lake - whose riding Dix was in on Monday - was immediately critical of the NDP announcement.
> 
> "They seem to go whichever way the wind is blowing. What's the public debate? And then they make decisions based on that rather than having a full and thorough process," he said.
> 
> "They're against pipelines, they're against mines, they're against clean energy they're against Site C, they want a moratorium on fracking," he added.
> 
> "They're all over the map. It really is inconsistent, and I think that really will send chills down the spines of investors that are looking at British Columbia who want some certainty."
> 
> The B.C. Liberals have said they will subject the Kinder Morgan project to the same five conditions they are using to judge the proposed Enbridge pipeline.
> 
> Environmental groups were quick to celebrate the NDP announcement Monday, including noted environmentalist Tzeporah Berman, who in 2009 tore up her NDP membership card because of the party's promise in that election to cancel the carbon tax.
> 
> "I am going to be supporting Adrian Dix and the B.C. NDP in this election. I'm going to be volunteering for David Eby in my riding," she said in an interview Monday, applauding the party's position on both Kinder Morgan and Enbridge.
> 
> "In contrast, the B.C. Liberals under Christy Clark have mismanaged the climate file," she said
> 
> Eric Swanson, campaign director with the Dogwood Initiative, said those in his organization "applaud the NDP for standing up for the interests of British Columbians,"
> 
> Swanson said he believes the B.C. Liberals have been "avoiding the tough call all along," adding he has never seen Premier Christy Clark's five conditions as a serious process.
> 
> "To me that seemed like a dodge from day one," he said.
> 
> Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who has long argued that oilsands pipelines from Alberta to the B.C. coast are in the national interest, refused to comment Monday on Dix's declaration.
> 
> "I don't want to get into comments made during the heat of an election battle," he told reporters in a conference call from New York, where he was promoting Canada's status as "the world's responsible energy supplier."
> 
> But he stressed that Canada sells an overwhelming majority of its oil and gas from Western Canada to U.S. customers, and with surging American energy production Canada needs to open up foreign markets.
> 
> Dix's stronger stance on Kinder Morgan also follows a commitment by his party to pull out of an agreement with Ottawa that hands review and decision-making power to the federal government over the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.
> 
> We will "tear up equivalency agreement in the first week," he repeated Monday, saying he believes the pipeline is "not in the economic or environmental interest of British Columbia."
> 
> As he unveiled his platform on the environment Monday, Dix also announced he would disband the controversial Pacific Carbon Trust, and immediately stop the practice where money from schools and hospitals is funnelled to corporations like Encana.
> 
> "We need to take action to ensure a low carbon government but the resources should be freed up and reinvested in those hospitals, in those schools, in those post-secondary institutions," he said.
> 
> Dix said his government would continue charging public-sector organizations for their emissions at the same rate as today, but that the proceeds would go back into projects within the public sector.
> 
> The party added there is already about $30 million in a fund at the Carbon Trust, all of which would immediately be put toward green projects in the public sector.
> 
> Lake said this shows the NDP misunderstands the concept of offsets.
> 
> "In order to be carbon neutral you have to reduce a tonne of carbon for every tonne of carbon you're producing. It's impossible to do that by just recycling the money back through the public sector," he said.
> 
> Lake acknowledged the Pacific Carbon Trust needs improving, but said it would be foolhardy to completely disband the organization.
> 
> "We know we can make improvements, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater I think is the wrong policy," he said.


NDP's Adrian Dix casts doubt on plans for Kinder Morgan expansion

If you are opposed to the Enbridge Pipeline and to turning Vancouver into an industrial oil tanker port, then vote for the NDP!


----------



## neoh

If that's your only reason for voting NDP, I feel bad for you. If you don't know what effect NDP has on businesses or us whole as a province, you've got another thing coming. The green party is opposed to the pipeline too, I don't see you swinging a vote their way.


----------



## effox

I was waiting for this to turn full out political.


----------



## stratos

neoh said:


> If that's your only reason for voting NDP, I feel bad for you. If you don't know what effect NDP has on businesses or us whole as a province, you've got another thing coming. The green party is opposed to the pipeline too, I don't see you swinging a vote their way.


We've had 12 years of the Liberals thank you very much. And we have the country's highest child poverty rate to show for it. And a government that is attempting to "balance" its budget by selling off more public assets, never came clean about the BC Rail scam, etc. etc. Vote for the greens is wasted as it splits the opposition vote to the Liberals. If you are really opposed to the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan Pipelines then vote NDP. 

And as for this thread becoming "full out political", it was from day one.


----------



## Foxtail

It doesn't really matter... It all comes down to the almighty dollar. If you truly believe that the NDP will stop the pipelines from being built, all the power to you. The truth of the matter is the world still depends on fossil fuels and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. How do you think the NDP will be paying for all the wonderful things they promise? Ya, they don't know either. They will either have to raise taxes substantially or... Hey... These pipelines want to give us quite a chunk of change!?... I honestly think it is time for a change from the libs but I can in no way bring myself to vote for that greasy little lier Dix.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

This election will be about voting for the lesser of two evils. Voters will mostly be voting for whom they think will do the least damage if in power or they'll be voting AGAINST the other party/leader, and not necessarily FOR the person/party they really believe is the best or most trustworthy. 

From researching the Canada's pipeline options, twinning the Kinder-Morgan line is the most feasible in terms of economics & the environment. The Northern Gateway is far, far riskier. 

At present, almost ALL our oil production goes to the States & they are using their near monopoly power as buyers to impose a $30/barrel discount on Canadian exports. That's one of the reasons US gas is cheaper than Canadian gas prices, even if its Canadian oil being refined. For our economy, it makes sense to sell the oil to Asian markets or any other markets and get full market value and not be held hostage to the US $30 discount demands.

The reality is that they are not going to stop producing oil and we are not going to stop driving our vehicles that run (for the most part) on fossil fuels. At earliest, having fuel cell or hybrid or electric cars take over a large percentage of the vehicles on the road will NOT happen for at least a decade. We don't have the infrastructure to support hundreds of thousands or millions of hydrogen fuel cell or electric cars and until we have charging stations everywhere, these alternatives are not just viable for most commuters and drivers. Also, these new technologies come with a fairly high initial capital cost, even with government rebates.

As proof of this argument, who on BCA has an electric, hydrogen fuel cell, or hybrid vehicle??? 

My mom drives a Highlander Hybrid but she'll probably never save enough on gas to pay back the extra several thousands it cost to go hybrid unless she drives it a lot and for a lot of years. She tries to limit her driving so her "payback" period is going to be extremely long. 

Regarding the "leaders", I wonder why we have to vote in a leader whom we would probably not want our kids to look up to as role models since both Christy Clark and Adrian Dix have less than stellar records (one was an adulterer and the other a lied to the police about forging a memo). I don't like or trust either of them. And as Gordon Campbell & Glen Clark proved, both these parties will lie straight to your face to get elected and then do whatever they want, regardless of what British Columbians want.

I think the NDP will be better for workers (especially unionized workers) but they will completely wreck BC's economy and our debt load will skyrocket under an NDP government.

I think no matter which party gets into power, BC voters are going to live to regret it.

BTW, voting for the NDP because Adrian Dix makes some campaign promise about the pipelines controversies seems very risky considering he lied to the police and official investigators and is a BC POLITICIAN, which often means when his lips move and sound is coming out, he's not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

Just my $.02 contribution to this thread.

Anthony


----------



## stratos

I agree that the case for Kinder Morgan could prove harder to reject. But how do you feel about Vancouver becoming an industrial port with DOZENS of tankers plying our waters weekly? It really does risk changing our city into something unrecognizable from what it is today. I don't mind Rotterdam and Hamburg, but don't think I would want to live there.



> I think the NDP will be better for workers (especially unionized workers) but they will completely wreck BC's economy and our debt load will skyrocket under an NDP government.


I think the NDP realizes if they want to last more than a term that they need to ignore union special interest and move to the political center. Evidence of this is their pledge to ban political donations from both unions and corporations: Dix would ban corporate, union donations to political parties

As for taking on more debt, that could very well happen, but it is unlikely to hurt our economy. Keynesian supply side economics is all the rage now: Who Is Defending Austerity Now? - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic

And on another note, this thread would seem to mirror the interest of the whole province and even be at the very center of this election: Oil and gas industry emerges as centrepiece issue in B.C. elections


----------



## tony1928

I think environmental activism is very important and is a necessary part of the discussion, but the problem to me is that protesting a pipeline is completely misguided. Consumption of oil by the public is driving demand and as long as the demand is high, there will be huge pressure to satisfy the demand. Maybe this particular pipeline won't get built, but this pipeline isn't the only option. Just look at the "east" options that have popped up. So while the protests and politics may have stopped (I still doubt that) these pipelines, its only stopping it in our backyard. The world is a whole lot bigger than just our backyard. At the end of the day, the real goal is to curtail the demand for oil. If people don't want it, or its too expensive, then demand will drop and the companies will not pursue these projects. Teaching our kids to be more aware of the environment and consumption of natural resources would be an excellent start. 

As since this discussion has degenerated into politics, here's my 2 cents. After getting my voter registration card, it reminded me that I will actually have to vote for someone soon but I was totally torn as to which party to vote for. I hate to vote for a party that has fumbled and mismanaged itself so badly over the past few years. At the same time, seeing what I see from the NDP's campaign promises, it appears that our worst fears are confirmed. Spending is their answer for everything without thought for where the money will come from (increased taxes undoubtedly). As Anthony stated, these policies will destroy the economy that we have. I don't think we can entirely attribute BC's great economy to the Liberal policies over the past dozen years. Certainly timing and luck plays alot into that. That being said, I don't believe they have done anything to hurt our economy. So at the end of the day, I could care less who's the Premier or the party in power, I just want to make sure that they don't destroy what we currently have. Right now, the NDP's saying all the things that scare me to death. The public has to be careful what they wish for. Revoking the HST was one of the stupidest things this public has ever done. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face. I still don't know how Vanderzalm pulled that one off. For the public to revoke the HST based on the fact that the Liberals lied about the roll out but at the same time to follow Vanderzalm's campaign. This is a guy who accepted briefcases of cash in a hotel room as a bribe. A complete model of integrity. Ok, I'm rambling now.


----------



## stratos

> So while the protests and politics may have stopped (I still doubt that) these pipelines, its only stopping it in our backyard. The world is a whole lot bigger than just our backyard.


 Think global, act local. Use your *vote to strongly register disapproval of the Enbridge pipeline.*



> At the end of the day, the real goal is to curtail the demand for oil


 I agree totally. Maybe we need higher fuel taxes for a start? Earmark the funds for transit improvements (Surrey and Broadway corridor)?


----------



## Clownloachlover

stratos said:


> Think global, act local. Use your vote to strongly register approval of the Enbridge pipeline.
> 
> I agree totally. Maybe we need higher fuel taxes for a start? Earmark the funds for transit improvements (Surrey and Broadway corridor)?


We DO NOT need higher fuel taxes. There are plenty of options available to generate funding without raising taxes. Many years ago the provincial government tried to implement natural gas vehicles as an option to reduce our reliance on oil...it worked for while until such times as the demand for natural gas diminished because the cost of extracting was too high and companies could not make money. AS it stands right now...there is a HUGE GLUT of natural gas available...new extraction technology has made it extremely affordable to extract natural gas and there are many many known reserves of gas that have not even been tapped into as yet....why not look at converting to natural gas vehicles again. The majority of the distribution infrastructure is already in place. Pipelines exist to carry the gas to market. The gas company has done a great job of building a distribution network and essentially we could create fuelling stations everywhere there is a gas station. It is the cleanest burning fossil fuel available, even cleaner than gasoline. Now one could argue that electricity is the cleanest fuel for transportation, however given the technology required to generate electricity and the current demand for more power by BC it is not feasible to use electricity for transportation, we already purchase a good chunk of government subsidized electricity to meet our demands now, we do not need to increase that process any further.

As for which party to elect, well I am of the belief that with this election it is the lesser of two evils. Adrian Dix was on the morning news this morning and his quote was not..."we will not allow the Enbridge Pipeline to be built" it was in fact..."we will review the Enbridge application and take a look at the details" He is not standing in opposition to the pipeline, he is standing for whatever will work to help his party after they are elected. He is saying one thing right now, don't kid yourself, he is as perplexed as the rest of us as to where the province will get all the money he plans to promise to the citizens of the this province. As I have stated before, the environment will lose out to the righteous dollar. I too would hate to see an oil spill off our coast or in the Burrard inlet and we all saw what a mess it made when that infamous excavator operator hit that crude oil pipeline in North Burnaby...but don't think for one second that this incoming government, regardless of who it is, will look elsewhere to find revenue when it would be as easy as twinning or building a new pipeline to deliver profitable goods to Asian markets!


----------



## stratos

> but don't think for one second that this incoming government, regardless of who it is, will look elsewhere to find revenue when it would be as easy as twinning or building a new pipeline to deliver profitable goods to Asian markets!


It is already established that BC will not get much money from either of the two pipelines. The real benefit is for Alberta and the Feds. BC's proposed share is next to nothing for the risk we are being asked to take. Thus, there is no reason for BC to even consider the proposal as of now.


----------



## Clownloachlover

Stratos...do you not believe that the Feds and Alberta will come to the table with more money for BC? if they want it bad enough, they will buck up...typical negotiation tactic
1) Say you stand against it cause there is nothing in it for you and it is too risky
2) Review it and really understand the details of what it can bring to you if you permit it
3) Go back to the table and demand more than what they are offering
4) Hold firm until they offer you less than what you were initially asking but more than their initial offer
5) Change stance on your initial opposition, stating it is a good move for all involved.


----------



## stratos

Go back to read post #1 of this whole thread: http://www.bcaquaria.com/forum/aqua-lounge-7/say-no-enbridge-28076/#post227056 with its embedded news link Enbridge pipeline gets thumbs-down from B.C. NDP - British Columbia - CBC News

Call me naieve, overly trusting, or too optimistic about human nature, but I take the NDP at their word on this one.


----------



## Foxtail

Believe whatever you want... But do you truly believe that there is no magic number that if laid on the table the NDP would say OK? All they need is a paycheck big enough for it to be "worth it" for bc's "economy". 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TomC

stratos said:


> Call me naieve, overly trusting, or too optimistic about human nature, but I take the NDP at their word on this one.


 I am opposed to the pipeline and plan to vote NDP, but I would never take any politician at his/her word. It's a sad fact that honest politicians seldom get elected. As a whole, voters don't want to hear hard truths.


----------



## stratos

Foxtail said:


> Believe whatever you want... But do you truly believe that there is no magic number that if laid on the table the NDP would say OK? All they need is a paycheck big enough for it to be "worth it" for bc's "economy".
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


That number would be too high for Alberta to accept, and Enbridge refuses to accept unlimited liability. Both of those are deal killers IMO.

Plus, all the talk about how the tar sands oil currently sells at a discount in the USA ignores the fact that bitumen is considered "junk" or "dirty" oil due to its having to be refined more than other kinds. Thus, it commonly sells at a discount on world markets. And with China having Russia right on its doorstep with direct pipeline access, Canada/Russia would just be played off each other to drive the prices offered in Asia for Canadian bitumen even lower. And now the USA is looking to become fully self-sufficient in oil and perhaps even a net exporter. The so called "riches" offered by this whole scheme are grossly overstated. Of course by the time that reality were to kick in the executives at Enbridge responsible for implementing the scheme would have pumped and dumped the stock and be long gone playing golf at some overseas gated community. The mess would be left for BC to clean up.

So don't be played for suckers and stand up for the natural beauty that is your province.

We forget how good we have it here : In China, Breathing Becomes a Childhood Risk


----------



## Clownloachlover

stratos said:


> That number would be too high for Alberta to accept, and Enbridge refuses to accept unlimited liability. Both of those are deal killers IMO.
> 
> Okay I get to call you naïve...Dude the number will be the number that everyone agrees too regardless of liability, why don't you believe that money will trump the environment and most of the other issues? It has been that way for years and years and it will not change anytime soon.
> 
> The NDP will say NO to Enbridge for now, until such times as they realize how good this could be for the economy of BC and then change their tune, turning their backs on all the people that supported them to get into power in the first place. They will have 3 to 4 years to run with the ball and at the end of the day someone else on the other side of the fence will get elected based on how they plan to spend all the money that the pipeline could bring to the province...it truly is a vicious circle. I would be more concerned of what the NDP promises during the election that they cannot possibly support and have no source of funding.
> 
> Interesting note: I was at a luncheon that was attended by a very large group of the largest builders and developers in the Greater Vancouver Area....their biggest issue, and their biggest concern, and the one thing that keeps them all awake at night is spelled out in three letters...the N D P...why...because they all know that the NDP will drive up the spending in this province with no source of funding, which will require increased taxes to support, which in turn will put less money in peoples pockets and they will all have a tough time getting into the development market, driving the developers to build less in turn make less money.
> 
> I am not saying the Liberals will be any better, as I stated earlier this election will be the lesser of the two evils...I don't think either party has the best candidates at the helm of their political ships!


----------



## stratos

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment:



> "Looking out at English Bay, looking out at Stanley Park ... for those of us who grew up in Vancouver, is part of what makes our community special and what brings people from all over the world to this place.''
> 
> The feeling, Dix said, is similar for First Nations communities that sustain their livelihoods with fishing along the province's northern coastal waters.
> 
> "That's their economy too,'' Dix said to applause. "They understand that projects such as Enbridge Northern Gateway are not in our economic, our cultural, or our environmental interests.''


Read more: Increased oil tanker traffic controversy spills into B.C. election campaign


----------



## Clownloachlover

So now let everyone read the rest of the article that states how Adrian Dix has flip flopped on his support or objection to the pipeline....

The New Democrat changed his stance on the proposed Kinder Morgan project midway through the election campaign, Lake stated in a news release.
"Adrian Dix continues to be all over the map on the issue of heavy oil pipelines in British Columbia--his position is clear as mud,'' Lake said.

If it's successful, the Kinder Morgan proposal would see expansion of the company's existing trans-mountain pipeline that delivers oil from Alberta to the Port of Vancouver.

Initially Dix said he would wait for Kinder Morgan to file its application before committing himself for or against the project, but then stated his outright opposition to the project and the increased tanker traffic it would bring.

At Saturday's rally, the NDP leader reiterated his stance that pipeline decisions should be made provincially, rather than at a federal level.

"A B.C. NDP government would protect our coast line and make sure decisions that impact B.C. are made right here and not in Ottawa,'' Dix said.

He added his government would cancel an existing Equivalency Agreement with the federal Conservatives within a week of taking office, if the NDP is elected in ten days.

But Dix's polished speech to news crews and supporters didn't quite go as planned.

The New Democrat was asked to clarify his views on coal export by someone in the crowd, who grew more unruly as time passed.

Dix was rapidly ushered back to his campaign bus by members of his election team after the rally, briefly pausing to answer reporters' questions as the bus' engine was fired up.

However, the heckler drifted over to the media gathering to ask Dix's stance on coal exports and traffic from Deltaport, Metro Vancouver's largest container terminal.

His efforts were blocked by the 49-year-old candidate's campaign team.

"This isn't a movie set,'' the man told Dix's staff, giving one the middle finger. "It's a public park. I can be wherever I want.''

The issue of oil pipelines and the environment was a hot-button topic during a televised leaders' debate last month.

Dix spent the remainder of the afternoon attending a candidates' rally for Maple Ridge, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam.

His schedule of events also included a stop at Burger Heaven for dinner _ a New Westminster restaurant that has created hamburgers that resemble each of the four would-be premiers' personalities in an effort to conduct its own ``bun-official'' election poll.

Media representative Mike Lowe said the team would be dining on the Adrian Dix burger, which according to the restaurant's website leads the polls with 446 orders over only 164 orders of the Christy Clark burger.

A "bun-decided'' or independents burger gained 259 nods, while the Jane Sterk burger follows with 133 orders. John Cummins' tasty namesake burger had been ordered only 49 times.

Read more: Increased oil tanker traffic controversy spills into B.C. election campaign


----------



## stratos

See through the noise of the heckler and the Liberal campaign hack. The NDP sentiment *against* turning BC and especially Vancouver into a major tanker zone is loud and clear.

Something Christy said in the debate, however, could come to pass; how will the NDP react to Kinder Morgan proposing that the oil be shipped beyond Vancouver to Anacortes in Washington State? There is already a major refinery there, I am sure it could be expanded to handle more oil tankers. That would at least save Vancouver from becoming an industrial working port along the lines of Rotterdam. Of course spilled oil knows no boundaries so a spill in Washington waters could just as easily head north to hit BC. Nevertheless, it could be a compromise of sorts. I noticed that Dix did not address this issue when questioned by Christy, but then they both were pretty vague on many issues.


----------



## kacairns

Politics sucks, and IMO stratos you are coming off as a NDP campaign hack just as much as any journalist/hack comes off as a liberal campaign hack. I've got a idea, why don't we just go back to taking care of our fish and focusing on our hobby instead of getting into political debates, I'll go first.


----------



## stratos

kacairns said:


> Politics sucks, and IMO stratos you are coming off as a NDP campaign hack just as much as any journalist/hack comes off as a liberal campaign hack. I've got a idea, why don't we just go back to taking care of our fish and focusing on our hobby instead of getting into political debates, I'll go first.


Don't get personal. Address the issues. Where do YOU stand on the enbridge pipeline debate and why?

The Enbridge pipeline, were it to go ahead, will have a tremendous effect on our freshwater and saltwater environments in this province. In addition to being a high end fish keeper I am also an avid camper and scuba diver. I want our freshwater and saltwater environments protected. Events like these freak me out.

Seems related to the aquarium keeping hobby if you ask me. 

I have the proud distinction of having switched my vote for almost every political party over various elections. I only support the NDP in this particular election because to my way of strategic thinking they have the best chance of acting on their platform promise to stop Enbridge dead.

Finally, this is the "aqua lounge" where users are encouraged to "talk about something else", presumably other than the hobby. If you don't like the thread, then by all means don't read it.


----------



## kacairns

stratos said:


> Don't get personal. Address the issues. Where do YOU stand on the enbridge pipeline debate and why?
> 
> The Enbridge pipeline, were it to go ahead, will have a tremendous effect on our freshwater and saltwater environments in this province. In addition to being a high end fish keeper I am also an avid camper and scuba diver. I want our freshwater and saltwater environments protected. Events like these freak me out.
> 
> Seems related to the aquarium keeping hobby if you ask me.
> 
> I have the proud distinction of having switched my vote for almost every political party over various elections. I only support the NDP in this particular election because to my way of strategic thinking they have the best chance of acting on their platform promise to stop Enbridge dead.
> 
> Finally, this is the "aqua lounge" where users are encouraged to "talk about something else", presumably other than the hobby. If you don't like the thread, then by all means don't read it.


Ok, so let me get this right, you can call someone a liberal campaign hack and its not considered personal, is that just because its not someone on this board you are saying it about? Ok think I cleared that one up in my mind, I see your point now, sorry for "getting personal" .

It would be wonderful is the pipeline went ahead, it would create a bunch of jobs, tax revenue and so on for the province in the short term. It would suck if there were ever a oil spill. I think they should just stop making anything that requires oil to run and the world would be much better off and then you'd achieve your peace of mind of not having to be freaked out about certain events. Mean while I'll keep paying attention to the other potential problems that are much more likely to happen on a daily basis that will affect us directly or indirectly and stop worry about stuff like this since you got it taken care of.

Glad you switch votes about as much as Adrian Dix does, it explains a lot. I've got the proud distinction of not voting in the last election nor this up coming one as I know my vote wont matter and my time is much to valuable to be wasted on this. When a political party puts up a plan and vision that excites me then I'll start to vote again, but when you have to choose the lesser of the evils as people say, whats the point.

I like the thread, its wonderful to see people so passionate for and against it, but being a political stooge only goes so far on these types of threads.


----------



## stratos

kacairns said:


> Ok, so let me get this right, you can call someone a liberal campaign hack and its not considered personal, is that just because its not someone on this board you are saying it about? Ok think I cleared that one up in my mind, I see your point now, sorry for "getting personal" .


First, yes, I would say the fact the person referred to is not on the forum should have some bearing; second, you need to check out the definition (secondary) for the noun "hack"; see below:

hack 2 (hk)
n.
1. A horse used for riding or driving; a hackney.
2. A worn-out horse for hire; a jade.
3.
a._ *One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling.
b. A writer hired to produce routine or commercial writing.*_
hack - definition of hack by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Given that I have no financial incentive as to whether the NDP win, nor am I hired by them, then no, I am not a hack. The person I referred to as a "hack" is in fact a "hack" according to the definition. 



kacairns said:


> It would be wonderful is the pipeline went ahead, it would create a bunch of jobs, tax revenue and so on for the province in the short term. It would suck if there were ever a oil spill. I think they should just stop making anything that requires oil to run and the world would be much better off and then you'd achieve your peace of mind of not having to be freaked out about certain events. Mean while I'll keep paying attention to the other potential problems that are much more likely to happen on a daily basis that will affect us directly or indirectly and stop worry about stuff like this since you got it taken care of.


Damn rights we need to wean ourselves off oil: 
20 % of Taiwanese 1st graders have asthma, 50% have allergic rhinitis, all due to air pollution 

Check this one out (just posted on Globe and Mail 33 minutes ago): Concern in Japan over air pollution originating in China spiked earlier this year due to harmful concentrations of PM2.5 air-borne pollution reaching Japanese cities.



kacairns said:


> Glad you switch votes about as much as Adrian Dix does, it explains a lot. I've got the proud distinction of not voting in the last election nor this up coming one as I know my vote wont matter and my time is much to valuable to be wasted on this. When a political party puts up a plan and vision that excites me then I'll start to vote again, but when you have to choose the lesser of the evils as people say, whats the point.


There is an old saying about democracy; if you don't vote you have no right to complain. Don't give in to apathy!



kacairns said:


> I like the thread, its wonderful to see people so passionate for and against it, but being a political stooge only goes so far on these types of threads.


I happen to be very fond of Larry, Moe and Curly, but I am afraid my comic ability in no way approaches theirs. 
And no offense taken. I apologize if I get carried away, but as you can see I am actually quite passionate on this issue.


----------



## effox

I don't think that specific concern was over the literal definition of "a" hack, but more so if you were using it as commonly communicated slang in a derogatory manner.

Either way, this is the Aqua Lounge, I understand you're not being a troll, as you are sincerely concerned about this (as are most people with due to the environmental impact that it could cause) so politics are allowed and nobody is trying to censor you. I'd personally just have more reason to be engaged in this discussion and agree with your stand point, and do something about it, if this wasn't being politically manipulated.

I think that route would be more effective time management than expressing your desire and trying to convey the benefits of voting in a specific political party, as I don't think a single person is going to be swayed to vote, let alone change parties just because of this issue. Especially not from a post they saw on a BC related fish forum. By all means beat the drum so others hear.. I don't think you were rude in anyway, but I think it could be handled more effectively if you were wanting to post this here.


----------



## stratos

Well, here we go again. Time for round two:

Christy Clark's re-election renews pipeline debate - British Columbia - CBC News



> The Enbridge Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipelines would bring jobs to B.C., especially during the construction phase.
> 
> But the projects also bring environmental risk on land and offshore, with a huge jump in oil tanker traffic off the province's coast.


Best idea I have heard is: Put it to a referendum


----------



## TomC

stratos said:


> Best idea I have heard is: Put it to a referendum


That isnt going to happen. Best bet now is for the natives to block it.


----------



## davefrombc

Neither the "Northern Gateway" nor the Kinder Morgan pipelines will bring any significant amount of benefit for BC beyond the building phase of them. The risks are far too great for the very limited benefit either would bring to us. Nope.. We aren't going to see a referendum on them.. The oil lobbies will see to it that doesn't happen.
Any that think those pipelines will be of significant benefit to BC would be wise to do some deeper searching on what the benefits would be, and the numbers that would be involved in their operation.. Remember, The oil will be mainly coming from Alberta, no oil royalties for BC. Very few people are needed to operate a highly automated oil port, or pumping stations. Enbridge , especially, has a bad record for spills and inadequate clean up.. Ask the Americans about them. and finally a spill in the Pacific could contaminate the entire coast from Kitimat on down. A major spill would mean kissing goodbye to our fishing industry for a considerable amount of time. 
Do some search on the benefits of our fish and shellfish industries to BC and weigh that against the losses a major oil spill would cause.
The risks of the pipelines FAR outweigh any benefits to BC.


----------



## msjboy

Unfortunately BC is a resource business. Kid you not, I love our beautiful shores and mountains what have you; on the flip side, whether it be fish, forestry, mining/coal, or whatever, this is the only tertiary business we can make money from; all of our other businesses ( yah, pretty well everything including our beloved fish stores) depend on it. Back in the 60's, forestry was key where it paid our for roads and infrastructure and deep pockets to social welfare; with that, and without the modern ideas of "green", BC, canada for all that matter, we would not even be where we are today. I come from a small town called Port Alberni where forestry made it the highest per capital family town in all of canada ( better then West Van evern)... today without much forestry, it is almost a ghost town. Green and natives issues will stimy the process but money eventually will talk. If we (BC) don't harness our resources, I wait for any sole with a brilliant idea on how else we are to make hand over fist tertiary industrial/business and supply the rest of the dependent businesses.

If we hope to make any more money ( without inventing new innovative taxes which is increasing ever year.. tax free is now sometime in late June) , I think we unfortunately we have to get into the natural gas and pipeline / terminals business as soon as possible before other countries step in and sulley the returns ( eg fracking, deep ocean wells, etc) . My 2 bits.


----------



## davefrombc

I don't have a problem with a natural gas pipeline and LNG terminal.. a leak in that does not pollute the ocean groundwater or land... The heavy crude they want to pipeline to Kitimat is not a BC resource.. It is heavy Alberta crude from the tar sands... just about the worst material you can think of to have in a spill.. It would devastate the land and ocean.. and whether you realize it or not , fishing in all its forms is a major renewable BC resource . . The oil royalties on all that crude does nothing for BC , it all goes to Alberta The pipeline risks all come to BC and the benefits go to Alberta and Ottawa. That is the major problem.Let them run their pipeline east, or down through any state that wants it .. It does nothing for BC resources. I too made my living from the forest industry, and know very well what BC's resources are and our dependance on them .. That is another reason I am against a pipeline that has a high risk of severely impacting our resources that we depend on . Like I said do some research on just what that pipeline will be carrying , from where and to where; who benefits the most from it, and who gets very little benefit after the construction phase is over. Then look at the the risks to the terrain it will be going through, who foots those risks, and the safety records of Enbridge . Forget their BS ads they've been pumping out .. They even minimized the risks in the channel from Kitimat to the open ocean by portraying the channel as wider than it is, and by conveniently not showing the islands that make that channel very tricky passage for tankers. It is not a wide open and clear channel, but a narrow one loaded with islands and shoals .
Here is a pdf from Fisheries and Oceans outlining one of the hazards not mentioned about the Douglas channel , and some pictures and maps of what the Douglas channel is really like. Enbridge got approval ( over recommendations against it by many sources) for tanker traffic there because the Harper ( an Albertan ) government wants that pipeline.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2012/2012_037-eng.pdf


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Did a lot of research on the various pipeline proposals with a student last year and all the proposed pipelines are extremely high risk (Enbridge has a horrendous pipeline spill record just over the last 10 years). Only the Kinder Morgan twinning proposal came out as being a more moderate risk project and one that British Columbians may find more acceptable.

In a way, I would almost suspect that the Northern Gateway project was proposed to freak out British Columbians, making the lower risk (twinning an existing line as opposed to forging new line across virgin territory and into a highly dangerous northern port/channel) Kinder Morgan proposal more acceptable by comparison.

Here's a tally of the Enbridge spills for 2000-2010.

Table - Reported Enbridge Pipeline Oil Spills/Leaks (2000-2010)

Year	No. of Total Vol. Worst spill Worst spill
spills & leaks	(barrels)	(location) (barrels)

2000 48 7513 Innes, Sask 1500
2001 34 25980 Hardisty, AB 23,900
2002 48 14683 Kerrobert, Sask	6133
2003 62 6410 Superior, Wisc	4500
2004 69 3252 Fort McMurray, AB	735
2005 70 9825 AB 1700
2006 61 5363 Montana 2000
2007 65 13777 Glenavon, Sask	6227
2008 80 2682 Cromer, Man 629
2009 103 8441 Anzac, AB 5749
2010 80 34122 Marshall, Mich	20000

Total 720	spills 132048 barrels spilled 73073 barrels
Avg/yr 65 spills 12004 barrels spilled 6643 barrels


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

720 pipeline spills by Enbridge in 11 years. Averaging 65 spills ANNUALLY!!!!!! Averaging 12,004 barrels of crude oil released into the landscape ANNUALLY!!!!

The two worst spills were 23,900 BARRELS (not liters or gallons) and 20,000 BARRELS!!!!

These are FACTS, not media spin. Most of the data came from Enbridge itself so the company KNOWS it has a terrible safety record but yet tries to PR itself as a safety-first company.

I like to base my decisions on facts and data, and the facts and data overwhelming show that Enbridge can NOT be trusted to be good stewards of BC lands or waters.


----------



## davefrombc

To top that data off..... Enbridge did an inadequate job of cleaning up many of those spills. The more you look into the company and proposed pipeline, the more one becomes very opposed to it.


----------



## stratos

And two days ago Enbridge shows up uninvited at a First Nations' village to do some kind of "oil spill response survey" work; the pipeline has not even been approved. Enbridge is a very arrogant company in my opinion.



> The Gitga'at First Nation announced today that the band has instructed Enbridge to leave its territory after the company and a team of oil spill response surveyors showed-up uninvited, during the nation's annual food harvesting camp, a time of rich cultural activity and knowledge sharing.
> 
> Enbridge representatives were instructed to leave Gitga'at council chambers and Gitga'at territory, Wednesday morning, after councillors voiced their displeasure at not being consulted on an Enbridge oil spill response survey.
> 
> The dust-up comes on the eve of final oral arguments before the Joint Review Panel, which is reviewing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.
> 
> "Despite an ongoing review process, Enbridge has entered our territory and begun project work before their proposed oil tanker and pipeline project has even been approved," said Arnold Clifton, Chief Councillor of the Gitga'at First Nation in a press release.
> 
> "This is disrespectful to the Gitga'at First Nation, the review process, and the people of British Columbia, who oppose oil tankers in our coastal waters."
> 
> "Four years ago when Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel and Northern Gateway President John Carruthers visited Hartley Bay, we treated them respectfully, but informed them in no uncertain terms that their project is not welcome in Gitga'at Territory. We reminded their staff of that today," said Clifton.
> 
> Enbridge signaled its intention to enter Gitga'at territory by sending an after hours fax without proper contact information, less than a week before their arrival, and without prior consultation, Clifton said. The fax also mistakenly included a letter addressed to Chief Councillor Conrad Lewis of the Gitxaala First Nation, which the Gitga'at returned to Enbridge.
> 
> "It's hard to imagine a company screwing-up its relationships with First Nations more than Enbridge has," said Marven Robinson, Gitga'at Councillor.
> 
> "This incident shows not only the failure of Enbridge to meaningfully consult, but also indicates an insensitive, scatter-shot approach to dealing with First Nations. We remain resolved to protect our territory and people from this project."


The Gitga


----------



## msjboy

true Pipelines will indeed have a leak.. only a matter of time. Another alternative is rail. You only need 6 -12 trains to carry the capacity of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline which whiles a double pipe, one line is a return line containing dilbet condensate. ( ie. an expensive fuel that mixes with the crude to make it flow thru the pipes&#8230; approx 30% mix with the bitumen)&#8230; While rail will have accidents, you loose just a few tankers, not thousands of gallons in a pressurized diet & bitumen slur which is hard to clean. Also with pipelines, you can't have immediate access as some places are almost inaccessible in a timely manner. With rail, you can have a rapid response train quickly with enough equipment. You can also use heated tankers transport the bitumen without the dilbet condensate. Bitumen by itself will easily be scooped up in viscous chunks . Also, most tracks are already in place&#8230;.no need for another 5 yrs to build a pipeline.

Most likely, it will be a combination of both trains & pipeline.

Surprised little opposition to LNG.. have a look at CBC documentary:

CBC -The Nature of Things with David Suzuki - - Shattered Ground

Basically, Canada can do it because we have lots of water&#8230;. USA is already doing it. Europe is opposed to it. A lot of unknowns with what franking does to the underground - maybe cause earthquakes not to mention draining our precious water which is unrecoverable. If we don't get into the game, other countries like Australia will as will China eventually. LNG prices may drop though but, it can also be made into gasoline when prices eventually reach a feasible number.

Alberta Oil sands

Also note, their is a lot of environmental hurt to produce one barrel of oil from the tar sands. It produces about 3.5 barrels of unrecoverable water that gets dumped into a cesspool pond that has chances of leaching into the soil/other ground water as well as killing off lots of wild fowl like ducks. Alberta doesn't seem to mind though as money talks.. Albertans is reeling in money.

Also, the amount of land to be moved to create the oil is about the size of Florida&#8230;. think of all the energy needed to move this pile of dirt to processing not to mention the carbon emissions in doing so.

There are probably 4 choices where the tar sand oil can be moved but it makes sense here in BC to build the refinery is cost. Shipping in the parts of the refinery to Kitimat will save a billion or 2 rather than having the refinery built inland say in Calgary. However, if there is going to be such opposition, they probably will build one there.

I have a friend who is working on building pipelines in Saskatchewan.. he makes over $75 per hr! And that is just a low menial job. This is way the governments want high paying jobs to get people buying and paying their taxes.


----------



## davefrombc

Pipeline jobs are temporary high paying jobs.. but they don't give any long term employment and as I mentioned before .. those pipelines to BC have very little benefit for BC and all the risk. The crude is Alberta crude.. oil companies pay royalties to Alberta, ans Ottawa, not BC.. BC would get a pittance for the pipeline crossing BC lands.
Yup.. The boom in pipeline construction pays big , but not long term.. If you don't save what you made in the boom, you are soon bust when the job is done.
Neither the pipeline nor refinery makes any sense here. All that crude is for export, not for our use or profit. That goes to the oil companies whose head offices are elsewhere than in BC and that pay the bulk of their taxes elsewhere.  
Rail is not really a viable alternative for a pipeline for moving crude. A continuous rail circuit can't move a fraction of the amount a pipeline can move..... and at the expense of considerable fuel to run the engines. 

As far as LNG is concerned, a pipeline break will not create permanently contaminated soil or air .. Natural gas is lighter that air so it rises and dissipates.. It does contribute to global warming, . I am not a fan of fracking .. I do know the down side of it for the locals where it goes on; . but fracking is not needed for all gas wells.. It is a technique used to get gas ( or oil) out of marginal deposits where the ground is not porous enough to recover the gas or oil without it .

The best choice for pipelines to bring Alberta crude to BC is to not allow them to come here .


----------



## msjboy

The new proposed 12 - 15 billion refinery should offer lots of stable port jobs in Prince Rupert ( or any such north port facility ).
Rail is viable & likely will be a possible interim and supplement means of transportation for LNG & alberta crude. That Kenneth Black ( guy who is getting funds for the Prince Rupert Refinery), and even Cenovus & CN/CP is already doing it.
The capacity of the pipeline being proposed is 300 - 850 barrels a day. Note, one pipe is a return for the condensate so it eats up valuable capacity - ie 100%, 30% mixed with 70% crude; they say they do have condensate available in Alberta but presently , condensate has to be shipped in from whatever country - more added cost. One train has 120 carts and is about 762 barrels each ( 100% heated bitumen and not with any condensate ) tanker so, say 90,000 barrels ; so all you need is 6 - 10 trains day to equal the proposed pipeline.

The trains of course are not run of the mill, instead will use probably natural gas engines like from Westport in Vancouver or something( energy density of LNG trains is pretty well equal to say diesel but fraction of diesel ), they run heated ( probably use tenders & exhaust ).

So it is quite doable and capital cost for trains would be a couple hundred million compared to 4 -5 billion for the new pipeline....


----------



## Foxtail

Interesting... 


The thing is if the fed gov steps in and says too bad, pipeline is going through... There isn't much anyone can do about it.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## stratos

Foxtail said:


> Interesting...
> 
> The thing is if the fed gov steps in and says too bad, pipeline is going through... There isn't much anyone can do about it.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


Except the First Nations...kind of has shades of Avatar around it already, except no blue body paint.


----------



## Foxtail

The will sell out... They always do.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## cpool

I wasn't aware we have tar sands in Alberta. I thought we only had oil sands. I will have to look that one up.


----------



## davefrombc

The Alberta oil sands are tar sands. It's heavy bitumen they extract there.. Not like the California tar sands where you actually have heavy crude bubbling to the surface .
It sounds so much cleaner and environmentally acceptable to call them "oil sands " rather than "tar sands".. I calls them as I see them and if you do search on "Alberta tar sands" you will see a lot more postings calling them as they are .


----------



## Clownloachlover

you guys are wasting your finger tips...the deal is already done...all you are seeing is media hype and sensationalism for the masses...and if it is not already done, it will get done, it is just a matter of how much money needs to be spent to make it happen....sorry boys but that is just reality...the oil and NG pipelines are to valuable for this province and country for it NOT to happen. You can say no to Enbridge all you want, it will happen!


----------



## TomC

cpool said:


> I wasn't aware we have tar sands in Alberta. I thought we only had oil sands. I will have to look that one up.


 Long before it became a controversial topic, the standard term was tar sands because it had the consistancy of tar. The term oil sands is a publicist's invention, in order to make the idea of extracting the oil more palatable to the public. No matter. Tar sands or oil sands, it will still destroy our coastline when (not if) it spills.


----------



## stratos

Clownloachlover said:


> you guys are wasting your finger tips...the deal is already done...all you are seeing is media hype and sensationalism for the masses...and if it is not already done, it will get done, it is just a matter of how much money needs to be spent to make it happen....sorry boys but that is just reality...the oil and NG pipelines are to valuable for this province and country for it NOT to happen. You can say no to Enbridge all you want, it will happen!


Don't mix issues. NG is going ahead, Kinder Morgan may be likely too (hopefully to Anacortes, Wa); the Enbridge pipeline is the ugly one in the bunch. The economic case for the Enbridge pipeline is just too weak for BC. We don't gain anything close to making the risk/reward trade off worthwhile. There are constitutional reasons for why Alberta will not agree to pay BC more royalties. Without those increased royalties BC will not take the pipeline and Harper would be a fool to push it on us. He would lose a lot of seats in BC in the next election if he is seen as being a bully with us. So the ball is in Alberta's court - how bad do they want this pipeline? Are they willing to open up provincial royalties to negotiation? Given how much they freaked out in the 1970's with the National Energy Policy, I don't think they have the appetite to revisit the same issues (i.e. sharing royalties).


----------



## davefrombc

That's one of the things those in favour of Enbridge don't realize .. There is really very little economic benefit for BC with that pipeline .. Alberta and Ottawa get the royalties for the oil. BC gets some benefit from taxes on income and material during the construction stage , but beyond that nearly nothing except some payment for the actual pipeline right of way. There will only be a handful of people actually needed to operate the pipeline and loading facilities . The risks to our other major provincial income resources ( fishing and tourism, with some risk to forestry too) far outweigh the minor benefit from the pipeline. As Stratos says , there is really a very weak economic case for that extremely risky pipeline coming into BC.


----------



## stratos

Moving in the right direction?

BC rejects the Northern Gateway project | News1130


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Yup, sounds like the BC government has taken a stand against the Northern Gateway project.


----------



## icy.bing

yah, but I heard on the news said that yes, bc goverments has taken a stand, but the final decision is made by the federal government?


----------



## stratos

Just a little up date on where things are headed courtesy of the Vancouver Sun:



> Ottawa and B.C. First Nations will be tied up in a "legal quagmire" for years over proposed oil pipelines because the federal government has not satisfied a legal requirement for "meaningful consultation" with natives, a legal expert says.
> 
> The federal government is "trying to integrate native consultations with the environmental review process," Gordon Christie, an associate law professor at the University of B.C., said Wednesday. "But when you have something like this - thousands of kilometres of pipeline that will have a serious impact on the interests of First Nations - the consultation has to be precise."
> 
> "All indications are (First Nations) are gearing up to stop this," Christie said. "It's going to be a fascinating year."
> 
> Supreme Court of Canada rulings in 2004 and 2005 imposed a duty on the federal government to consult First Nations about decisions that could affect their rights. The nature of that consultation is not as clear.
> 
> Five federal deputy ministers have been in Vancouver meeting First Nations leaders this week in a bid to improve relations. A federal official has said the meetings were not intended to fulfil the duty to consult.
> 
> At the top of the federal agenda is the Northern Gateway pipeline. But the issue of consultation also affects the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby and six liquefied natural gas projects.
> 
> All told, the projects are worth $47 billion.
> 
> Native leaders have insisted the oil pipelines are dead because they have a high risk of causing environmental damage.
> 
> Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said First Nations are prepared for a fight and if the federal government tries to "ram these proposals through," it will create a "watershed moment in Canadian history."
> 
> "Both the (Stephen) Harper and (Christy) Clark government have unfortunately, in a provocative way, pitted the economy against the environment and it will prove to be incredibly divisive to Canadians who will find themselves on one side or the other.
> 
> "There's no question from the countless rallies and political action throughout B.C. the message is clear," Phillip said. "We will carry this fight through the courts and on the land if necessary."
> 
> Art Sterritt, executive director of Coastal First Nations, and Ed John, of the B.C. First Nations Summit, said the Northern Gateway project is dead and if the federal government wants a relationship with First Nations in B.C. it will have to accept that.
> 
> Federal Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair, who attended a First Nations Summit meeting in B.C. Tuesday, said Ottawa is trying to push through big energy projects but is not consulting with First Nations.
> 
> "This is a failure of the federal government to respect the Supreme Court. Canadian law requires consultation with First Nations," Mulcair said.
> 
> Sending the deputy ministers west is a clear sign of the Harper government's intent, Mulcair said. "They are sending a warning the federal government is about to impose its will on First Nations."
> 
> Phillip said he believes the unprecedented meeting between deputy ministers and native leaders was, in part, a public relations exercise and an attempt to "fabricate a record of consultation."
> 
> "One is left with a huge sinking feeling (Ottawa) will declare this (an oil pipeline) in the national interest," he said.


----------



## scott tang

EDIT i regret posting and it was kind of usless to post my opion 1 14 year olds opinion wont change crap lol


----------



## TomC

scott tang said:


> EDIT i regret posting and it was kind of usless to post my opion 1 14 year olds opinion wont change crap lol


 One might not, but a million will. At least you will be able to say you tried. How does that saying go? -- It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.


----------



## Potatohead

IMO there is no way the northern pipeline will not happen. The only thing that is left to be determined is how much cut BC will get. Once it is decided that the amount BC is receiving is high enough to offset the risk to the environment, the pipeline will be built.


----------



## rwong2k10

pretty interesting perspective potatohead.

From my perspective it's pretty 50/50, one side there's the economic benefits, the other side is the environmental concerns
I've been reading a bit on this topic, the other argument is the dangers of transporting the oil via train.

As usual, I suck with debates so I'll just say i'm 50/50 on this


----------



## Foxtail

It all comes down to the ohmighty dollar. And the feds hold all the cards. In the end, the federal gov can just say "Build it!" And then there isn't much anyone can do about it. But with the libs all gungho about natural gas, I don't see how the pipeline doesn't go through... 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## stratos

If the Feds say "build it" without First Nations approval we get this X 10 : N.B. shale gas clash leads to protests across country - Canada - CBC News


----------



## nigerian prince

the market will decide whether or not its built , if theres still room for profit after the government/enviromentalists/natives shake them down it will be built. its simply going to come down to how much these groups try to leach out..


----------



## stratos

I thought I would resurrect this thread. An announcement is expected in the next week or two from the Harper government on the Enbridge issue. I think public opinion is firmly opposed to the project in BC, and with the First Nations upset, I think the feds would be foolish to try and go ahead with it. But being foolish doesn't usually stop them. 

Meanwhile, Kinder Morgan now wants to drill a hole under Burnaby mountain, stick a pipe through it, triple the size of the oil storage facilities out in Pt.Moody/Burnaby, and ramp up our oil exports out of the port of Vancouver to a super tanker every day. I heard Burnaby mayor Corrigan on the radio this morning basically telling the Enron boys aka Kinder Morgan to go to hell. He said "Kinder Morgan is incapable of leading a two car parade" and that he does not trust them at all. Remember that the same people who own Kinder Morgan were the owners of the American company Enron. Google Enron if you don't know what it was about.


----------



## ddcool

I'm sure its a done deal. I grew up in Kitimat and my mom and sister still live there. We are all strongly opposed. At the end anyone who will make a dime out of it will ignore any of the opposition and force it through.


----------



## Clownloachlover

Stratos, when are you going to give up on this? Relaize the fact that if there is a chance for any town city municpality, province or country to make a dime off the sale and exporatation of oil they will. oppostion will die when the dollars start to talk...remember it is all about the dollars my friend...environment be damned! Corrigan is only providing sound bytes in opposition meanwhile his city reaps in millions in tax dollars from the same corporation he opposes


----------



## stratos

Clownloachlover said:


> Stratos, when are you going to give up on this? Relaize the fact that if there is a chance for any town city municpality, province or country to make a dime off the sale and exporatation of oil they will. oppostion will die when the dollars start to talk...remember it is all about the dollars my friend...environment be damned! Corrigan is only providing sound bytes in opposition meanwhile his city reaps in millions in tax dollars from the same corporation he opposes


I won't give up on this. I am prepared to attend demonstrations, register political protest, even engage in civil disobedience if need be. I remember the fights to save South Moresby, the Carmanah/Walbran/Clayquot and Stein River watersheds. People said those areas couldn't be saved too, but they were. On this, the 25th anniversary of Tianamen, we should all recognize and value our right to peaceful protest and to stand up for what we believe in.


----------



## effox

Didn't they execute him after he tried stopping the tanks?


----------



## stratos

effox said:


> Didn't they execute him after he tried stopping the tanks?


No one knows. But doesn't he inspire you now?


----------



## stratos

If you are opposed to the Northern Gateway Project, join the Dogwood Initiative. Link provided here:

Sign the pledge to stand up for B.C. â€" Dogwood Initiative

If you are a current UBC student or alumni, check out the UBC Divestment Project here: UBCC350

I've already been involved in door-to-door canvassing against the Enbridge project with my wife and kids, have donated money to both groups linked above, and questioned politicians about their views on the Enbridge project. Its not that hard to get involved and is actually fun/rewarding once you do.


----------



## Ursus sapien

stratos said:


> If you are opposed to the Northern Gateway Project, join the Dogwood Initiative. Link provided here:
> 
> Sign the pledge to stand up for B.C. â€" Dogwood Initiative
> 
> If you are a current UBC student or alumni, check out the UBC Divestment Project here: UBCC350
> 
> I've already been involved in door-to-door canvassing against the Enbridge project with my wife and kids, have donated money to both groups linked above, and questioned politicians about their views on the Enbridge project. Its not that hard to get involved and is actually fun/rewarding once you do.


 for what it's worth, here's a cropped version of an open letter to PM Harper signed by a zillion academics. You can read the letter in its entirety, including all signatures at here. (Apologies, I've misplaced the original source link. It was either Dogwood Initiative or the Suzuki Foundation. Will post it when I find it.)

_Dear Prime Minister Harper:
Based on the evidence presented below, we, the undersigned scholars, have concluded that the Joint Review Panel's (JRP) assessment of the Northern Gateway Project (the Project) represents a flawed analysis of the risks and benefits to British Columbia's environment and society. Consequently, the JRP report should not serve as the basis for concluding that the Northern Gateway Project is in the best interests of Canadians. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report.

The Canadian electorate expected the JRP ruling to present a balanced and appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits of the Project, drawing upon the best available evidence, and expressing a cogent rationale for the final ruling.

By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel's review:

1. Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
2. Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate
consideration of key issues,
3. Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
4. Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents, and
5. Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the
proponent's yet-to-be-developed mitigation measures.

Below, we expand on these five fundamental flaws that invalidate the report as an appropriate basis for
your Cabinet to approve the Project... "_


----------



## rwong2k10

ok I hope I don't get flamed on this but I want to educate myself.

I've been reading that the pipelines are safer than the tankers they truck the oils to the bc shore line.

Is that true? or is it better not to ship any of the oil out at all? or is there an alternative?

thanks in advance

Ray


----------



## davefrombc

The pipelines may be safer than the tankers..... But that's the problem.. The pipelines aren't all that safe , considering the safety and spill records of pipelines owned by the major players; and ONE spill the size of the EXXON Valdez would devastate our entire coast, and some of those tankers will be larger than the Valdez was.... We cannot afford one major spill on our coast ...... Gone would be our fisheries, recreation and tourist businesses all along the coast ... The Valdez spill still isn't entirely cleaned up , and never will be until natural forces finally break it down or cover it. It caused a huge hit to parts of Alaska. Can you imagine what it would be like for our much more heavily populated coast here ? We have some of the most spectacular coastline, valuable fisheries and recreational diving in the world. One major spill would destroy that, ONE major spill, and it has been shown at least one major spill is inevitable wherever tankers are operated. The waters from Kitimat to the open Pacific are among some of the most dangerous for tankers to navigate .. Building a pipeline to Kitimat and then loading tankers there is asinine.. It may be great for major oil corporations and Alberta, but presents a far too huge risk with really negligible benefits to the economy and well being of British Columbians.


----------



## tony1928

Typically I wouldn't be against the resource sector, after all it provides us with many of our livelihoods and without that we couldn't even possibly afford to dream green. But I just don't see enough benefit for BC to take on this pipeline and the added volumes it will bring. Rail may not be quite as safe as a pipeline but at least its limited in scale. I'd rather support the LNG initiatives or even maybe the BC refinery proposals for oil if we had to go that way.


----------



## ddcool

I had a phone call at home yesterday just hours after they announced the decision. Automated poll about resources in BC.
After a few wishy washy questions they got into the Northern Gateway project. Do you feel its good for BC etc etc. Then
at the end of the poll their real concern.. who are you going to vote for in the next Federal election?


----------



## Clownloachlover

tony1928 said:


> I'd rather support the LNG initiatives or even maybe the BC refinery proposals for oil if we had to go that way.


Well technically the LNG is still going to be a pipeline as they need to get the natural gas to the LNG processing plants on the coast before being loaded on tankers....however if a NG pipeline bursts, one of two things happens, either there is a fire, or it dissipates into the atmosphere. there is little to clean up and the damage does not ruin the environment for decades. As far as refineries are concerned in BC, that is not a bad idea, however what do you do with the refined product? You cant load it on tankers, you cant transport it by pipeline cause the damage there would not be as bad as raw bitumen, however it is still oil....and there is not enough demand for the use of the refined product in the province. I see your point Tony, just that oil is a double edged sword. While I dont like the idea of environmental damage, I support industry that could potentially lighten the tax burden of all of the tax payers in the province. Lest we forget, Alberta has no sales tax, their personal insurance rates are far lower and their economy appears to be very good with a pretty decent standard of living. remember this is all about the righteous buck...the government needs the money and they have already suggested they are willing to take the risk of an environmental disaster in trade for more dollars...keep saying to yourslef...it is all about the money...it is all about the money...attempts to stop the projects are futile, eventually it will all be built...the carmanah valley and clayoquot sound will be logged....it is just a matter of time and perhaps generations!


----------



## tony1928

Clownloachlover said:


> Well technically the LNG is still going to be a pipeline as they need to get the natural gas to the LNG processing plants on the coast before being loaded on tankers


I think given the substantially better economic benefit from LNG, and lesser dangers that would be something that given the right circumstances I could support. It's never a bad thing to have more tax revenues as the only other place to get it is from us.

Sent from my gigantic Samsung Note 2


----------



## stratos

Rafe Mair, the old CKNW radio talk show host is calling for massive civil disobedience regarding the Enbridge Pipeline project:

The Tyee â€" Rafe Mair: Why I'm for Massive Civil Disobedience

His reasoning is interesting and makes good reading.

To quote his conclusion:



> As a British Columbian I am appalled that my national government would impose this catastrophe upon my province without any consultation with its citizens. The process, the Joint Review Panel, is a fraud. The only issue to be determined there is whether or not environmental changes can be made to the project. The question as to whether or not the people want the project in the first place is simply out of order.
> 
> This will be the value of a referendum. If I am wrong on this matter the public will say so and that will be the end of the matter.
> 
> I believe, and the federal government fears, that given the opportunity the public of British Columbia will massively reject this insult to their province. We have one of the most beautiful jurisdictions in the entire world. Once we get started on pipelines other similar projects will follow. We will become an industrial jurisdiction and the term "Beautiful British Columbia" will be a joke.
> 
> When one thinks of it, isn't it just a little bit puzzling? Was it all that long ago that we had all decided in Canada that we would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Weren't we going to wean ourselves off oil and move to alternative sources of energy? Weren't we going to be a beacon for the world in changing our ways?
> 
> What has happened to us?
> 
> What's happened is the simple word: greed. The Canadian government has to deal with a lot of greed from industry that manifests itself in large political contributions without which parties could not run elections. No more complicated than that.
> 
> The Northern Gateway pipeline is a terrible idea, and in my opinion, must be opposed with every sinew in our fibre, starting now. This must include massive civil disobedience. We must fully support First Nations in their struggles.
> 
> As the days and months unfold, British Columbians will learn the stuff they're made of.


----------



## stratos

9 First Nations constitutional challenges...that aught to keep the Enbridge file on the backburner for a long time 

Northern Gateway pipeline: First Nations outline constitutional challenges - British Columbia - CBC News


----------



## stratos

Good to see that Enbridge is really losing momentum. 

Janet Holder, Enbridge pipeline project leader, to retire - British Columbia - CBC News


----------



## davefrombc

Kinder Morgan also needs to hear loud and clear protest from the entire province..Especially when they launched a harassment suit against the protestors stopping their destructive survey on Burnaby mountain. Paying for the damage is not sufficient .. Not doing the damage in the first place is. Burnaby and Vancouver should launch suits against Kinder Morgan for harassment of the protestors that are trying to block damage to the PARK.. it is not Kinder Morgans property , it belongs to the cities and people of BC


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Yes, the right to peacefully protest these strong arm tactics by an oil industry giant is protected and those protestors were doing what they have every right to do as Canadians.


----------



## Clownloachlover

So those of you that are not in favour of industry go to a mirror and ask yourself...how many more thousands of dollars am I willing to pay in personal taxes to cover off on the lost revenue that are currently provided to every man woman and child in this province by big business and industry through taxes, levies and royalties? Oh but wait, you are not willing to pay extra...then where will the province go to get all the extra money needed to provide all of the public services this province provides its citizens...protest as you wish, just don't go asking for public programs that you currently take for granted!


----------



## MarcelBro

Clownloachlover said:


> So those of you that are not in favour of industry go to a mirror and ask yourself...how many more thousands of dollars am I willing to pay in personal taxes to cover off on the lost revenue that are currently provided to every man woman and child in this province by big business and industry through taxes, levies and royalties? Oh but wait, you are not willing to pay extra...then where will the province go to get all the extra money needed to provide all of the public services this province provides its citizens...protest as you wish, just don't go asking for public programs that you currently take for granted!


Agreed ^^ I wouldn't mind paying less taxes


----------



## Momobobo

There are many countries who are not dependent on the dirty energy industry with far better social services (Germany just to name one, one of the leaders in renewable energy). Its not about industry, its about how the money trickles down. In Canada, we send all our money to the top and not much gets down to us, it just disappears along the route. Higher taxes is not an inherently bad thing.

Also, this might be just me, but I am more willing to pay to protect the Howe Sound/Coast of British Columbia. Our coast is truly host to one of the most beautiful and diverse marine ecosystems in the world, some call it the best and most beautiful place to dive in the entire world (trumping the tropical reefs). Not to mention the prehistoric sponge bioherms and other unique ecosystems that are found nowhere else in the world. Tout strict safety regulations as much as you want, the more tankers going through there the more likely there is going to be a spill. The environment might not be cold hard cash, but over time it is a much better investment and gives better return. Not to mention the aesthetics.

My $0.02.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Tar sands oil is arguable the dirtiest fuel source in the world in terms of overall damage to the environment. I am all for the LNG project or if they were planning to pump out regular oil field fossil fuels through the pipelines but not a big fan of the tar sands. I know it provides a lot of high paying jobs for Canadians and gives AB lots of tax revenues. Enbridge has a terrible safety record with its pipelines and the resulting environmental damage. Kinder Morgan's twinning project actually makes the most sense, but the way KM is trying to bully municipalities like Burnaby is just bound to make residents mad. And yes, I live in Burnaby.

Anthony


----------



## davefrombc

Something those that think the "Northern Gateway" is a good project need to give their head a shake .. It will actually bring very little to BC as far as income is concerned after the construction is done .. The pipeline it to ship oil to Asia / Pacific regions, Not for domestic consumption. That makes the oil barons rich and greatly pads Alberta's coffers through royalties.. Nearly nothing for BC in comparison.. A few people to run the terminal and occasionally inspect the pipeline route; and a pittance in compensation for the pipeline passing through BC. Search Google Earth for Kitimat and the route the oil tankers will have to take from Kitimat to the open Pacific. Now, look up the ocean currents in the area. ONE major spill of that heavy bitumen and whatever other oils mixed with it can contaminate our entire coast. Kiss goodbye to the fishing industry, and our coastal tourism / SCUBA diving, which has some of the most sought after diving experiences in the world. Those, along with the logging industry which would also be affected by a coastal spill are the mainstay of BC's economy. A major spill on land could destroy a huge area of our forest land before they even begin to stop the flow .. Forget about adequate cleanup .. It wouldn't happen. So you really want BC to run a major risk for very little return ? I sure the hell don't .... I'm with Anthony on the LNG line.. A break there would not be good for the atmosphere , but natural gas is lighter than air and will dissipate without contaminating the soil or ocean.. There is no major cleanup or long term contamination dangers with LNG.


----------



## The Guy

What Dave says makes total sense, come on Christy Clark time to start thinking long term here instead of being the goats for the boats and thinking short term to serve the rest of the world. We already give our natural resources away too cheap, WAKE UP FOLKS!!!!!


----------



## stratos

People are waking up. Yesterday's municipal elections show that the Green movement is alive and well in the lower mainland. The city councilor who got the most votes in Vancouver was Adrian Carr, a Green. And Vision won an overall majority on Vancouver City Council and of course Gregor got re-elected. The youth vote was key. Young people can see where an oil dependent economy is leading us and they don't like what they see.

Meanwhile, Corrigan got re-elected in Burnaby. He is quoted in today's Vancouver Sun as saying he will lead the fight against Kinder Morgan. This is good news. The voters of Vancouver and Burnaby have spoken. We don't want to see Vancouver become a major dirty oil port.

See: Mayor Derek Corrigan says Burnaby will stop Kinder Morgan pipeline in the courts

Now, onto the next fight...we need to pass the 7.5 Billion $ transit referendum next year and get subways and light rail running all over the lower mainland. We should be able to run lines right out to Chilliwack and Abbotsford one day along the wide grassy median that separates the lanes on the Trans-Canada Highway.


----------



## tony1928

I'm all for light rail and subways and I'm not big into the pipelines either simply for the fact that I don't think they confer sufficient benefits for BC to take on the risk. Gregor though I'm not so sure on as I'm not sure if his motives necessarily that clear.


----------



## stratos

The fight against pipelines for tar sand oil is gaining momentum, and getting more interesting:

SFU professor, Kinder Morgan protester Lynne Quarmby to seek Green Party nomination


----------



## Joshuajames

With out oil and mining your life would be pretty crappy. U could go back to living in a cave I guess


----------



## stratos

Well, it looks like Enbridge is officially dead in the water.  Trudeau bans oil tankers on B.C.'s north coast, threatening pipeline plan


----------



## effox

Yep, don't know if Harper went out of his way to go against it ... But good start for Trudeau. Hope he keeps up sensible decisions and puts a stop to this rail roading as of previous.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Harper supported the pipeline. Harper's economic "plan" was very much dependent on selling Tar sands oil. Once the price of oil fell, his entire economic plan fell apart. Since his big "advantage" during the election was supposedly his experience handling the Canadian economy, the dropping price of oil helped spell the end of the Harper regime.


----------



## stratos

As if more proof is needed to show that the Unbridle project is dead dead dead, see:

BC Supreme Court hands another setback to Northern Gateway pipeline - NEWS 1130


----------



## stratos

Tomorrow could be the big day for news about Kinder Morgan: Vancouver mayor, BC premier warn feds against Kinder Morgan expansion approval - NEWS 1130


----------



## CRS Fan

And the Feds have passed the Kinder Morgan pipeline...... grrrrrrrrr......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

But they killed the Northern Gateway project.


----------



## stratos

SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> But they killed the Northern Gateway project.


Yes, they killed Northern Gateway. A cynical person might argue that this was the plan all along, with the "compromise" being to pass the Trans-Mountain as some sort of consolation prize to the Alberta oil industry.

However, the long term consequences of this decision are horrible for our local nature and the global environment.

According to a Maclean's article, the southern killer whale population is now toast (Justin Trudeau's B.C. blunder - Macleans.ca ) due to the insane amount of underwater noise that comes from super tankers. Meanwhile, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia just suffered an unprecedented die-off related to climate change. Not to mention that having massive "tank farms" stretching up Burnaby Mountain puts us all in great danger when the BIG ONE hits our region (earthquake), and well...it is all so sad. I feel an opportunity has been missed. Trudeau should have had the guts/spine to stand up to the industrial power $$$ of Big Oil and led the millennial youth of Canada to a future with less fossil fuels and more renewable energy.

Get ready for protests and legal actions that stretch out for years.

Get ready for protests.


----------



## Geoffrey

I thought the Northern Gateway project was already dead.

Stratos, you bring up a good point. I forgot about the "Big One." We're probably going to have many problems *when* that hits and this is just going to add on to that. If the pipeline is fully operational when it hits, I don't know how high of a priority the environment would be at the time


----------



## stratos

Here is a good CBC article that summarizes the opposition to the Kinder Morgan project:



> Beyond the hippie stereotype: A closer look at the opposition to Trans Mountain - Business - CBC News
> 
> *Beyond the hippie stereotype: A closer look at the opposition to Trans Mountain*
> *Opponents of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion engaged in more than just knee-jerk NIMBYism*
> 
> A conversation about tripling your money on a tech start up might seem out of place at an anti-pipeline march, but not so in Vancouver.
> 
> When thousands of protestors made their way from City Hall to downtown a few weeks ago, chatter about stock options and where to go for ramen after the rally could be heard alongside the traditional indigenous drumming and chants of "Hey, hey, Trudeau, Kinder Morgan's got to go".
> 
> Whether or not the Prime Minister heard those calls, it's become clear since he approved the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion that his decision - no matter how it was cast - wasn't going to find any middle ground.
> 
> Trudeau goes up the middle with pipeline play
> 
> "If anyone could show me that the Trans Mountain pipeline was actually in Canada's national interest, then I could wrap my head around taking some risk for that, but I don't see how it is," says Mary Cleaver, a Vancouver real estate agent who has steadfastly attended protests - occasionally with her kids - despite a gnawing belief that the effort is futile.
> 
> Vancouver, with its weed dispensaries, kombucha cafes and growler-toting hipsters, is easy to stereotype. But that doesn't mean the protestors should be dismissed as a bunch of West coast hippies who don't understand what makes the national economy go.
> 
> Their concerns run much deeper than any easy caricatures.
> 
> Cleaver, who was raised in Calgary, didn't envision herself an environmental activist - right up until she became one. Three years ago, as her youngest daughter was turning four, she started reading predictions from leading climatologists about what will happen to the planet in the next few decades if the world doesn't cut back on emissions.
> 
> Some quick math on how old her kids will be by the middle of the century brought her to the stark realization that climate change could affect whether her children may one day choose to have their own kids.
> 
> That felt unacceptable, so she started making changes. She now drives an electric car, refills laundry bottles with organic detergent, and writes letters to politicians detailing her concerns about pipelines. "I think it's as much a part of parenting as taking care of their day-to-day needs," she says.
> 
> Why Kinder Morgan could severely damage the Trudeau-B.C. connection
> 
> She has no illusions about how much of a difference one person out of seven billion can make, but she believes that solving a global problem means every person, every province, and every country needs to do their small part. For Canada, in her mind, that shouldn't include building new pipelines.
> 
> Industry argues that the world still runs on oil, so denying new infrastructure only handicaps Canada's economy while doing little to constrain global emissions. That doesn't fall on deaf ears, but she also questions how the country can possibly meet its climate change commitments if fossil fuel production keeps climbing.
> 
> *'Massive Fireball'*
> 
> More locally, no assurances made to date have put to rest the worry about what a tanker spill would mean for the coastline. Kinder Morgan points out that oil tankers have travelled through the Burrard Inlet for more than 60 years without incident. The company also says that after the expansion, new precautions - including more tugboats guiding each tanker - mean the risk of a spill will barely increase.
> 
> Despite those measures and the $1.5 billion pledge the government just made for ocean protection, the prospect of 34 tankers - up from the current five - travelling past pristine Stanley Park to the company's Westridge Marine Terminal each month is a numbers game that doesn't add up for opponents.
> 
> A fuel oil spill from a freighter last year, though unrelated to Kinder Morgan, is also doing little to instill confidence among locals.
> 
> On the ground, the safety of Kinder Morgan's Burnaby tank farm - which stores oilsands bitumen before the pipeline takes it the final few kilometres to the coast - is also in question. A near tripling of the pipeline's capacity to 890,000 barrels a day means the number of tanks at the facility will double to 26. According to a report prepared for the City of Burnaby, that increase introduces the possibility of a worst-case scenario that includes "a massive fireball supplemented by widely broadcast drops of burning fuel."
> 
> The odds of such an extreme event occurring are low, but the potential for some type of industrial accident is still a factor for residents, as well as the Burnaby Fire Department - a notable critic of the project.
> 
> The decision to approve the pipeline will also be subject to any number of court challenges, the strongest of which is expected to come from First Nations, who argue the approval process didn't properly consider their territorial rights.
> 
> *Vancouver's image of itself*
> 
> None of these concerns addresses the deeper dissonance the Kinder Morgan project poses for those in Vancouver who believe fossil fuels will soon be an anachronism. Beyond its ambitions to be the world's greenest city, Vancouver is banking its economic prosperity on becoming Silicon Valley North, a vision that doesn't include more oil tankers.
> 
> "Technology &#8230; is already a major economic force in the province," says David Eby, the New Democrat MLA for Vancouver-Point Gray. "Why would we jeopardize that future?"
> 
> The answer, according to the Prime Minister and his cabinet, is that a major new export pipeline is in the national interest.
> 
> Such logic resonates in Alberta, which will reap the lion's share of the rewards from the pipeline without having to worry about the consequences of a potential tanker spill.
> 
> "The risks and the benefits of a project like this are separated significantly over space," says George Hoberg, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, who opposes the project. "Almost all of the economic benefits go to Alberta and almost all of the environmental risk is here in British Columbia."
> 
> The sharp polarization of the pipeline debate has left little room for empathy between the opposing sides. That's unlikely to change as the proposal makes it way through a line up of legal challenges and anticipated acts of civil disobedience. If the expansion is eventually completed, Cleaver, the accidental environmentalist, will be disheartened but not surprised.
> 
> "There's an inevitability to the fossil fuel industry in Canada," she says. "You don't feel like you can do anything about it even if you wanted to."
> 
> Although this week didn't go her way, she still doesn't believe the effort is pointless. And neither do others.
> 
> When marchers flooded the Cambie Street Bridge a few weeks ago, waving placards and shouting anti-pipeline chants, one young woman chose to walk on the pedestrian side of the barricade rather than the roadway. Every few feet she would stoop to pick up an old cigarette butt that she'd drop in a bag already half full with other old filters. That the trash wasn't hers didn't seem to matter nor did the Sisyphean nature of the task. She just wanted to leave things a little better than she found them.


----------



## stratos

Apparently there is a massive coal mine project in Australia that is being opposed "down under" just as Kinder Morgan is up here. An Australian friend of mine shared a link to a funny/cheeky video about the project: 




We need someone to make a video like this about the Kinder Morgan project...


----------



## stratos

Interesting news on the Kinder Morgan pipeline front:

Kinder Morgan shares open below IPO price after NDP-Green deal in B.C. - Business - CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...kinder-morgan-and-banning-big-money-1.4138290


----------



## stratos

This thread is over five years old now, how time flies.

Sounds like the provincial government has some more news on the file out tomorrow: BC government to make announcement about Trans Mountain pipeline expansion - NEWS 1130


----------



## stratos

Absolute BEAUTY!! 

*B.C. moves to block Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion*

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...-mountain-pipeline-expansion/article37786796/

Today makes me proud of our democracy in BC, and proud that we are thinking of our children's future environment in this province.

RIGHT ON!


----------



## stratos

One of the founders of Greenpeace International just got arrested at the Kinder Morgan site in Burnaby. David Suzuki just dropped by the site to lend his moral support for the cause of the protestors.

https://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.canada/videos/10155983332099961/

It looks like there will be a steady stream of near daily arrests for civil disobedience at the Kinder Morgan site for the next few weeks at least.


----------



## TomC

Which Greenpeace founder was it?


----------



## stratos

TomC said:


> Which Greenpeace founder was it?


Rex Weyler

Greenpeace founder arrested at Kinder Morgan pipeline protest in Burnaby


----------



## stratos

Former Kinder Morgan environmental engineer got arrested protesting:

https://www.coastprotectors.ca/form..._arrested_blocking_kinder_morgan_construction


----------



## cgjedi

Anyone who is protesting, please provide verifiable proof that you have given up all products, means of transportation and anything to do with the liquid carbon based commodity that is the cornerstone of the world's economy. We want to make sure you aren't hypocrites and take it really seriously.


----------



## joeyk

cgjedi said:


> Anyone who is protesting, please provide verifiable proof that you have given up all products, means of transportation and anything to do with the liquid carbon based commodity that is the cornerstone of the world's economy. We want to make sure you aren't hypocrites and take it really seriously.


That's not necessary. Someone can be against fossil fuel expansion, and limit their carbon footprint. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to live in this day and age with zero carbon consumption. That said, current consumption levels aren't sustainable. If everyone reduced their consumption, we wouldn't need projects like this.


----------



## stratos

Within 20 years we are going to be asking ourselves how we could have been such fools to have polluted so much of the earth due to an oil based economy, as well as dealing with the problems of climate change.

There are now law suits underway in the US against BIG OIL. https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...ds-climate-change-class-suits-against-big-oil

I think we should force the oil companies to invest 100% of their profits into renewable energy.

BIG OIL is increasingly seen as the new BIG TOBACCO.


----------



## cgjedi

joeyk said:


> That's not necessary. Someone can be against fossil fuel expansion, and limit their carbon footprint. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to live in this day and age with zero carbon consumption. That said, current consumption levels aren't sustainable. If everyone reduced their consumption, we wouldn't need projects like this.


Actually,that IS entirely the issue. If you/they are going to protest this, there has to be verifiable proof you are living without it. Don't expect the rest of us to give this up, without showing us that you are willing to do it. That is the definition of hypocrisy and I just don't care about any cause when I see that. It's also not scientifically proven that the world is "running out" of carbon based fuel. It's actually abiotic - a renewable resource. Only the "West" believes in the myth of "peak oil".


----------



## joeyk

cgjedi said:


> Actually,that IS entirely the issue. If you/they are going to protest this, there has to be verifiable proof you are living without it. Don't expect the rest of us to give this up, without showing us that you are willing to do it. That is the definition of hypocrisy and I just don't care about any cause when I see that. It's also not scientifically proven that the world is "running out" of carbon based fuel. It's actually abiotic - a renewable resource. Only the "West" believes in the myth of "peak oil".


Funny. I never mentioned anything about "running out" of fossil fuels. I'm assuming you were speaking in reference to my comment about unsustainable consumption. Look up such subjects as "greenhouse gases" and "ocean acidification" to understand why I believe our consumption is unsustainable and as a population we need to scale back our carbon footprint.

I'm not saying anyone needs to give up petroleum products entirely. That's not realistic. I'm saying we, as a population, need reduced consumption, in order to scale back emissions. Which in turn would negate the need for projects such as the one originally posted about.


----------



## stratos

We all have to change and we are all changing: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...y-be-cheaper-than-gas-guzzlers-in-seven-years

Be part of the change. Oppose tar sand expansion.


----------



## cgjedi

It's all a fake cause. It stems from a unsupported first principle cause. The foundation is flawed. Moving on.


----------



## joeyk

cgjedi said:


> It's all a fake cause. It stems from a unsupported first principle cause. The foundation is flawed. Moving on.


Ocean acidification and greenhouse gases are clearly a scam


----------



## stratos

And don't forget the massive floating plastic patch in the ocean that is growing out of control: Plastic patch in Pacific Ocean growing rapidly, study shows - BBC News

We even have to worry about micro-plastics in our bottled drinking water: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-in-more-than-90-of-bottled-water-study-says

Here is a thought - stop growing the tar sands, ban bottled water, ban plastic bags, force BIG OIL companies to invest ALL their profits into renewables, provide tax credits for bicycles, build out more transit - and block Kinder Morgan


----------



## PoolBoy

So question for all you that know a lot more about the Greenhouse gas deal than me. If the kinder morgan pipeline is stopped, what will the overall effect be on the CO2 emissions, worldwide?


----------



## davefrombc

PoolBoy said:


> So question for all you that know a lot more about the Greenhouse gas deal than me. If the kinder morgan pipeline is stopped, what will the overall effect be on the CO2 emissions, worldwide?


It would likely have very little, if any, effect on CO2 emissions.. That is not what the fight is about .. It is about keeping increased volumes toxic bitumen off our coast and out of our waters. We cannot run the risk of a major spill of that sludge which would basically wipe out much of our tourism and fishing industries.


----------



## cgjedi

lol. Right. As if.


----------



## stratos

Canada is not meeting its CO2 emissions targets as per the Paris Climate Accord. If the Kinder Morgan expansion goes ahead, we will be even farther behind. The other day David Suzuki said all he wants is for Trudeau to live up to the Paris Climate Accord. I agree.

As for the possibility of oil spills, judging from history you can count on them.

Finally, the Canadian and BC governments have almost no treaties with the First Nations in BC. We should not be forcing a project like Kinder Morgan on them without their consent.

https://twnsacredtrust.ca/concerns/spill-record/


----------



## PoolBoy

davefrombc said:


> It would likely have very little, if any, effect on CO2 emissions.. That is not what the fight is about .. It is about keeping increased volumes toxic bitumen off our coast and out of our waters. We cannot run the risk of a major spill of that sludge which would basically wipe out much of our tourism and fishing industries.


Ok, but doesn't the states already ship Bitumen from Alaska to Washington state through BC waters? And don't we already have 3 tankers a week safely carrying oil out from our port?


----------



## PoolBoy

stratos said:


> Canada is not meeting its CO2 emissions targets as per the Paris Climate Accord. If the Kinder Morgan expansion goes ahead, we will be even farther behind. The other day David Suzuki said all he wants is for Trudeau to live up to the Paris Climate Accord. I agree.
> 
> As for the possibility of oil spills, judging from history you can count on them.
> 
> https://twnsacredtrust.ca/concerns/spill-record/


So how much CO2 it will keep out of the worlds atmosphere?

So the over all effect of the Paris Climate treaty will have what on the world temperatures?


----------



## cgjedi

stratos said:


> Canada is not meeting its CO2 emissions targets as per the Paris Climate Accord. If the Kinder Morgan expansion goes ahead, we will be even farther behind. The other day David Suzuki said all he wants is for Trudeau to live up to the Paris Climate Accord. I agree.
> 
> As for the possibility of oil spills, judging from history you can count on them.
> 
> Finally, the Canadian and BC governments have almost no treaties with the First Nations in BC. We should not be forcing a project like Kinder Morgan on them without their consent.
> 
> https://twnsacredtrust.ca/concerns/spill-record/


Yup, that's the problem. We've let the insane environmental nazis take control. The adults in the room need to take back control and show these bozos the door.


----------



## joeyk

cgjedi said:


> stratos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada is not meeting its CO2 emissions targets as per the Paris Climate Accord. If the Kinder Morgan expansion goes ahead, we will be even farther behind. The other day David Suzuki said all he wants is for Trudeau to live up to the Paris Climate Accord. I agree.
> 
> As for the possibility of oil spills, judging from history you can count on them.
> 
> Finally, the Canadian and BC governments have almost no treaties with the First Nations in BC. We should not be forcing a project like Kinder Morgan on them without their consent.
> 
> https://twnsacredtrust.ca/concerns/spill-record/
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's the problem. We've let the insane environmental nazis take control. The adults in the room need to take back control and show these bozos the door.
Click to expand...

What do you propose as an alternative? Do you think current emissions are sustainable?


----------



## davefrombc

PoolBoy said:


> Ok, but doesn't the states already ship Bitumen from Alaska to Washington state through BC waters? And don't we already have 3 tankers a week safely carrying oil out from our port?


The US may ship bitumen with their heavy oil from Alaska to the lower 48, but not through Canadian waters. They sail outside the west coast of Vancouver Island, not through our inland waters or through the already heavy traffic in Vancouver Harbour and Georgia Strait. Maybe you'd like to read this bit on the routes the oil tankers are taking. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/drawing-the-tanker-line/article720177/ 
If Kinder Morgan expansion goes through , that 3 tankers a week you mention could climb more than 10 fold .. And look at where the tanker loading facility is. Hint..It is up stream fro the Second narrows bridge.. Besides the narrow passage and the pipeline running through the city, do you really want a 10 fold risk of a tanker collision with the Second Narrows bridge?


----------



## stratos

Remember also that the KM terminal is on unceded First Nations land belonging to the https://twnation.ca

Two MP's arrested: Two MPs arrested for violating Kinder Morgan court injunction - NEWS 1130

This line is not going to be expanded.


----------



## cgjedi

lol. Another loonie liberal. Of course it's going to be expanded. The army will be called in if it gets too bad. Quit smoking your weed. Oh, and btw, the Indians were conquered centuries ago so there is not such thing as "first nations". They are Canadians and if they (or you) don't like it, leave.


----------



## stratos

cgjedi said:


> lol. Another loonie liberal. Of course it's going to be expanded. The army will be called in if it gets too bad. Quit smoking your weed. Oh, and btw, the Indians were conquered centuries ago so there is not such thing as "first nations". They are Canadians and if they (or you) don't like it, leave.


Ad hominem is a weak form of argument.

But we "loony liberals" did take a majority of the popular vote in the last provincial election 

The idea of First Nations having to leave because they are standing up for their constitutional rights is a non-sequitur.

But I get the feeling you are just having some fun trolling around here


----------



## cgjedi

Actually I could care less. Loonie liberals are not interested in reality or reason. So it's really a waste of effort or air trying to have any kind of civil discussion. It will all be decided by force anyway.


----------



## Geoffrey

cgjedi said:


> Actually I could care less. Loonie liberals are not interested in reality or reason. So it's really a waste of effort or air trying to have any kind of civil discussion. It will all be decided by force anyway.


...then why reply in the first place if you think it's a waste of time and effort to respond?


----------



## stratos

cgjedi said:


> Actually I could care less. Loonie liberals are not interested in reality or reason. So it's really a waste of effort or air trying to have any kind of civil discussion. It will all be decided by force anyway.


Oh come on, you don't really believe that. We are Canadians after all, and we will work things out peacefully. Elizabeth May (Green MP) emphasized that she will only support peaceful demonstration. There have been 100 arrested in the last few days, I am sure there will be many more to come. In the end, however, it won't be the protestors that stop this project, it will be the First Nations and the courts. And despite what you earlier said about the First Nations, they have a very strong constitutional argument, and a very strong moral claim.

On a totally different note, what kind of fish do you keep?


----------



## davefrombc

cgjedi said:


> lol. Another loonie liberal. Of course it's going to be expanded. The army will be called in if it gets too bad. Quit smoking your weed. Oh, and btw, the Indians were conquered centuries ago so there is not such thing as "first nations". They are Canadians and if they (or you) don't like it, leave.


In fact, the "Indians" in Canada were never conquered. You really need to back to school and learn some facts of Canadian history . Treaties were signed with various native nations , but many lands in BC have never been ceded by treaty or any other way. There are in fact many First nations in Canada, and they are recognized as such in law. I suggest you leave if you don't like it .. Some of our ancestors have been here since the 1700's and those of us that are  their descendants would not be saddened by your leaving. I strongly suspect you have no where near the connection to Canada we or the native Canadians have . You certainly don't have a very good grasp of our history.


----------



## stratos

Another 50-60 arrested so far today.

Lots of people of all ages and ethnicities are protesting.

Some musicians are there too: https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...ris-are-all-protesting-kinder-morgan-pipeline


----------



## cgjedi

stratos said:


> Oh come on, you don't really believe that. We are Canadians after all, and we will work things out peacefully. Elizabeth May (Green MP) emphasized that she will only support peaceful demonstration. There have been 100 arrested in the last few days, I am sure there will be many more to come. In the end, however, it won't be the protestors that stop this project, it will be the First Nations and the courts. And despite what you earlier said about the First Nations, they have a very strong constitutional argument, and a very strong moral claim.


It didn't take very long to prove my point and disprove your naive mindset. It was just reported that the protesters chased and attacked and wounded a police officer. This is the "peaceful" mindset you espouse, huh? Well, it won't be long before things turn disgustingly violent by "your side".


----------



## stratos

Sure emotions are high, but it sounds like what happened today was more obstruction than assault. I don't support violence and neither do the other people I know who are opposed to the Kinder Morgan project.

On another note, the Mayor of Burnaby has announced he is not paying for the policing costs. So maybe you are right, we will end up with the army at some point guarding the infrastructure. That would be a sad day. Meanwhile, we get peer reviewed scientific reports like this one:
https://www.ipbes.net/news/media-re...tion-now-'critical'-undermining-well-being-32

Please tell me why you think Kinder Morgan is such a good idea. I am all ears.


----------



## stratos

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...have-surged-under-donald-trump-report-reveals

'


> Extreme' fossil fuel investments have surged under Donald Trump, report reveals
> Sharp rise globally in the dirtiest fossil fuel investments reverses progress made after the Paris agreement, with tar sands holdings more than doubling in Trump's first year in office
> 
> A Shell tailings pond at a tar sands operation near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Photograph: Todd Korol/Reuters
> 
> Bank holdings in "extreme" fossil fuels skyrocketed globally to $115bn during Donald Trump's first year as US president, with holdings in tar sands oil more than doubling, a new report has found.
> 
> A sharp flight from fossil fuels investments after the Paris agreement was reversed last year with a return to energy sources dubbed "extreme" because of their contribution to global emissions. This included an 11% hike in funding for carbon-heavy tar sands, as well as Arctic and ultra-deepwater oil and coal.
> 
> US and Canadian banks led a race back into the unconventional energy sector following Trump's promise to withdraw from Paris, with JPMorgan Chase increasing its coal funding by a factor of 21, and quadrupling its tar sands assets.
> 
> Chase's $5.6bn surge in tar sands holdings added to nearly $47bn of gains for the industry last year, according to the report by NGOs including BankTrack, the Sierra Club and Rainforest Action Network (RAN).
> 
> RAN spokeswoman, Alison Kirsch, accused banks such as JPMorgan Chase of "moving backwards in lockstep with their wrongheaded political leaders".
> 
> "If we are to have any chance of halting catastrophic climate change, there must be an end of expansion and complete phase-out of these dangerous energy sources," she said. "Banks need to be accountable and implement policies guarding against extreme fossil fuel funding."
> 
> JPMorgan Chase has asked the US securities and exchanges commission for support in its bid to block a shareholder resolution calling for a bank report on financial and climate risks associated with tar sands projects.
> 
> Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto Dominion remain the biggest tar sands backers, with $38bn of holdings between them.
> 
> Kelly Martin, a campaign director at Sierra Club, said: "Tar sands and other fossil fuel projects threaten our climate, public health, and communities, and until they stop supporting them financially, major banks &#8230; are complicit in this destruction."
> 
> The bulk of new "extreme" investments came in a doubling of loans and bonds to Canada's government-backed tar sands industry, even though its success would be disastrous for climate mitigation efforts, according to the former Nasa chief James Hansen.
> 
> Bank funding for tar sands production and pipelines more than doubled last year - compared to the 2015-16 period, when then-US president Barack Obama nixed the Keystone pipeline project, which Trump subsequently reapproved.
> 
> Support for coal among the 36 banks surveyed was also up by 6% in 2017 after a 38% plunge in 2016. Large Chinese banks actually reduced these investments last year and in Europe, BNP Paribas and ING moved to limit their exposure to fossil fuel assets.
> 
> However, 14 European banks collectively increased their coal financing by more than $2bn last year, with HSBC the worst performer by far.
> 
> "Europe's top banks have got to stop their coal-focused assault on the Paris agreement," said Johan Frijns, the director of BankTrack. "It is now vital that they move to stamp out their financial support for companies developing new coal-fired power plants around the world."


----------



## cgjedi

It doesn't matter in the slightest whatever "news" reports you post. The only thing that matters is proof that you've given up oil based products. Once that happens, then come back and lecture us on your hobby horse.


----------



## stratos

cgjedi said:


> It doesn't matter in the slightest whatever "news" reports you post. The only thing that matters is proof that you've given up oil based products. Once that happens, then come back and lecture us on your hobby horse.


We all have to change together. The current economic system is unsustainable and is leading to environmental destruction. This is why we need government to regulate and lead us in the right direction.


----------



## cgjedi

lol. How old are you? 12?


----------



## stratos

cgjedi said:


> lol. How old are you? 12?


We will never eliminate oil products from our lives. We can all work to reduce them. And that means not building more pipelines for dirty tar sand oil. You must understand this or else you are just trolling. The combination of your angry "terminator" avatar, your earlier comments about "conquering" the First Nations, and your use of ad hominem makes me think you are a troll. And as everyone knows, when it comes to trolls, the best thing is not to feed them. :lol:


----------



## cgjedi

Funny, the progressive liberals like yourself are the ones trolling.


----------



## TomC

stratos said:


> We will never eliminate oil products from our lives.


Actually, we certainly will eliminate oil products. The use of oil for fuel has a very short history, less than two centuries. The end may take a while, but seems to be coming at an increasing pace. I'm sure there were the same sort of arguments from people who said that motor cars would never replace horses.


----------



## EDGE

This is hardly a Left or right issue. The human population is out growing the sustainability of the earth and the adaptations we do to limit the impact. The use of oil or any natural resource is only a symptom of the problem from growth in human population around the world. 

We can be more efficient with the resource, but that doesn't reduce the consumption in the greater scheme of things around the world.


----------



## joeyk

cgjedi said:


> Funny, the progressive liberals like yourself are the ones trolling.


You're very clearly missing the point. As a society, we have passed the point at which living with zero fossil fuels is a realistic goal.

The ONLY solution is collectively reduced consumption, which is not unreasonable to advocate for.

Are you legitimately of the opinion that current global consumption and further expansion is sustainable with the documented environmental impact?


----------



## stratos

The challenges are great but not insurmountable. The tide is turning. You can see evidence of it all over the place, whether it is new technologies and sustainable energy, or the accumulation of scientific knowledge concerning global warming, or in people deciding to stand up and engage in civil protest. On some level it reminds me a bit of the imagery from the 1960's civil rights era in the US. Even the legal establishment is having to address the reality of the threat posed by climate change:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-karenna-gore-mary-ann-driscoll-a8276851.html


----------



## EDGE

stratos said:


> The challenges are great but not insurmountable. The tide is turning. You can see evidence of it all over the place, whether it is new technologies and sustainable energy, or the accumulation of scientific knowledge concerning global warming, or in people deciding to stand up and engage in civil protest. On some level it reminds me a bit of the imagery from the 1960's civil rights era in the US. Even the legal establishment is having to address the reality of the threat posed by climate change:
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-karenna-gore-mary-ann-driscoll-a8276851.html


The cost to reducing is not feasible at this time. how many people would have the money to spend $200 000 on a tri generation system for an average house hold? Commercial / Industrial / Biogas - Horizon Power Systems.

You still need natural gas and the government to incentivize people to reduce consumption. If there is no reason or purpose for companies to drill and ship less oil, company wouldn't be expanding now. Incentivize the people to reduce consumption, and the oil flow will slow.

Slowing down oil before a solution only rise the cost for the consumer.


----------



## stratos

EDGE said:


> The cost to reducing is not feasible at this time. how many people would have the money to spend $200 000 on a tri generation system for an average house hold? Commercial / Industrial / Biogas - Horizon Power Systems.
> 
> You still need natural gas and the government to incentivize people to reduce consumption. If there is no reason or purpose for companies to drill and ship less oil, company wouldn't be expanding now. Incentivize the people to reduce consumption, and the oil flow will slow.
> 
> Slowing down oil before a solution only rise the cost for the consumer.


I have friends in the solar industry in Japan and San Diego, both producers of panels and installers. I have family in Denmark with windmills on their property and geothermal heating. I notice just this week locally that there is a big solar project in Merrit: Upper Nicola Band to decide on massive solar farm - Merritt Herald - Merritt Herald

I totally agree that the government should be subsidizing Canadian citizens to make the transition to renewable energy. There should be tax credits and buyer incentives for electric cars; it is so doable. It is just companies with have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is that are standing in the way of progress.


----------



## EDGE

stratos said:


> I have friends in the solar industry in Japan and San Diego, both producers of panels and installers. I have family in Denmark with windmills on their property and geothermal heating. I notice just this week locally that there is a big solar project in Merrit: Upper Nicola Band to decide on massive solar farm - Merritt Herald - Merritt Herald
> 
> I totally agree that the government should be subsidizing Canadian citizens to make the transition to renewable energy. There should be tax credits and buyer incentives for electric cars; it is so doable. It is just companies with have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is that are standing in the way of progress.


The geography makes a huge different in how certain "renewable" energy are practical. Solar panel is good for the summer time when we get 12 hours of daylight. From Fall to Spring there is very little daylight to make solar practical. Same for wind, hydro dam etc. When we are going through climate change, are area that used to get a lot of rain and run off able to feed the hydro dam?

Geothermal heating require aquafier or good amount of land. Assume everyone use geothermal to heat and cool their home, will there enough land mass or aquafier for every household within the vicinity of each other in a urban area?

Because 1 area can rely on solar power or hydrodam power or whatever people want to use to reduce carbon footprint doesn't transfer over to other parts of the world. How can people justify a place like Iceland to be more environmental friendly by using hydro dam power, solar power, or anything that is less dependent on oil for survival?

All people are doing right now when they put cap on a country to use their own natural resource is divert to other part of the world that has less restriction and cheaper labour to funnel the natural resource back to us.

When things are not practical to do, the cost and expense get transfer to the end user.

Cogeneration, the non gas turbine type, uses about $0.11 of natural gas to generate 5KW of electricity. 5KW of energy in Greater Vancouver is around $0.50 to $0.55. rough numbers from a while ago when I was looking into Cogeneration.
Gas turbine cogeneration burns a lot cleaner but uses more natural gas per KW.

This has more to do with country regulations and taxes than the companies itself. If Canadian companies can refine oil cheaper in Canada, they wouldn't have a reason to ship oil to other places. They can refine their own oil and sell to local consumers at a competitive rate. Gas wouldn't be coming up from the US. Most people are driven by profit.

Maybe BC government should look at how they can use the oil or get a % of the oil from the pipeline to help the BC economy.

Imagine if every household in Greater Vancouver has a 10 KW Tri generation unit, to heat, cool, power a house and each household have excess energy to sell back to the grid. The government or hydro company can sell the excess power to other country or area.

If the city really want to be environmentally friendly and not have all the regulations blocking creativity, those flue gas can be reuse by companies like air liquide and agricultural production. If city can run electrical wire, water pipe, waste pipe to every household, why do they not run exhaust gas back to a station to be process?

They wouldn't need more power station to feed Greater Vancouver and they have a way to make money off of people. This is how people should look at reducing carbon foot print rather than limiting gas flow.

This is about making the most of oil and its byproduct.


----------



## PoolBoy

davefrombc said:


> The US may ship bitumen with their heavy oil from Alaska to the lower 48, but not through Canadian waters. They sail outside the west coast of Vancouver Island, not through our inland waters or through the already heavy traffic in Vancouver Harbour and Georgia Strait. Maybe you'd like to read this bit on the routes the oil tankers are taking. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/drawing-the-tanker-line/article720177/
> If Kinder Morgan expansion goes through , that 3 tankers a week you mention could climb more than 10 fold .. And look at where the tanker loading facility is. Hint..It is up stream fro the Second narrows bridge.. Besides the narrow passage and the pipeline running through the city, do you really want a 10 fold risk of a tanker collision with the Second Narrows bridge?


Yes, I am perfectly comfortable with at 10 fold increase of tanker traffic. Seriously, I have no difficulties with it! Don't see an issue at all with it and I would love to see the kinder morgan pipeline expanded and see the tax money from it go to pay for our services and pay down our debt.

Speaking of which, I didn't see anyone here worried about the NDP mentioning the tax insentives for LNG. Do we not care about those emissions?

By the way there was 485 peer reviews papers last year that questioned the CO2 as the main driver\climate change narrative. 180 so far this year. The tide is starting to turn again this consensus you guys love to claim. More and more it is being shown to be scientifically false, and ideologically driven.

Did you know we had as much global sea ice last fall as in 1973 the year they began measuring it? That was according to NASA.

Did you know they now figure we are heading into a mini ice age? Must be all the CO2!

Did you know Canada actually absorbs far more CO2 than they create? Why are we paying carbon taxes? We should be charging other countries for cleaning the air we do from the "pollutant" C02, any countries that are dumb enough to charge their citizens for CO2 emissions anyway, which last time I checked seemed to be shrinking rather than growing.


----------



## PoolBoy

So can anyone tell me what reduction in global temps the Paris climate accord was going to bring about if everyone meet their target according to scientist? And how much would it cost?

This is a serious question, because you all seem to believe the Paris climate accord will save the world, but know one seems to know what reduction in temp they were hoping to achieve. You would think this would be front and center info. I asked before and still haven't heard any answer. Stratos? Anyone? If you don't know look it up and tell me how that will affect anything. Then justify the Trillions of dollars spent to reduce global temps by such a fraction of an amount. 

Second question, do you know which country reduced their emissions the most in the last 5 years? I bet you don't and it isn't who you would expect!


----------



## stratos

No fake news. No trolls.

Today's Globe and Mail; peer reviewed science; see attached or link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...is-targets-crucial-to-maintaining-arctic-ice/


----------



## cgjedi

stratos said:


> No fake news. No trolls.


HOpe you follow your own dictatorial command and remove thyself.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

[Ok, putting on my Mod hat. Hmmm, still fits.]

"Keep it civil everyone."

[Taking off Mod hat now.] Please let civil debate continue.

Anthony


----------



## stratos

Of course oil spills don't happen (sarcasm) Indonesia: Borneo Oil Spill Prompts State of Emergency | Time

Protest Justin Trudeau's promotion of Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain Pipeline tonight:

https://www.facebook.com/350Canada/photos/gm.904843349695008/1832309340147102/?type=3&theater



> After nearly 200 arrests on Burnaby Mountain of people taking bold action to stop Kinder Morgan, this Thursday, Justin Trudeau is scheduled to be in Vancouver raising money for his own re-election campaign. That's right Trudeau is fundraising at the same time he's trying to shove an unwanted pipeline through Vancouver, Burnaby and all of BC.
> 
> Not on our watch. On Thursday April 5th, let's show the Prime Minister that he is not welcome on unceded Coast Salish territories - not while he is ramming a reckless tar sands pipeline through without Indigenous consent.
> 
> **Here's the plan**
> 5:30 - Gather at the Vancouver Art Gallery
> 5:45 - March to the fundraiser at the Sheraton Wall Centre 1088 Burrard St.
> 6:00 - 7:30 Arrive at the fundraiser as donors and attendees arrive to make noise and make sure Trudeau knows how much supporting KM will cost him.
> 
> ***In order order to make this as loud as possible, we need everyone to bring two items from home - a pot or pan and a wooden spoon. It's a tactic that Quebec students and community members used in 2012 to make a whole lot of noise, and we think that Trudeau needs his ears to ring with our opposition, so please, bring out a pot or pan and a wooden spoon. ***
> 
> We don't have the money to get into Trudeau's event, but we do have people power, and we can show that no amount of dollars is going to help this Prime Minister come election day if he continues to ignore our climate commitments, disrespect Indigenous rights and put this coast in peril.
> 
> We'll march together to Trudeau's fundraiser, where the Prime Minister hopes to fill his re-election coffers. With enough people outside, he'll have to spend the whole night explaining to these supporters why he's willing to risk a catastrophic oil spill in their backyards.


https://bc.ctvnews.ca/pipeline-protesters-plan-less-than-warm-welcome-for-justin-trudeau-1.3872465


----------



## cgjedi

Oh, and make sure you can prove you DID NOT use any oil derived products for your transportation there or consume or wear any oil derived products while preaching to the masses. You would not want to be disqualified by showing yourselves to be hypocrites, after all.


----------



## joeyk

cgjedi said:


> Oh, and make sure you can prove you DID NOT use any oil derived products for your transportation there or consume or wear any oil derived products while preaching to the masses. You would not want to be disqualified by showing yourselves to be hypocrites, after all.


There is a very distinct difference between being against fossil fuels, and being against fossil fuel expansion.


----------



## davefrombc

It is also a very distinct difference between being against fossil fuels which we still need and the loading and shipping of bitumen on our coast . .Most of us are not against fossil fuels. We are against the very real risks to BC's economy shipping Bitumen offshore from Burnaby or any other port on our coast.. The risks to our coast are far too great and the benefits far too few. There's nothing we can do about the existing facility , but it does not need to be expanded.. Tell Alberta to refine that sludge at home and sell us the gas and diesel we need rather than exporting sludge and making us import the finished fuels as we have to do now .


----------



## stratos

I stopped by after work with my wife, was impressed by the energy and determination of the protest. The First Nations spokespeople gave rousing speeches. They really are the only ones who have the moral high ground in this whole movement. I am glad they are taking the leadership of the protest.


----------



## stratos

A couple more photos.

And now some news that might surprise some people but in a way is not surprising at all:

http://vancouversun.com/news/world/...-ago/wcm/3ce0c31d-1f89-44ef-a66b-f3a35e1680ea



> Journalist uncovers 1988 report showing Shell foresaw climate change three decades ago
> 
> Shell's working group warned three decades ago that rising sea levels could impair its offshore installations, refineries and depots
> 
> Washington PostWASHINGTON POST
> Published on: April 6, 2018 | Last Updated: April 6, 2018 6:59 AM PDT
> 
> A Dutch journalist has uncovered a pile of Royal Dutch Shell documents as old as 1988 that showed the company understood the gravity of climate change, the company's large contribution to it and how hard it would be to stop it.
> 
> The oil giant commissioned a 1988 report titled "The Greenhouse Effect" that calculated that the Shell group alone was contributing 4 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions through its oil, natural gas and coal products. And the report warned that "by the time global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation."
> 
> The Arctic is full of toxic mercury, and climate change is going to release it
> The 1988 report said that scientists believed that the effects would become detectable late in the 20th or early 21st century.
> 
> The report was written by members of Shell's Greenhouse Effect Working Group and was based on a 1986 study, though the document reveals that Shell had commissioned "greenhouse effect" reports as early as 1981.
> 
> The documents were found by Jelmer Mommers, a reporter with De Correspondent. They were posted on the Climate Files web site, which is sponsored by the Climate Investigations Center, an environmental activist group.
> 
> Shell's working group knew three decades ago that the change was real and formidable, warning that it would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences. It also warned that rising sea levels could impair offshore installations, coastal facilities, harbors, refineries and depots.
> 
> The documents contrast with Shell's former public stance on climate change, at least for a period of time in the 1990s. The company was a member of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group that raised doubts about the science of climate change and opposed the Kyoto Protocol. However, Shell withdrew from the group in 1998, with its then-president Mark Moody-Stewart saying, "We recently met them and it was concluded our differences of opinion were irreconcilable. We will not renew our subscription," according to a contemporary press report.
> 
> The 1988 report estimated that in 1981, 44 percent of carbon dioxide emissions came from oil, 38 percent from coal and 17 percent from natural gas.
> 
> "With fossil fuel combustion being a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere, a forward looking approach by the energy industry is clearly desirable, seeking to play its part with governments and others in the development of appropriate measures to tackle the problem," the report said.
> 
> At the same time, however, the report said that "the likely time scale of possible change does not necessitate immediate remedial action."
> 
> On Thursday, Shell issued a statement about the newly released report.
> 
> "The Shell Group's position on climate change has been a matter of public record for decades. We strongly support the Paris Agreement and the need for society to transition to a lower carbon future, while also extending the economic and social benefits of energy to everyone," the company said. "Successfully navigating this dual challenge requires sound government policy and cultural change to drive low-carbon choices for businesses and consumers. It requires cooperation between all segments of society."


----------



## The Guy

SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> [Ok, putting on my Mod hat. Hmmm, still fits.]
> 
> "Keep it civil everyone."
> 
> [Taking off Mod hat now.] Please let civil debate continue
> 
> Anthony


I agree Anthony, In my opinion comments regarding the aquaria world would suit this forum better.


----------



## stratos

The Guy said:


> I agree Anthony, In my opinion comments regarding the aquaria world would suit this forum better.


Climate change and the aquarium hobby are inextricably linked; try Googling key terms "aquarium hobby and climate change". And what of our local waterways, both freshwater and marine?

See: https://americaadapts.org/2018/02/19/dan-ashe-zoos-and-aquariums-adapt-to-climate-change/

I think the real problem, to coin good ol' Al Gore, is that we are dealing with "an inconvenient truth" when it comes to man-made climate change. This is a unique moment in time when people in BC are actually standing up for the truth 

http://www.vancourier.com/news/firs...ancouver-fundraiser-calls-him-liar-1.23258343

Like it or not, issues related to fish and global warming are part of the mainstream these days: http://theprovince.com/news/local-n...-all/wcm/e08355a1-96a1-4c72-b4cf-bc42d974eb07


----------



## stratos

Big protest today at KM site in Burnaby, lots of First Nations chiefs there. Momentum remains strong.

Chiefs join anti-pipeline protests in Burnaby, promise to return | Vancouver Sun

An article in Macleans magazine pointing out how the Canadian government is failing to meet its CO2 emission targets: Nobody should believe Canadian politicians who promise to fight climate change - Macleans.ca

Another article about the popular movement to sue the oil companies to help pay for climate change mitigation costs: Oil companies asked to pay their fair share of climate-related costs | Vancouver Sun

Forcing oil companies to pay will be important:


> "A new study looking at the impact of climate change says summer temperatures will rise by about 4.5 degrees in Vancouver and Victoria within the next several decades"


 https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/...5-degrees-in-next-few-decades-study-1.3872941

The more you study the issue, the more you realize that the time to get political about climate change has come!


----------



## cgjedi

Time for the adults in the forum to remind people of common sense and come against the hypocrites that are inciting violence. Dare you to listen to the first 6 minutes of this:
https://omny.fm/shows/money-talks-with-michael-campbell/playlists/podcast/embed?style=artwork
April 7 Lead


----------



## EDGE

Have anyone even consider that climate change comes from everything we use and not just oil? The heat expelled from cooling, the byproduct heat from the electricity we generate, the actual heat people want have inside the home even if this is geothermal? 
All the excess heat has to go somewhere.

I am sure people remember the days when human waste were hand collected or dumped in the street and then farmer collect to fertilize the field. This change when government decided to have waste treatment and sewage system. common sense is to re-purpose the waste to deal with climate change. Reducing consumption isn't going to slow down climate change when the human population is growing faster than we can change. Logic is not a lot different than telling us to not eat as much because we are causing climate change by eating more.

Everything comes with a risk.


----------



## davefrombc

The heat we release from our activities isn't what is contributing to the human activity caused acceleration of global warming . It is the CO2 and methane released by the burning of fossil fuels along with such things that also trap heat in the atmosphere like the fluorcarbons while deforestation reduces the natural processes of photosynthesis which turns the CO2 into elemental oxygen and traps the carbon in their tissues. Weaning off fossil fuels and dealing with the problems of deforestation is going to be very difficult, but in the long run can be done. To me the problem with KM pipeline is not the increased flow of bitumen. It will happen whether KM pumps that sludge into tankers to be sold offshore or continues to be pumped to their refineries in Washington and other states. The problem with the KM pipeline is the very real, and possibility of a major spill in our coastal waters which could devastate our fishing and tourist industries as well as affect every other business and activity on our coast. The coastal waters create the bulk of our provincial revenue in one form or another. A devastating spill nearly instantly transforms our province from a have to a have not one. The risk far outweighs any benefit the relative pittance BC would receive from that pipeline expansion.. The bitumen (Dilbit) is not to feed refineries here but to export for the profit of a Texas owned company. We run all the risks of a devastating spill not to ensure our supply of fuel, but to pump that crud offshore to other refineries. Even the Canadian oil flowing in that line now mainly flows to the US to be refined and sold back to us at a handsome profit.. Refine that sludge at home in Alberta and sell us the refined fuels and other products.. Put Albertans to work refining it . That would create more Alberta jobs than any number of pipelines would. The volume of products flowing through the existing line would be greatly reduced, and a spill of them would be far easier to clean up since much of the spill would fume off rather than sink and cake, making cleanup extremely difficult to impossible. For example of that, they're still dealing with the pollution caused by the Alaskan Exxon Valdez spill. 

As I said and say again, the risks posed by twinning the KM far outweigh any benefit BC might gain from it .. The environmentalists need to realize stopping pipelines is not going to fix our dependence on fossil fuel problems. Ensuring those that exist or will be built don't go to extremely sensitive areas when they don't need to will help protect people and the economy until such time we can wean off fossil fuels.


----------



## stratos

*FANTASTIC NEWS!*

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-canada-pipeline-expansion-idUSKBN1HF0ZW?il=0



> *Kinder Morgan is suspending "non-essential activities" and related spending for the Trans Mountain pipeline project, citing ongoing opposition from the British Columbia government.
> 
> "In the current environment, we will not put [Kinder Morgan] shareholders at risk on the remaining project spend," Steve Kean, Kinder Morgan's chair and chief executive officer, said in a press release Sunday afternoon.*





> The company said that *the active opposition from B.C. and its premier John Horgan* is not something it can deal with and it needs to take action to protect its shareholders.





> Mike Hudema, Greenpeace's climate and energy campaigner, said Kinder Morgan's action is a signal of what's to come.
> 
> "The writing is on the wall, and even Kinder Morgan can read it. Investors should note that *the opposition to this project is strong, deep and gets bigger by the day*," Hudema told CBC News.
> 
> "We encourage Kinder Morgan to shelve this project before the litany of lawsuits, crumbling economics, and the growing resistance does it for them."


The people of BC protesting the KM project are having an effect: Notley demands 'concrete action' from Ottawa to get Trans Mountain pipeline moving | CBC News



> This is far from over folks, the Indigenous lawsuits haven't been heard yet, and the pressure will be even bigger now towards their May 31 deadline. But this shows the power of all of our work.
> 
> Wow and happy Sunday! Please share the good news.
> 
> https://ir.kindermorgancanadalimite...-Spending-on-Trans-Mountain-Expansion-Project


----------



## cgjedi

lol. Oh, you poor naive snowflakes. Kinder Morgan realize that they need the big guns involved. The Federal Government will now step in and force the issue. If people continue to attack and wound police the army will be called in to protect assets. It's getting interesting.


----------



## davefrombc

We'll see who the naive snowflakes are.


----------



## stratos

There are so many ways this story could evolve; some interesting ideas provided here:



> *Ottawa has eight weeks to break the backs of oil tanker opponents. Here's how they'll try.*
> Texas pipeline company Kinder Morgan issued an ultimatum yesterday: give our shareholders confidence that we can build the Trans Mountain oil tanker project, or we're walking.
> 
> Politicians in Ottawa and Alberta leapt into action, only too eager to give the former Enron executives exactly what they want. A veritable siege is now underway that will only grow in ferocity as Kinder Morgan approaches its May 31 decision on whether to pull the plug.
> 
> *Here are five ways pro-pipeline forces hope to keep the project alive:*
> 
> 1. Convince the B.C. government to flip flop. This will involve threats and inducements, both public and behind the scenes. Ottawa could withhold funding for affordable housing, public transit, oil spill cleanup and more - unless Premier John Horgan buckles.
> 
> 2. Turn the B.C. public against Horgan. Just as Western countries impose sanctions on rogue states like North Korea, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley has announced her intention to make ordinary British Columbians feel economic pain, so they turn against their leader. She already boycotted B.C. wine- she could launch a similar campaign against tourism or other industries. She could stop trains and trucks coming across the Rockies for "inspection." Or she could try to cut off the supply of refined fuel to the Lower Mainland, which is already struggling with high gas prices. The petroleum producers hate the idea and it's probably illegal, but it might be good to line up a carpool either way.
> 
> 3. Turn Green MLAs against Horgan. This could include trying to drive a wedge on Site C, LNG, Proportional Representation - any issue where the feds see a bit of daylight between Green leader Andrew Weaver and the NDP Premier. The more Weaver talks about bringing down the government over the next eight weeks, the weaker Horgan's position.
> 
> 4. Pump cash into Kinder Morgan. Notley already announced "Alberta is prepared to be an investor in the pipeline." Jason Kenney's Conservatives are loudly in support. That's right, Alberta's anti-tax crusaders want a big taxpayer bailout for a foreign company. Through loan guarantees, government investment or other subsidies, Ottawa and Alberta can try to keep the project afloat with your tax dollars - beyond the point at which the market would otherwise kill it.
> 
> 5. Minimize, ignore and deny Indigenous rights. So far Kinder Morgan's focus is entirely on the B.C. government. They're not talking about the Squamish, the Tsleil-Waututh, Coldwater or other First Nations currently challenging the project in court. And they're certainly not talking about communities all along the project route who vow to stop construction on their territories. Expect Ottawa to continue this charade, ignoring the clear contradiction between violating Indigenous consent and its lofty promises of "reconciliation."
> 
> That's the playbook. Kinder Morgan's plea has kicked off the Stanley Cup Playoffs of pipeline politics - an eight-week campaign culminating in a sudden death shootout in a Houston boardroom. Expect flying elbows, cheap shots and lots of end-to-end play.
> 
> *Here's what you can do:*
> 
> 1. Keep Horgan strong and steady. Thousands of letters of support are pouring into the Premier's office, telling him he's on the right side of history. Send him a note right now.
> 
> 2. Make B.C.'s oil spill regulations strong. From now until the end of April, B.C.'s environment ministry is asking for public comments on their proposed spill regulations. This is what prompted Rachel Notley's tantrum in the first place. Tell the province you want the strongest possible protections for B.C. rivers and beaches.
> 
> 3. Demand a North Coast oil tanker ban. This is another one of Trudeau's promises that he now seems to be trying to weasel out of. Heiltsuk Nation Chief Marilyn Slett has launched a House of Commons petition drawing attention to this long-delayed promise. You can sign here. Reminding people of our Enbridge victory makes the oil industry nervous - and highlights Trudeau's betrayal of British Columbians on Kinder Morgan.
> 
> 4. Amplify the resolve of all those vowing to stop Kinder Morgan. It's not just the B.C. government. Indigenous leaders and grassroots British Columbians all over say they will not allow this pipeline to be built. Sharing their stories on social media broadens the conversation beyond the politicians and makes Texas pipeline investors nervous.
> 
> 5. Get ready to support First Nations plaintiffs. If any of the court cases against Kinder Morgan land in our favour, the public will need to mobilize quickly to force governments to respect the decision. If round one goes against the plaintiffs, they will need to fundraise for appeals. You can help First Nations defend their rights and title - and the air, land and water we all depend on - with a donation to the legal fund supporting these cases.
> 
> What if Ottawa decides to take extreme measures? Oil Minister Jim Carr threatened last fall to bring in "defence forces" - the Canadian Army - to ensure the pipeline is built. Both he and Trudeau were adamant yesterday that the project will go ahead.
> 
> If Ottawa decides to hit the constitutional override switch, declaring the project "a work in the national interest" and threatening force to get it built, B.C. will need help beyond its borders. We'll need to reach out to Quebec and other provinces to push back against the federal government.
> 
> If things get really ugly we may have to turn to the international community. The UN, after all, is the forum where Trudeau signed the Paris accord, pledging to curtail climate pollution and keep global warming well below two degrees. The UN is also the body that passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which Trudeau so enthusiastically endorsed.
> 
> Using soldiers against First Nations on behalf of a climate-wrecking foreign pipeline company would throw Confederation into upheaval and destroy Trudeau's international brand. We'll see if he takes it that far. In the meantime, let's focus on the things we can control - and the May 31 deadline set by Kinder Morgan.


https://dogwoodbc.ca/news/kinder-mo...ium=social-essb&utm_campaign=2018-essb-shares


----------



## stratos

BC will prevail on this one!


----------



## TomC

stratos said:


> BC will prevail on this one!


Possibly, but not certain. Unfortunately it may cost Horgan his career. He is making some powerful enemies. There may not be enough opponents of increased tanker traffic to keep him in office.


----------



## stratos

TomC said:


> Possibly, but not certain. Unfortunately it may cost Horgan his career. He is making some powerful enemies. There may not be enough opponents of increased tanker traffic to keep him in office.


Yeah, the pressure must be incredible.
You can email Horgan directly at [email protected]

Here's the thing though:

1. If the Feds ram the project through unceded First Nation's land (i.e. no treaties have ever been signed), then that flies in the face of any national reconciliation with First Nations.

2. The Feds are not projected to meet the Paris Climate Accord targets; you can not decrease CO2 emissions by expanding the tar sands and building more pipelines.

3. The Feds should be giving Alberta some $$$ to build a refinery in Alberta to provide gasoline to Canadians at globally set prices; that is a total win-win situation; it creates more jobs and removes any dependence eastern Canada has for foreign petroleum products.

4. The Feds and Alberta claim BC is "breaking the law". This is laughable since the BC government is saying lets wait for the courts to decide this thing; let's see how the intervener status of the appeal goes for the municipalities, let's see if the First Nations are successful in their constitutional challenge. Ironically it is BC that is playing by the "law", not the Feds and Alberta.

5. Last and not least, the optics of this thing will go horrible if the Feds try and force this through (think night time news of First Nations being bloodied), or if Alberta tries to cut off our oil (think "Help us Washington State, we need your gasoline from Cherry Point/Annacortes Washington refineries).

Any way you cut it, there is no victory for the Feds or Alberta. Meanwhile Horgan is doing exactly what he was elected to do. He ran on this platform. People are just so used to politicians being liars (Hi Justin Trudeau  that they are shocked a bit when someone actually does what they said they would do.

Sure is interesting to follow.


----------



## cgjedi

The elephant in the room is that Horgan was not elected by the majority. He does not represent B.C. interests. And I for one am ready to do WHATEVER it takes to preserve my lifestyle and stand against environmental terrorists who aren't even Canadian citizens but have been transported to BC by the US to shut down the Canadian economy.


----------



## davefrombc

cgjedi said:


> The elephant in the room is that Horgan was not elected by the majority. He does not represent B.C. interests. And I for one am ready to do WHATEVER it takes to preserve my lifestyle and stand against environmental terrorists who aren't even Canadian citizens but have been transported to BC by the US to shut down the Canadian economy.


I have news for you and your alternate universe.. The protesters are Canadians, and the vast majority of them are British Columbians, and a great many of them born here and with parents born here. If there is a major spill from a tanker collision with another ship or too possible , with the Ironworker's bridge as a result of the increased traffic of tankers in our coastal waterways , your "lifestyle" will be severely affected. The bulk of BC's economy comes, in one way or another, from our coastal waters.. The tourist industry , shipping port , coastal logging, fishing, all would be seriously impacted by a spill... Tell me , just how will a 10 fold increase of "Dilbit" being EXPORTED by Kinder Morgan help your lifestyle .. That sludge is not coming here to be refined into the gas or diesel for your car. It is for export to fill the coffers of KM, and feed royalties to Alberta and Ottawa. Very little will come to BC for running the risks of a spill. Alberta and Ottawa will get the same royalties if that sludge joins the rest of it going down to the US , again , mainly for EXPORT from their ports in Texas. Not a lot of that sludge is even slated for refining in the US . . Eastern Canada doesn't want the bitumen either ,, Quebec refused to allow the proposed pipeline in that direction , and it has precious little support anywhere along the route east . . You don't hear much mention of that or of Ottawa wanting to push the pipeline proposals that direction , do you ?... Refine that sludge in Alberta. There is a ready market everywhere for the gas and diesel. It would be nice to get all our fuel from Canadian refineries rather than buy the gas and diesel from the US that was refined from Canadian oil that was piped down there. We need Canadian refineries refining Canadian oil for Canadian and international markets .. We don't need the risk of increased tanker traffic on our coast shipping out bitumen to international markets and refineries.


----------



## cgjedi

Your alternate "fake news" reality needs some fact checking. It's well known and fact that the majority of protesters are "professional" environmental radicals who have been specifically transported here by radical organizations from the US.


----------



## davefrombc

cgjedi said:


> Your alternate "fake news" reality needs some fact checking. It's well known and fact that the majority of protesters are "professional" environmental radicals who have been specifically transported here by radical organizations from the US.


Just where do you find this information except in your alternate universe.? You better do some fact checking of your your "well known facts" on legitimate fact checking sites, including on the news services other than the likes of ones like Fox "news"


----------



## cgjedi

check out CKNW. Have you heard of them? Don't be dumber than the fish you keep.


----------



## davefrombc

cgjedi said:


> check out CKNW. Have you heard of them? Don't be dumber than the fish you keep.


CKNW talk radio is hardly a "fact checking" service or well known for balanced "reporting" by the talk radio hosts .


----------



## joeyk

cgjedi said:


> check out CKNW. Have you heard of them? Don't be dumber than the fish you keep.


Go there and talk to them yourself. Prove to us beyond a doubt that this isn't false.


----------



## cgjedi

davefrombc said:


> CKNW talk radio is hardly a "fact checking" service or well known for balanced "reporting" by the talk radio hosts .


Typical. Oh so typical. Expect nothing else from environmental alarmists who never deal with facts.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

cgjedi said:


> check out CKNW. Have you heard of them? Don't be dumber than the fish you keep.


Last warning. If you want to keep insulting people over this highly controversial topic then I'll have to close this thread and give you a temporary ban.

I would like to keep this discussion thread open for everyone to voice their opinions but NOT if it means throwing around insults etc.

If you (and I mean every member) can't remain civil while having a discussion online, then either remove yourself from the topic that is making your blood boil and allow others to continue having a proper discussion.

I would really hate to shut this thread down just when things are getting interesting with KM.

Anthony


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Now speaking purely as a member (not a Mod), this is my take on the whole controversy:

Years ago, when Enbridge was first proposing the Northern pipeline, I helped a student do research on all the different alternatives. None of them made any sense except to add on to the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline, since the route is already set and it would cause fewer disruptions and land appropriation issues than the other pipeline proposals. At the time KM's tripling of capacity was NOT even being proposed. Of course, pipelines are not foolproof and leaks/oil spills remain a very real risk factor. For instance, Enbridge was averaging 67 leaks annually by their own records (not FAKE NEWS in other words).

That said, the ideal solution to the whole tarsands bitumen issue that we came up with for his research paper was that instead of investing billions in pipelines to transport this very nasty bitumen to the coast, they should build more refineries in Alberta, process the oil and ship refined petroleum products (especially Canadian-refined GASOLINE) to the coast and across Canada. This would provide AB with the royalties it's provincial economy is completely dependent on (remember what happened when the price of oil dropped and the AB economy tanked), the Feds with their royalties/corporate taxes, the oil companies with increased profits from selling refined products instead of raw diluted bitumen, and the rest of Canada with our own gasoline supplies. This was true a decade ago and its still true today. I'm still not sure why those in charge are not even considering this economically viable alternative. If they ship us gasoline, nobody will be protesting, especially if BC's sky high gas prices drops as supplies increase. Only die-hard environmentalists will remain on any picket lines. They should be pressuring the oil companies to build refineries NOT bitumen-carrying pipelines. 

In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "And that's all I have to say about that!"

Anthony


----------



## TomC

Good post Anthony. Maybe you should apply to be a mod in Ottawa.


----------



## joeyk

Is there even an established market for diluted bitumen that has a demand which would justify the increased supply/export capacity?

Especially with Bahrain's recent discovery of a deposit estimated to be 80 billion barrels. Another competitor in the market doesn't increase the potential profitability of this project.


----------



## cgjedi

I would suggest then removing the posts that are clear violations of copyright that I keep flagging. Shows that you mods are doing your job and not letting people bully others who happen to agree with your own opinions.


----------



## The Guy

SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> Last warning. If you want to keep insulting people over this highly controversial topic then I'll have to close this thread and give you a temporary ban.
> 
> I would like to keep this discussion thread open for everyone to voice their opinions but NOT if it means throwing around insults etc.
> 
> If you (and I mean every member) can't remain civil while having a discussion online, then either remove yourself from the topic that is making your blood boil and allow others to continue having a proper discussion.
> 
> I would really hate to shut this thread down just when things are getting interesting with KM.
> 
> Anthony


Speaking as a mod and a member I have to side with Anthony on this one folks, the topic is an interesting one for sure, but is not a place for mudslinging or insults. Please keep the useful discussion going please, if not we may be forced to shut the thread down, which is not something we want to do. :bigsmile:


----------



## stratos

I would hope temporary suspensions of offending posters would suffice. I suspect this thread is beginning to generate search-engine driven traffic to BCA. Due to Google's algorithm we could be introducing a lot of people to our forum and hobby here 

Concerning copyright and posting links and/or news articles, we are on strong ground here:
https://www.thestar.com/business/20...link_federal_court_clears_up_legal_risks.html


----------



## stratos

Interesting op ed here from Stewart Phillip, Grand Chief of Okanagan Nation and president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Serge 'Otsi' Simon is Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...h-trans-mountain-it-could-set-up-an-oka-like/

And an exciting tweet from Premier Horgan (see attached)


----------



## cgjedi

I expect a warning to davefrombc also if you are trying to bully me into being quiet. He's the one who clearly has been making insulting comments.


----------



## stratos

An excellent article that points out that since the constitution was repatriated in 1981 the ground rules have changed in ways that many politicians don't seem to understand. This is particularly true with respect to the First Nations:

https://www.desmog.ca/2018/04/13/th...ey-can-t-steamroll-b-c-kinder-morgan-pipeline

Simply put, the Canadian government can legally and constitutionally insist that BC allow the Trans Mountain Pipeline to be built. However, legally and constitutionally the BC government will be able to put restrictions around the way the pipeline is "used" and also how much dilbit/tar is allowed to be piped through it. Thus, to levels of government could indeed have jurisdiction over this project; the Feds can order it be built, but the BC province can order how it be used. No wonder Alberta and the KM government is so upset.

And of course we have not even addressed the First Nations court argument referenced by the BC Grand Chief Stewart a few days ago in the Globe and Mail article.

I look forward to seeing what happens on Sunday with the meeting between Trudeau, Notley and Horgan. I think Horgan is playing a very strong hand


----------



## cgjedi

http://moneytalks.net/images/stories/pdfs/energycuriosities.pdf


----------



## stratos

What you are referring to in your post is known as "junk science" or "bad science". And there is a lot of it around no doubt, both corporate and government sponsored. I am sure you know about Big Tobacco funding "science" for years to show that cigarettes were fine, and Big Pharma funding "science" on behalf of medicines we either don't need or that don't actually work. The manipulation of data, poor peer review process, and confirmation bias are all serious issues. I am assuming you know what a null hypothesis is. I have taken stats courses as a part of my masters degree in the past (Masters in Admin at SDSU) and my wife taught stats at UBC for many years. We have a number of scientists in our extended family, including people working in medicine and at the Triumph facility at UBC. I like to think I am not ignorant when it comes to scientific issues.

In the case of the role of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions and climate change, there is no longer any scientific doubt. It is now fact. The only real question now is the rate of temperature increase and what we can do (if anything) to mitigate against the increase. I would guess you know that Stephen Hawking (who recently died) predicted that humans would be extinct in a couple hundred years and that the earth's atmosphere could end up baking like that found on the planet Venus. He thought our only hope was life in outer space. Elon Musk feels the same way. We are talking about some pretty smart people here, so I do listen to what they have to say.

I recently read a climate change report that I found quite alarming: https://reneweconomy.com.au/climate-change-1-5c-closer-imagine-44124/

I have a good friend doing his Phd at Oxford in the sciences and I asked him last week if the article linked above is alarmist exaggeration/hyperbole. His response was " I am not much of a climate change expert, but I would say that these predictions are entirely within the range of possibility." I will follow up by checking with some science profs out at UBC. If we are in fact looking at a rise of 1.5 degrees within the next ten years we are in really serious trouble.

The above is all part of the reason for why I am so worried when Canada does not meet its Paris Climate Accord goals; and of course it explains why I am so opposed to expansion of the tar sands and development of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.


----------



## cgjedi

All "climate change" science is "junk science". It used to be called "global warming". When that didn't happen, oh no, suddenly the name needed to be changed. Proves how valid that "science" is right there.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

cgjedi said:


> I expect a warning to davefrombc also if you are trying to bully me into being quiet. He's the one who clearly has been making insulting comments.


Who is trying to bully you? I gave a warning about you breaking site rules regarding your calling anyone who disagrees with you a dummy. Your exact words are "dumber than the fish you keep". So, you tell anyone who disagrees with you that they are "dumber than the fish they keep" and you think I am bullying you for telling you to be more civil on a family-oriented website? Hmmmmm, you should Google "bully" and see whether calling names or asking people to be more civil constitutes bullying-type behaviour.

BTW, if you even bothered reading my post, you would have seen that I actually support the KM expansion if that is the only pipeline alternative. The more logical and environmentally friendly option is to build refineries in AB and ship gasoline NOT bitumen across Canada.

LAST WARNING about being civil in your posts. Temporary Ban if you can't calm down and remember this is a family-oriented site.

Posting as BCA's HEAD MODERATOR!!!

Anthony


----------



## stratos

Well, it looks like we are all going to be paying (in one form or another through our taxes) to build the Transmountain pipeline; an influential economist says this is a waste of money: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...inable-way-forward-for-canadas-energy-sector/


----------



## cgjedi

Let's have some actual facts around here:

"Support for the Trans Mountain expansion grows amidst pipeline dispute"

A majority of British Columbians are now in favour of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion according to a new poll released on Wednesday from Angus Reid.
The new poll found 54 per cent of those asked in B.C. are in favour of the project, while 38 per cent are opposed to it. Compare this to February when 48 per cent were in favour and 40 per cent were opposed.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4151592/...tain-expansion-grows-amidst-pipeline-dispute/

*
"First Nations Support Kinder Morgan Pipeline"
*on Wednesday, 18 April 2018 07:05No wonder 80 per cent of First Nations communities in proximity to the pipeline's right-of-way support the Kinder Morgan Pipeline! The Canadian Oil industry has been pivotable in increasing the salaries of the middle class, lowered income inequality & increased Gov't revenues, salaries & benefits. 

http://moneytalks.net/article-and-c...t-nations-support-kinder-morgan-pipeline.html


----------



## stratos

In response to those poll results, it was pointed out on CBC radio by a commentator this morning that some people in BC may be afraid of the economic punishment that Alberta is threatening. If you dig deeper into the poll results you will find that the same 60% of BC residents that has always expressed worry about the pipeline in relation to BC's environment, continue to do so.

Concerning the First Nations, the BC Grand Chief Stewart pointed out that most First Nations are so desperate for any kind of economic help that they will literally take anything they can get. Any First Nations that accept the money offered by Kinder Morgan do so for the money, not because they think that the pipeline project is "good" for the environment.

It all comes down to money, doesn't it? If there wasn't apparently so much money on the table no one in their right mind would want this pipeline.

I see great irony in the repeated quotes and references to "MoneyTalks" and agree with you that it does. I am sure that there will always be money to made, no matter how messed up an environment we have.

Meanwhile, this just in: Pipeline leaks 290,000 litres of oil and saltwater in northern Alberta | CBC News

For those of you out there who are working to oppose this project, check this out (if you have not already):



> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to throw billions of public dollars at the Texas oil company, Kinder Morgan, in order to ensure that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion gets built.
> 
> Please watch Naomi Klein's message from her home in Toronto, then write your MP to tell them what we SHOULD be spending our money on instead here http://bit.ly/morethanpipelines?sp_ref=405110300.392.187437.e.0.2
> 
> We have the money to invest in a rapid transition to 100% renewables. Money for Indigenous-owned and controlled clean energy projects. Affordable public transit, the expansion of low-carbon jobs like teaching, social work, and caregiving.
> 
> As a Leap community member, I'm outraged - and you should be too.


----------



## cgjedi

Love it!


----------



## stratos

Excellent post you just made as it explains a lot concerning your background perspective. If you don't accept that humans' fossil fuel use is warming the planet with disastrous consequences then of course you will be in favor of more fossil fuel use. My views on the subject are based on my personal observations over the years (I am in my 50's), as well as on a review of the science in established peer reviewed journals and major newspapers. I also took some physical geography and oceanography courses years ago at UBC. As far as calling Global Warming "weather", I would point to the Great Calgary Flood, the Great Fort Mac Fire, and the Great BC Forest Fires of last year. All were supposedly "one in a hundred year events" but all happened in the last 5 years. The unprecedented number of hurricanes last year in the Caribbean could be added too. Finally, the warmer BC winters that allowed the pine beetle epidemic, the Pacific warm water blobs, the warm water blobs now appearing off Nova Scotia, accelerated melting of the arctic ice sheets, extreme El Nino Events, and of special relevance to this site - the extreme repeated bleaching of the world's corral reefs - all are unprecedented in recent climate history, so it appears we are dealing with something more than just "normal weather". Climate change computer models predict that such "anomalies" are going to become the norm.

Here is a simple graphic for you from a business source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

1. Can you tell me what your opinions on "Global Warming" are based on (other than Michael Cambell's CKNW Money Talks radio show)? Please provide specific websites/articles and/or your reasoning. I am genuinely interested.

2. What is your view on ocean acidification? Do you accept that as fact?

3. Are you willing to accept that the Straight of Georgia/Juan de Fuca, etc., are challenging waters to navigate for big tankers? You can check this Globe and Mail link out if you are not sure: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...s-mountain-pipeline-bc-coast/article35043172/

Again I am genuinely interested in your responses to the questions above. The polarized views you and I seem to have are mirrored across the country; somehow you and I and the country as a whole need to understand the "others" perspectives.


----------



## cgjedi

I am not interested in the slightest to answer your "questions". There is absolutely no point. You've called me a troll and then I am the one being accused of insulting people. I simply point out facts to counter the misinformation that's being posted here.


----------



## stratos

cgjedi said:


> I am not interested in the slightest to answer your "questions". There is absolutely no point. You've called me a troll and then I've been accused of insulting people. I simply point out facts to counter the misinformation that's being posted here.


If you refuse to provide support for your statements then you are engaging in "trolling" like behavior.

You call the information I post here - peer reviewed, from established news sources, based on university course work - misinformation.
And then you call what you are posting "facts", yet you provide no support, no evidence. There is a logical disconnect here 

You would do well to watch:


----------



## cgjedi

I do indeed provide support. You choose not to accept it and spin it away with your particular bias. Truth is truth. If it proves to be inconvenient to your point of view, well then, who is a troll? And as I've posted above, today's supposed "science" is just all bent and twisted to match preconceived notions in order to gain maximum funding by government. I know how it works because I too, went to university, shocking, and saw how the system actually works to suppress valid research. I spent time in the geography department in the early 90's when they were figuring out how to shove "global warming" (that's what it was called back then) down the throats of the first world unsuspecting public. They made no bones about their desire to bankrupt the first world nations in order to punish them and transfer mass wealth to the third world nations through the mechanism of "carbon credits". At the time we could still counter these communists, for that's what they are, with discussion - but just barely. You could never get away with standing up to these people now a days without ruining any chance at a career later on. So ya, I have seen the lies being perpetrated on us. Don't pretend you are interested in "understanding" the other side. I can see right through that.


----------



## stratos

All you have provided are a couple Michael Cambell radio pieces (which tend to be op-ed pieces by the way), an editorial cartoon, and a few Global News pieces. I think you confuse belief/opinion/bias with what Neil Tyson refers to as "emergent truth". Do you think the world is flat too? (sarcasm)

You can not seriously tell me that the world is *not* experiencing global warming - i.e. that the global temperature has not increased by approximately 1.5 degrees over the last 150 years, and that this is unprecedented in recorded human history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globa...dia/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I am reminded of the old Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch, with you as the pet store owner saying the dead parrot (i.e climate) is just fine 






But the truly scary thing is that this kind of "thinking" - the denial of scientifically proven fact (or emergent truth if you like) is in vogue at the moment. Donald Trump is the champion of this kind of "non-thinking".

And yes, I am very interested in how people can deny emergent truth/fact.


----------



## cgjedi

I'll do you one better. The world has experienced average global warming - not for 150 years - but for nearly 700 years already. The inconvenient truth is that the industrial revolution which is the supposed start of this increase did not start 700 years ago. The European explorers who mapped the coastal glacial passages started noticing these passages opening up well before the time of the industrial revolution.

The other inconvenient truth is that the term "fossil fuels" is based on the supposed fact that oil and coal is made from compressed dinosaurs. That is one of the most laughable "facts" ever. When oil was first discovered/drilled it was relatively near the surface and the scientific explanation was that it came from dinosaurs being compressed over millions of years and turning into coal, oil and gas. However, as the oil industry has continuously explored deeper and deeper in to the earth's surface, they are now finding oil miles deep. At that level, it is impossible for dinosaurs to have been covered by the earth's surface in the time given. Oh, but don't point that out, you will be derided and ridiculed. It doesn't fit the made up narrative that oil and gas are non-renewable resources. Actually, the Russian and East Asian oil industry is based on the fact that oil is indeed renewable and base their exploration on that concept.

Oh, and don't think it's not lost on me that you did not even address the "carbon credit" conspiracy to bankrupt the western world that I experienced here at UBC - which was one of the leading champions of this lunatic policy.


----------



## stratos

Are you aware that the carbon-tax credit system was championed by Gordon Campbell, Michael Campbell's older brother? It was a product of its times, certainly flawed. I don't think it is the way forward now. Now I think we need to pressure our politicians for a rapid conversion to a green energy economy ASAP.

Give me some peer-reviewed sources to read over that support your key points made above and I will read them over and get back to you.


----------



## cgjedi

Look up the hockey-stick graph that was championed and peer-reviewed and later shown to be a sham and based on lies. Explain that and then I'll give you your peer-reviewed sources.


----------



## stratos

I Googled the following: Is the hockey stick climate graph a lie?

I discounted all blogs. I only counted reputable news sites, journals, and wikipedia (which is vetted).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy



> Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science.[1]
> 
> More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.


https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...ures-rising-warmest-ever-hockey-a7837881.html


> Planet Earth is warmer than it has been for at least 2,000 years, according to a study that took its temperature from 692 different "natural thermometers" on every continent and ocean on the planet.
> 
> In the most comprehensive assessment of how the climate has changed over the period to date, researchers looked at a host of sources of historic information, including tree rings, ice cores, lake and sea sediments, corals, mineral deposits and written records.
> 
> What they found confirmed the famous "hockey stick" graph, showing an undulating, but broadly flat, line followed by a sharp uptick that begins at around 1900.


I could bring up other evidence too, but it is too old. I am looking for as current research as possible.

On the basis of what I have found in 5 minutes you are wrong. The hockey stick graph stands.

If you want to rebut, please, no blogs, non-journals, or non-mainstream news sites. And please keep it current. I know you can drag up stuff dated 2005-2010 when people argued about transparency in the science, etc. There has been so much research in the last 8 years and the earth is heating up so fast; the earlier debate is not relevant.


----------



## cgjedi

Oh come on, seriously. You must have missed the entire climate scientist scandal when it came to light they colluded with each other to fake that graph. I read pages of emails that were made public. It was so absolutely obvious I thought for sure it would destroy all of their careers. How fast people forget the facts. Oh, by the way, wikipedia is not a trustworthy source for facts.


----------



## stratos

You are living in the past. The "climate gate" news you talk about is so mid 2000's. It dealt with lack of transparency and manipulation of data to provide exaggerated effect. While this was wrong, it never called into question the basic underlying truth of the correlation of global warming and CO2. We've moved WAY beyond questioning that. It has become accepted fact. And Wikipedia is actually pretty good as a source of "trustworthy" information. At least they provide citations and footnotes you can look up. Can you do that?

Beware of alt.right news sources like infowars.com or climatedepot.com etc. Complete bunk.


----------



## cgjedi

OK, we're done. Calling something "up" when it's plainly "down" is the end of rational discussion. This has been the entire point in engaging with you. Now everyone who reads through your responses can see the type of slippery logic "your side" engages in. Very typical and totally useless to continue.


----------



## stratos

How typical. You have never ever provided any peer-reviewed citations for anything, only op-ed pieces from a local radio station and hear-say/slander as support. I am reminded of the whole alt.right movement and Donald Trump. He also denies man-made climate change and doesn't "believe" in science that conflicts with his world view. He also relies on "populist" media sites (in his case FOX News, not CKNW). I hope you are not actually getting your "news" from sites such as infowars.com and climatedepot.com. "Fake news" sites such as those are eating away at the foundations of western democracy.

We live in a world that is now run by science. You don't get to pick and choose what pieces you want to "believe" in. Man-made global warming is a perfect example of "emergent truth". It has been studied to death.

Stand back and seriously weigh the entire body of scientific evidence put forth on behalf of CO2 emissions and global warming. The evidence is overwhelming.

The fact that you can not provide ANY CURRENT (as in the last few years) peer-reviewed sources to support your view is proof to me you don't know what you are talking about.

One thing we seem to agree on is that this thread is educational, though unfortunately we hold that view for different reasons.


----------



## stratos

An op-ed piece from a newspaper in Halifax support BC's anti-Transmountain stance:

SURETTE: Bravo to B.C. for bucking pipeline mania | The Chronicle Herald

And many BC businesses OPPOSE the Transmountain pipeline: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-kinder-morgan-1.4629814

And support for Anthony's (head moderator of BCAquaria  idea of refining the tar sands oil in Canada being the best approach: http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-e...umen-might-be-the-way-out-of-pipeline-dispute


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Thank you both for remaining civil in this ongoing debate. It is of great interest to many members (as well as myself).


----------



## stratos

An interesting read/listen; it concerns a Kinder Morgan engineer who has worked on the existing pipeline for many years; he explains why he was willing to protest and get arrested doing so:

Former gas line engineer, arrested for protest, speaks out against Kinder Morgan pipeline | CBC Radio



> "Now most of the people who object to this pipeline, I believe, are not saying we shut down the pipeline. We're not saying stop using fossil fuels. We're not saying that we go back to the 17th century and burn candles. That's not what's being said. What is being said is that we do not start to build fossil fuel infrastructure for the next 60 years when that will not meet the way forward for Western society."


----------



## Marius

I say yes for a variety of reasons. Jobs, jobs, jobs ...jobs?

Look, I agree with the safeguards request, I agree with the need to have royalties, I agree with the mindful use and exploitation of natural resources. Why? Because it's what made you able to lift your nose high up and be here pumping for better environmental protections and succeed in doing so.

I realize it might ruffle some feathers, but I am trying to be respectful and have a healthy dialogue. Please don't turn this into a grizzly hunt, where I present facts and I'm give emotion slap backs.

We're thriving as an economy, as a province, as a country on everything that makes a dollar. Period! Now, if you're putting down on paper and tell me Pot is the future I'll pass ...and it's not the blunt.

Anyone concerned with pollution of coastline should also actively involve themselves in figuring out how to move open net salmon on land and be done with THAT fiasco. But I digress.

Bahrain oil has nothing on Canadian oil. Way, way less density and markets.
Also, take China out of the equation. Stop presenting them as example of scaling down fossil fuel plants. They've closed done dozens while building hundreds more "efficient" fossil fuel plants. The work moves on and unfortunately, all those cheap little things we keep buying ...you get my drift.

Electrical is still not the future. Not until the batteries we utilize are not somehow super condensed and perpetual. The amount of mining and exploitation it takes to do large scale... oh my! Not to mention, God forbid a Tesla battery fire. Run, all I can say, run as fast as you can and don't breathe. But ...I digress again.

I'm pretty easy going. If there was a sustainable and capable enough alternative - less polluting, less intrusive on the environment, better economic bang - I'd be all for it. But as is, I think not.

Also, here's a good example of how proper local government and corporate efforts can lead to superb resource recovery and terrain "re-establishment" to initial ecology.

25 years later, Syncrude's bison herd thriving on reclaimed oilsands lands | CBC News

Good to see some of the "faces" ..sorry if I upset you with my simplistic view of the matter. Services need money invested and borrowing is not an option ...I don't want to pass my debt on my children or grandkids. I want them secure. Hence we need to produce.


----------



## stratos

Heh Marius, long time no see.  Nice to hear you don't want to pass on debt to your children or grandkids, but what about a livable climate? What if your kids decide _*not*_ to have kids because they don't feel comfortable about the future climate and social disruption caused by mass uncontrolled migration of climate refugees? Exaggeration? Maybe. But then again, maybe not.

Concerning the "business case" for Kinder Morgan, the mainstream media promotes the Transmountain Pipeline on "business" grounds, but where is the proof?

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/26/opinion/media-malpractice-and-bitumen-bubble



> To my knowledge, no one has asked these four key questions:
> 
> * What proof is there that Asian refiners have signed contracts to purchase vast volumes of Alberta raw bitumen for decades to come? If these do not exist, there is no demand.
> * What proof is there that Asian refiners are willing to contractually commit to a much higher price than U.S. refiners will pay for raw Alberta bitumen? If such contracts do not exist, there is no price certainty to support oilsands expansion.
> * What proof is there that Alberta bitumen ranks high in global comparisons of oil quality, price, and ocean supertanker access, shipping costs and speed?
> * Which private Big Oil players have recently placed big bets buying new, undeveloped oil sand properties, which would underpin Alberta's expansion plans?


And a further quote from the same article:



> In an equally glaring case, former Bank of Canada chief Mark Carney (who now heads the Bank of England and is a perennial newsmaker), warned on behalf of a consortium of central banks that global corporations involved in fossil fuel financing or production must assess and explicitly warn their shareholders about 'stranded asset' risks in a climate-constrained world. It fell on deaf ears at business news desks in Canada.
> 
> But last week, Europe's largest bank, HSBC, joined other global banks, insurance pools and pension funds in declaring it would no longer risk loans to new oilsands projects, or planned pipelines like the Trans Mountain expansion and Keystone XL. That may amount to a final, fatal bullet aimed squarely at Alberta's bitumen bubble.


The world will continue shifting away from fossil fuel development.


----------



## davefrombc

It's interesting to note that the news has been conspicuously absent of any mention of the big pipeline spill recently in Northern Alberta, or the refinery fire in Superior Wisconsin on Thursday.
Here's a bit on the pipeline leak: 
Pipeline leaks 290,000 litres of oil and saltwater in northern Alberta | CBC News
and here on the refinery fire:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-after-huge-oil-refinery-fire-in-superior-wis


----------



## Marius

stratos said:


> Heh Marius, long time no see.  Nice to hear you don't want to pass on debt to your children or grandkids, but what about a livable climate? What if your kids decide _*not*_ to have kids because they don't feel comfortable about the future climate and social disruption caused by mass uncontrolled migration of climate refugees? Exaggeration? Maybe. But then again, maybe not.


You're not exaggerating, but here's the thing, as long as mass economy exists shutting down a pipeline is like killing an anthill in your yard when the entire neighbourhood is full of ants. It's less than a drop in the bucket, and the cons -in my opinion- the financial losses do not warrant it.

Again, I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate here. If there was the technology to extract energy from water, compress the batteries to ridiculous strength and sizes ...by all means. I am just a little sick and tired of just polarizing us, the groups here within, and pitting us against each other without any real measures to replace or to produce $.

Here's the thing, and I'm honestly asking each and every one of you. I know you bike, but how many of you make a plan on purchases, how many go to the farmers, how many fill their pantries with home made jams, antipastos, pasta sauces and the works made with the local season available locally produced foods: vegetable, fruits, meats.

Call me old fashioned, but I've had a rude awakening one day when the lifestyle of consume, consume, consume did not fit with my morals. I'm doing all the above allthewhile supporting sensible and environmentally sound projects because in the end, if we just import and consume it won't be good. Our cities are turning slowly towards more farmer's markets, but until now for decades any efforts to produce some of our foods have been systematically thwarted to the benefit of few well organized mass producing entities.

I don't know, maybe I'm old but I prefer my tomato to say "Made in Canada" and when i take it out of the bag to fill the kitchen with the smell of its ripe flavour. Or if I want to take a bite out of it not to taste like cardboard ...but I digress.

It's been a while indeed, your kids must be so big by now. I'm looking at mine and at 8 he's close to pushing 5'

All the best,
M

PS: if I may add, it's more than refreshing, at least from my perspective, of a disillusioned liberal voter, to see more and more people get more involved in politics, admin work, activism. Better to go down fighting than with your head lowered.


----------



## stratos

Yeah, the kids grow up so fast. One of mine is done university, one is in university, and one is almost ready to start university 

I'm still commuting by bike a lot, try to "eat local" as much as possible. We buy a couple hundred pounds of organic blueberries every summer, freeze them in a chest freezer for use over the year. They go great with porridge  

I agree with you that its good to see more progressive activism around. Hopefully it leads to positive social/environmental change. 

What kind of fish are you keeping these days? I've got a nice albino silver aro at the moment.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Marius said:


> Here's the thing, and I'm honestly asking each and every one of you. I know you bike, but how many of you make a plan on purchases, how many go to the farmers, how many fill their pantries with home made jams, antipastos, pasta sauces and the works made with the local season available locally produced foods: vegetable, fruits, meats.
> 
> Call me old fashioned, but I've had a rude awakening one day when the lifestyle of consume, consume, consume did not fit with my morals. I'm doing all the above allthewhile supporting sensible and environmentally sound projects because in the end, if we just import and consume it won't be good. Our cities are turning slowly towards more farmer's markets, but until now for decades any efforts to produce some of our foods have been systematically thwarted to the benefit of few well organized mass producing entities.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I'm old but I prefer my tomato to say "Made in Canada" and when i take it out of the bag to fill the kitchen with the smell of its ripe flavour. Or if I want to take a bite out of it not to taste like cardboard ...but I digress.
> 
> It's been a while indeed, your kids must be so big by now. I'm looking at mine and at 8 he's close to pushing 5'
> 
> All the best,
> M


Hi Marius, long time no see.

Regarding your post, I am actually mostly self-sufficient for fruits and vegetables from June to October. I have 55 fruit trees (everything from nectarines to Ambrosia apples, Fuyu & Izu persimmons to 3 types of peaches, 5 types of Asian pears to 9 types of cherries), 25+ citrus trees (lemons, limes, satsuma, ****** lime, Yuzu, blood orange, etc.), 28 blueberry bushes producing hundreds of pounds of fresh blueberries, 10 other types of berries, 10 herbs, and all sorts of vegetables (tomatoes, English cucumbers, Broccolini, rainbow chard, gai lan, bok choi, peas, beans, etc.) and even 3 types of potatoes. Everything is grown organically thanks to our pet bunny Oreo (feed it veggie wastes & weeds and a few hours later he produces perfect compost in round pellet form to spread in the garden). Between my urban orchard, 2 16' greenhouses, and garden boxes/pots, I am pushing the limit on what I can fit & grow in my backyard. I'm almost finished my plantings for this season and just letting everything grow out. My kids are learning about organic gardening & fruit growing, and are really helpful in our garden.

Unfortunately, with 2 kids & our wet climate, I still drive my 2002 CRV, but I try to do as much of my work online as possible.

I agree that giving up fossil fuels is not feasible for the vast majority of people with today's technology. My next vehicle will probably be an electric SUV (come on Honda, I need an e-CRV).

At the same time, I will still argue that the resources should be invested in building more refineries in AB so they can ship gasoline, instead of bitumen, to the coast & elsewhere in Canada.

BTW, my past research revealed that Canada (back in the day) signed a really unfavourable contract with the US so every barrel we ship to the States comes with a huge discount/barrel, helping American oil companies & refineries make excess profits at Canada's expense. Far better to refine here, and keep those profits here, rather than ship it elsewhere or risk a major oil spill that could irreparably destroy our coastline.

Cheers,

Anthony

PS: Felicia is now 9 (10 in June) and Isabella is now 6 (7 in June). Wow time flies when you're having fun.


----------



## stratos

An article showing how we as Canadians are "energy pigs".

https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/05/07/Uncomfortable-Canadian-Energy-Facts/

1) Canadians live high and large on largely fossil fuel-based energy.
2) Thanks to all that energy guzzling Canadians have one of the world's highest carbon footprints
3) As an oil exporting nation Canada has never been a leader in renewable energy.
*4) Canada can't meet emission targets and expand bitumen or shale gas production at the same time.*
5) The oilsands, junk heavy crude, are an important resource that has a limited economic future due to its poor quality.
*6) Canadian energy firms are spending more energy to get less energy from the oilsands.*
7) Canada is a well-dammed country.
8) Nuclear power is a declining force in Canada.
9) Canada doesn't have a sustainable energy strategy but based on the evidence, it should largely focus on reducing energy consumption across the board in industry, housing and transportation.

The point that I find the most upsetting is #6 above:


> Energy return on energy investment or EROI measures the ratio of energy gained versus how much energy was required to get that energy. Conventional oil, the driver of the global economy, once had an EROI of 100:1 but those energy returns have shrunk to 17:1 as oil gets more expensive and difficult to find. The EROI for fracked oil in the United States is 11.1. (In other words one barrel of oil must be spent to find 11 more.) Due to its high energy intensity, bitumen production falls way below these averages. Bitumen steamed out of the ground has an EROI of 4:1 but would be closer to 2:1 if the calculation included transport and refining to the point of use. Mined bitumen has an EROI of 8:1. "When EROI approaches a breakeven point it makes no energetic sense to pursue further extraction," Hughes explains in his report.


----------



## stratos

Whoo hoo (sarcasm)! It is our global 400th month in a row of above average temperature increases for the planet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...normal-month-in-a-row/?utm_term=.cfa7de3c069d

Even the Alberta Environment Minister admits that there is a problem with right wingers not "believing" that climate change is real (as if it is an opinion and not a fact lol):


> Alberta's environment minister says there is a steadfast, "non-factual, vicious form" of climate denial among those on the right of the political spectrum.


 https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...mate-denial-alberta-says-environment-minister

Meanwhile the Alberta government is ready to turn off the gas taps to BC, while BC is getting ready to sue Alberta (if it follows through with its threat), while at the same time BC is working behind the scenes to arrange for oil and gas from Washington state to make up for any shortfall in oil and gas (if Alberta follows through on its threat).

This story gets curiouser and curiouser by the day!


----------



## stratos

Around 1,000 people showed up on short notice (just a couple hours) to protest Trudeau's use of tax payer money to buy out the TransMountain Pipeline from Kinder Morgan. Apparently KM paid $500 million for the existing infrastructure in 2007; now they sold it for $4.5 billion. So nice to see our tax payer money going to such good use (sarcasm). Can you imagine if Trudeau had invested that amount of money in a renewable energy project? We could have become a world leader in the renewable energy sector and captured the hopes and dreams of Canadians. Instead we are committing ourselves to more CO2 emissions, failure to meet the Paris climate accord, and the risk of oil spills. So sad.

But the fight is not over


----------



## stratos

The Globe and Mail has a good op-ed piece outlining the seriousness of climate change and the problem of going ahead with TransMountain:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...he-first-country-to-break-apart-over-climate/


----------



## stratos

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...ottawas-approval-of-trans-mountain-expansion/


----------



## stratos

Worth following these guys: [https://www.facebook.com/CoastProtectors/


----------



## stratos

Yet another dire warning: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html The video at the top of the article is worth watching. According to recent research, the world's oceans are absorbing over 60% of the heat resulting from global warming. This would explain the BC warm water blob, the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, etc. As aquarists we all know what happens when you heat an aquarium up - it holds less oxygen. That is not good on so many levels when you extrapolate it to the world's oceans. It will especially hurt cold water fish which require high oxygen levels. Think of our local salmon declines. It makes sense that it could be connected. Likewise, this ties in with the pressure on the BC southern resident Orca population. They are being starved as the salmon disappear. Increased fossil fuel use is not good any way you look at it.


----------



## stratos

Not a good development in this ongoing saga: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ly-saudi-arabia-water-down-climate-pledges-un


----------



## stratos

According to a study out of UBC, pretty much ALL of the environmental impact studies relating to the tar sands in Alberta are flawed in that they do not consistently look at the same animals or population groups across the studies. According to the UBC professor this makes the studies pretty much useless for designing effective environmental policy.

See: https://globalnews.ca/news/4972075/oilsands-assessments-weak-science-study/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...lawed-inconsistent-science-edmonton-1.5023488


----------



## stratos

Wow. SO the NEB has decided that our Southern Resident Killer Whales are expendable and should be sacrificed for the Trans Mountain Pipeline so that we can continue our suicidal fossil fuel addiction. Disgusting.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...ipeline-expansion-in-public-interest-despite/


----------



## Marius

stratos said:


> Are you aware that the carbon-tax credit system was championed by Gordon Campbell, Michael Campbell's older brother? It was a product of its times, certainly flawed. I don't think it is the way forward now. Now I think we need to pressure our politicians for a rapid conversion to a green energy economy ASAP.
> 
> Give me some peer-reviewed sources to read over that support your key points made above and I will read them over and get back to you.


Carbon tax should be applied on everything incoming, yes I especially view China made products. Why? Because we're probably on the few carbon neutral countries in the world and I am a little frustrated with China's hardline long game. You cannot as a democracy fight that unless there's clear continuity of rules of engagement, economics, respect of intellectual property and proper avenue to pursue and punish the offenders.

Should I even mention the Chinese's party involvement into the drug trade? Let be frank here, they've been served a rude awakening with the "Opium solution" in the 19th century. They've seen it, learn it well and now they've masterfully applied it to the western world. Only Fentanyl is that much deadlier and easier to smuggle in.

Green economy is also flawed. Not all choices are sensible and done for the good. Many have been corrupted by the politicians and the certain influence groups to steer them in a direction where it either favours their (construction, supply lines) ...or hardly have any positive impacts.
e.g. Wind turbines
Pro: renewable energy etc
Cons: hundreds thousands of birds killed, incredibly noisy, huge amounts to build, maintain (think of the winter deicing by helicopters and so on)

Now, if they'd only put the surf generators in (using the movement of the waves) that Holland has been testing and found and incredible yield of energy. That's encouraging, simple yet effective solutions for the future.

Also, scientific reports are no longer driven by truth. You've been through it, you know how easy it is to twist the results and the inferences made are not always genuinely honest, which eventually causes more harm than good.

I've been gone for a long time. Many stressful difficult years. Hope to get to see you guys again. I cannot believe your boys are that big. But then again mine turns 10 this year, and the girl 5. I'm getting old.


----------



## Marius

SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> Hi Marius, long time no see.
> 
> Regarding your post, I am actually mostly self-sufficient for fruits and vegetables from June to October. I have 55 fruit trees (everything from nectarines to Ambrosia apples, Fuyu & Izu persimmons to 3 types of peaches, 5 types of Asian pears to 9 types of cherries), 25+ citrus trees (lemons, limes, satsuma, ****** lime, Yuzu, blood orange, etc.), 28 blueberry bushes producing hundreds of pounds of fresh blueberries, 10 other types of berries, 10 herbs, and all sorts of vegetables (tomatoes, English cucumbers, Broccolini, rainbow chard, gai lan, bok choi, peas, beans, etc.) and even 3 types of potatoes. Everything is grown organically thanks to our pet bunny Oreo (feed it veggie wastes & weeds and a few hours later he produces perfect compost in round pellet form to spread in the garden). Between my urban orchard, 2 16' greenhouses, and garden boxes/pots, I am pushing the limit on what I can fit & grow in my backyard. I'm almost finished my plantings for this season and just letting everything grow out. My kids are learning about organic gardening & fruit growing, and are really helpful in our garden.
> 
> Unfortunately, with 2 kids & our wet climate, I still drive my 2002 CRV, but I try to do as much of my work online as possible.
> 
> I agree that giving up fossil fuels is not feasible for the vast majority of people with today's technology. My next vehicle will probably be an electric SUV (come on Honda, I need an e-CRV).
> 
> At the same time, I will still argue that the resources should be invested in building more refineries in AB so they can ship gasoline, instead of bitumen, to the coast & elsewhere in Canada.
> 
> BTW, my past research revealed that Canada (back in the day) signed a really unfavourable contract with the US so every barrel we ship to the States comes with a huge discount/barrel, helping American oil companies & refineries make excess profits at Canada's expense. Far better to refine here, and keep those profits here, rather than ship it elsewhere or risk a major oil spill that could irreparably destroy our coastline.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Anthony
> 
> PS: Felicia is now 9 (10 in June) and Isabella is now 6 (7 in June). Wow time flies when you're having fun.


That's awesome Anthony. I'll trade you moose/elk/bear/deer meat for fruits. We usually go to farmers' market or if I pass through the Okanagan in the fall I usually come with a few hundred pounds of fruits to make home made jams.

I fear we're the last generation here that still knows and wants to change a lightbulb. Very few still inclined to get their hands dirty. Most are just willing to come along, happy-go-lucky-customer-service people. We've lost most of our industry because it was easier to outsource than to figure out better ways to "produce", more efficient and cost effective ways.

And so our corporations have dodged their fair share of taxes, people have been left scrambling for new avenues, not always the best.


----------

