T
The Jackel
Guest
So do you think alternative energy can replace oil, do you own a car
Federal Court of Appeal quashes construction approvals for Trans Mountain
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
- Status
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Why don't you tell us how you REALLY Feel? LOL!
Justin Trudeau has been hoisted with his own pipeline
By Tim HarperNational Affairs Columnist
Thu., Aug. 30, 2018
It’s a rare — perhaps unprecedented — day when so many government priorities come crashing down or are badly bruised with one court decision.
That was the case Thursday for the Justin Trudeau government when a Federal Court of Appeal brought the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline on the British Columbia coast to a screeching halt.
This cost the Liberals on questions about their government’s economic stewardship, its vaunted Indigenous reconciliation, its climate strategy and the competence of the federal cabinet.
And now we all each own a piece of an aging, $4.5-billion pipeline, a bunch of blueprints and a pile of downed tools.
In a stunning confluence of events, the court overturned the National Energy Board and cabinet approval of the Trudeau pipeline expansion on the same day that shareholders with Kinder Morgan, no doubt with huge grins on their face, washed their hands of the project and gave it — lock, stock and legal headache — to the prime minister and Canadian taxpayers.
Even if it only delays the project, the court decision will mean a bigger price tag for the taxpayer, and raise another red flag to foreign investors looking at Canada as a place to do business.
Trudeau had swooped in to buy the pipeline and vowed to forge ahead as a crucial quid pro quo of his national climate strategy. In return for Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s provincial carbon pricing plan, Trudeau had vowed to get her bitumen to Asian markets, off the coast of Burnaby, B.C.
Jobs were to be created, Notley would have a victory to take to voters in next year’s provincial election, and Trudeau would continue to have a climate ally in a key province.
That is all now in limbo. Notley remains landlocked, and that figure in her rearview mirror is the anti-carbon-tax Jason Kenney.
It also must pain a government that has hung so much of its credibility on Indigenous reconciliation to be told by a court that its consultation with Indigenous communities concerned about this expansion amounted to little more than note-taking.
“The government of Canada was required to engage in a considered, meaningful two-way dialogue,’’ the court said in its decision. “However, for the most part, Canada’s representatives limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers.”
Dustin Rivers of the Squamish Nation cut to the core, saying the Trudeau government’s “rhetoric around reconciliation has been deemed flawed based on this court decision.”
The court also raised questions about the governing diligence of Trudeau and his cabinet.
Trudeau himself called the NEB review of the Trans Mountain expansion he inherited from Stephen Harper flawed, and he moved to gather more public input and launched further consultations with Indigenous communities affected by the project.
But it was the equivalent of putting a bandage on a gaping wound and ultimately, the cabinet signed off on something it should not have, the court ruled. The NEB review was so flawed, the court said, that the cabinet had no right to use it as a basis to green-light the project.
They approved a project that did not take into account increased tanker traffic as a result of the expansion, a point repeatedly driven home by opponents.
The court floated one lifeline to the government, saying Indigenous concerns are specific and focused, so consultation with them can be “brief and efficient.”
But proper Indigenous consultation could result in proper reasons to kill it. A hard look at the environmental effects of tanker traffic off the coast of Burnaby could also lead to reasons to deep-six the expansion.
And “brief” is rarely used in the same sentence as “environmental assessment” and “Indigenous consultation.”
In the upside-down-world of government messaging, Finance Minister Bill Morneau said the court justified the government’s purchase of the pipeline expansion project in the first place, because only the government has the wherewithal to “de-risk” the project.
Morneau said the government moved in because it saw the risks and it will double down, formally closing the deal with Kinder Morgan as early as Friday and taking the court’s prescribed path to do right on the environment and consultation, get the expansion going and then try to sell it back to the private sector.
He really has no option. But the Liberals must hope they can find a way to “de-risk” this project before it becomes part of a highly risky bid for re-election.
Oh, to be a Kinder Morgan shareholder.
Woe to be a Canadian taxpayer.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...n-trudeau-is-hoist-with-his-own-pipeline.html
Cheers,
Nog
D
Deleted member 8461
Guest
Sad, but real. We have the technology to leave the old world, but we are all just too scared to move beyond what we think is what we need to live our tiny lives. No matter how it goes down, the minions do not matter. That is reality. Better choose to live life now and forward, than in the past and backwards.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Oil has been the cheapest way to make tonnes of products, if their were cheaper replacements we would use then. Oil products has improved people living standards by a great deal.
I am not an advocate for oil by any means but I do see an economic benefit to it. If Canada transitioned away from oil products while the rest of the world consumed and used them Canada would end up with lower standards of living and probably be in a recession.
That being said my next car I plan to buy will be electric.
I am not an advocate for oil by any means but I do see an economic benefit to it. If Canada transitioned away from oil products while the rest of the world consumed and used them Canada would end up with lower standards of living and probably be in a recession.
That being said my next car I plan to buy will be electric.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Yes, to the first question. It has already begun and without the millions of subsidies to the oil industry it would already be further ahead. If 10% of the Federal lands in Nevada and Arizona were covered in solar panels it could met the entire energy needs of the U.S. Several Scandinavian countries are banning the sale of new gas consuming cars in 10 or 15 years. Does this mean the oil industry ends tomorrow? Of course not! But it must not and cannot expand. So no new pipelines and no ludicrous attempts to "export" emissions to China while pretending to meet the Paris agreement. The bitumen when burnt ends up in the same atmosphere for Pete's sake.
To the second question, yes. Kinder Morgan is not about supplying our energy needs; it is all about rich Texan shareholders exporting our resources to China, while destroying the future of all humanity by doing it. Did the 19th century slavery abolitionists wear cotton shirts? Of course they did. Did they say everyone must go around naked (unless you could afford silk, linen or wool)? Of course not! People need clothes. They just knew the method of production of cheap clothes was brutal, inhumane and immoral. So slavery had to go.
Likewise we need energy and no one is saying we must stop using it. Science is saying the current method of production of energy through the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, is destructive, dangerous and ultimately inhumane since it will lead to the loss of huge numbers of lives and livelihoods across the planet through catastrophic climate change. So fossil fuels have to go. Not tomorrow, but they absolutely have to go.
D
Deleted member 8461
Guest
No one in their right mind could say that as of today, this vary second that we could replace all that oil makes in all products could it be replaced...this however in terms of so many other options, the technology does exist already to develop substantial change in the world setting. Every aspect of life takes time to develop and change how we as humans react and accept. Every aspect of our lives are covered in oil, including the food we eat(edible plastics). Nicola Tesla discovered the change we need, it has however taken this long to simply just touch on the possibilities of how this could impact the world. Imagine, that we as humans are so dumb'd down that we still have not discover our own full potential and what we can accomplish, by simply using our mind, body, thoughts and natural energy. We can accomplish anything we dream of. This is real.
You are stupid to think that you are less than you.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Oil products have replacements but a lot of them produce just as much GHG. Concrete/cement is one of the largest producers of GHGs.
I very much doubt Canada could make the transition without world backing and still have the standard of living most expect.
Their is no doubt that we could do it
I think population controls would solve most resource based issues tho.
I very much doubt Canada could make the transition without world backing and still have the standard of living most expect.
Their is no doubt that we could do it
I think population controls would solve most resource based issues tho.
D
Deleted member 8461
Guest
Who cares...progress and change over time. No one commits to this second. The technology for change already exists. The mantra is knowing when to implement it at a time when the majority will accept it. You must think that I am 25, although some say I look it. LOL
Who cares...progress and change over time. No one commits to this second. The technology for change already exists. The mantra is knowing when to implement it at a time when the majority will accept it. You must think that I am 25, although some say I look it. LOL
I’m not sure exactly what your saying, but I think your opinion is that we could change tomorrow if we wanted to. If I’m reading that right, your utterly wrong.
It is not the people that refuse to attack Oil that are naive, it’s people who think that the energy supplies aren’t already changing and we need to do it tomorrow.
Oil pulled more people out of poverty than nearly any other reason, it will also facilitate the next step to energy supply, but the petulance and lack of patience of the Oil haters says more about them than the “dumbed down” people who know this 100 year old machine won’t be updated overnight.
Look at the new world center, China, they would change tomorrow if it in any way possible, and they are trying.
Kill the oil market and we would be more worried about eating than “the next level”.
D
Deleted member 8461
Guest
No one in their right mind could say that as of today, this vary second that we could replace all that oil makes in all products could it be replaced...this however in terms of so many other options, the technology does exist already to develop substantial change in the world setting. Every aspect of life takes time to develop and change how we as humans react and accept. Every aspect of our lives are covered in oil, including the food we eat(edible plastics). Nicola Tesla discovered the change we need, it has however taken this long to simply just touch on the possibilities of how this could impact the world. Imagine, that we as humans are so dumb'd down that we still have not discover our own full potential and what we can accomplish, by simply using our mind, body, thoughts and natural energy. We can accomplish anything we dream of. This is real.
You are stupid to think that you are less than you.
Already stated. My comments are in line and reiterate what has been said. However don't underestimate both new and existing alt energy. Oil isn't going anywhere soon. It has staying power in more ways than one.
Well, if you think that the standard of living hasn't already changed for thousands in BC due to climate change effects then go and talk to pretty much anyone between Osoyoos and Prince George how breating in felt like the last 2 summers and how they assess their quality of life with a prospect of up to 20 more fire summers like that to come. Or how about the people around Ashcroft when their houses were washed away from post-fire flash floods.
People need to wake up and see what this fossil fuel burning does to this world and how it degrades our standard of living already and more and faster every year. People will gladly give up their oil jobs and benefits once they have no clean air to breath or clean water to drink anymore. Does it have to hit us at our most fundamental needs before we realize what is at stake? Really?
tidal shot
Crew Member
Ok, you live without using oil in your life for a week and see how you like it? Comments like this **** me off!
Our oil industry is the cleanest in the world, you don’t hear us complain how your logging industry has descemated river systems and prime spawning grounds? We don’t slam your lumber industry which clear cut vast areas of water shed
Canopy! The oil industry also supports thousands of BC residents with jobs and revenue!
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
lota Of righteous talk from people that have a hobby of trolling around burning gas for 8 hours.
Like stormtrooper says your reality is what you believe and make happen. Believe and change
Find/buy alternative away from oil and the market will change.
Like stormtrooper says your reality is what you believe and make happen. Believe and change
Find/buy alternative away from oil and the market will change.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone would seriously argue that our dependence - or maybe addiction - to oil is integrated in everything we do - and that it has become indispensable to how we currently live - and we are all to "blame" for that. But the consequences of how much hydrocarbons we have burned over the last century or so has had serious consequences - and will continue to do so for many years yet to come. It is very responsible to have that conversation about what alternatives we have and can develop - if for nothing else - the simple fact is - we will run out of cheap oil at some point in the near future - full stop. Our descendants will be living w/o our abundance of oil - and the sooner we develop alternatives - the better off they and our planet will be. Jobs will also follow in that industry.
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Ever notice how little attention is paid to American tanker traffic? Even the governor of Washington spoke out against Canadian tanker traffic, yet never mentioned curtailing his own States existing tanker traffic. Seems hypocritical, I’m sure an American tanker is just as bad for the SRKW as a Canadian one? Then there’s the fact Alberta oil is sold cheap to the US now, but a pipeline would bring in a competitor for the oil and raise prices? The claim of lack of consultation appears to only apply to one small group of First Nations as many more have signed on.My point being that not everyone in this game is as altruistic as they’d have us believe. People will disagree over this whole debacle, but at the end of the day from what I’ve read, the project will go ahead following the guidance the court provided in order to meet the legal requirement. A little more consultation, not capitulation,and the part I really want to see a proper Marine assessment and mitigation plan.
The wildfires being blamed on Climate Change would be hilarious if it didn’t mean people can be so easily sucked in to a lie/gross distortion of facts.
Anyway, hate oil all you want guys, but maybe look into just how complex it is to get rid of and the ramifications of banning it before a reliable alternative is created before you jump on that high horse.
At this point you are just pushing inept politicians to produce disastrous policy.
Anyway, hate oil all you want guys, but maybe look into just how complex it is to get rid of and the ramifications of banning it before a reliable alternative is created before you jump on that high horse.
At this point you are just pushing inept politicians to produce disastrous policy.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Wrong! The BC Forest Service has stated that wildfire season is now longer and hotter than in the past. Why do you think that is? Scientists have been predicting more and bigger wildfires across the planet, and guess what? BC has had the two worst fire season in succession, California had it's largest single wildfire ever recorded this year, and devastating wildfires hit Portugal and Spain.
Yes the issue is very complex and it will take years to implement a solution. But the planet is heating up so fast we have to make a start now, which means no more pipelines and no more investments in fossil fuel extraction.
Spending $13 Billion dollars on an expanded climate destroying pipeline is disastrous policy. Spending all that money on alternative energy development, implementation job creation and retraining would be a much saner policy.
T
The Jackel
Guest
I admire your passion but do some research, there is no way on earth that alternative energy can make up for the energy derived from oil, unless we could go use nuke power
What do you think fires did before we came here? They burnt much larger swathes and created future fire breaks. These aren’t any bigger, they are just reported that way and your short lifespan/memory makes it seem apocalyptic. BC/the world has been much hotter than this in the past.
You speak of California’s fires? Of course they are huge when they won’t allocate water to fight them. I wonder why that is?
Anyway, I’m not getting any further into this debate. I’ve said my peace and feel it’s the rational/adult take on the issue.
- Status