Well, well, well, can't hide the truth forever

bde, the more I read your stuff the more I want to share that beer. The only tributary I remember on the Nass was the Ishkinish (sp), very bottom end. Indeed that country was wild and gorgeous 45 years ago. The eulachon numbers back then on the Nass were phenomenal and just about everything that could eat them was there doing so (seals, sea lions, otters, mink, coyotes, bears) and every predatory bird you can imagine. I remember boating the river with a highly respected DFO biologist of the day, me driving, he counting eagles .... over 5,000 adults in the stretch we covered.. Incredible! Have only seen one wolverine, on the upper Nechako. Cool buggers. Countless black bears and about 10 grizzlies, most while fishing the Horsefly River.

Enough derailing this thread but thanks for making me enjoy this site more.
 
On May 8'th, the total energy produced from renewables in Germany (wind, solar, biomass) was so great that it drove the wholesale price of 100 MW of power deeply negative (-220 Euros) for a period of twelve hours. During that time period, renewables were supplying 85% of base load. Overall, on average, Germany now produces 50% of it's base load from renewables and is on track to produce 100% by 2050. That is the future. It is also telling that every single Middle Eastern oil producing country is installing billions of dollars of solar, the most recent project, in Dubai, will produce Gigawatts of power for 2.5 cents per KwH, and the company will make a profit. You can't argue with those kinds of results.

The supporters of this project say it is great, but the governments' own statistics indicate a 95% probability of a significant spill from the pipeline, on the coast, within 50 years. When that happens, the 1.2 Billion the government is said to collect from the revenues on this project will be minuscule compared to the cost of cleaning it up, and most of it will never be cleaned up, it will sink to the bottom and produce toxins over a wide area for generations to come. The Exxon Valdez was the accident that 'could never happen', but it did. The blow out in the Gulf of Mexico ruined the Gulf fisheries, and thousands of livelihoods for generations to come.

The people who support this archaic endeavour are the same ones who greedily took billions out of Alberta, leaving it an economic cripple for the next 30 years. It is only the very short sighted, totally self absorbed and careless individuals who want this built, most of the rest of the country (over 78%) are deeply concerned about any future oil projects, and rightfully so.

The future for Alberta is NOT producing more low quality, difficult to transport and costly to refine bitumen for export. The consumption of fossil fuels has peaked and is declining rapidly. Even Saudi Arabia is getting out of the business and the anticipated global oil demand, per day, will decrease to 30MM barrels, from the current 90MM barrels over the next 25 years. The future is the same that is has been since the solution was first proposed to them in the 70's. Install domestic pipelines; invest in refining capacity; purchase retail outlets and create a truly national grid for delivering fuels for as long as the market holds for it, and that won't be that long. The first hybrid electric/CNG transport trucks with 20,000KW engines are already on the roads. Tesla is recreating the personal automobile at affordable prices and the demand is overwhelming. Don't waste your time and money on this, it isn't going anywhere."




I wish these things were all true but there's a couple blatant falsehoods in there. And what's not false is misleading without context or if swallowed without thought.
 
Yet again - I am constantly disappointed and frustrated by the narrative developed and maintained with particularly the Aquaculture Branch of DFO - where many of the staff (often ex-industry workers) support hatchery operations and interact with those hatchery staff - perpetuating and disseminating many unsupported myths often strait from the PR firms supporting the open net-pen industry.

What is your knowledge of the Aquaculture Branch at DFO? Have you spoken to people that work there? How familiar are you with what work they are currently engaged in? I am actually supportive of the new research that is currently being done through branch as well as the researchers, biologists and technicians being hired to address these issues. As for perpetuating and disseminating many unsupported myths there are quite a few from fish farm critics which can take up most of this thread. I would rather fish.

If the baseline work was done beforehand - one could better assess and apportion those impacts more accurately.

I agree. As I mentioned in another thread, there is work underway to many of these questions people here have. Hopefully, the Minister follows through on the mandate letter and we can get factual, science-based evidence to make better decisions - rather than pointing fingers.

But - due to the denial machine generated by many industries - including the open net-pen industry - this was not done. That is not a responsible - nor a defensible position to always reverse the burden of proof onto those who commonly do not have the ability nor access to prove the impacts. That is - as always - industries burden to prove they are not having an impact and/or mitigate and compensate for those impacts.

I don't agree that it's industry's fault as some "denial machine". I do believe there has been a lot of change in the industry since it began here to what it is now. Regulations have changed and agency responsibility for the industry has also changed. Aquaculture techniques and fish culture in general is not what it was in the 70's. The Federal government (DFO) needs to make it a priority - this is what Cohen eluded to in his findings. Movement on Cohen recommendations has been like a glacier for the most part, but then again we know how much priority our former King put on wild salmon issues on the West Coast. As I said already, hopefully the Minister under the present government follows through on Cohen recommendations. I agree in principle that industry and government have a burden to provide evidence on any impacts, but those who are critical of the industry and government are not absolved from any responsibility. For instance, if critics are making conclusions not supported by evidence they are not furthering our knowledge. Misinformation doesn't serve any noble purpose. When people shoot a 10 minute video claiming Hard Evidence which is an abomination of science, it detracts from the good, positive work being done by many individuals who are not PR hacks. Fueling unsubstantiated conspiracies also detracts from the work being done by people like Kristi Miller. Lastly, the catch 22 is that when industry becomes involved like people want them to then industry is viewed as influencing the results in their favour, so it's really a no-win situation. Like it or not, as I said before in the other thread, industry has to be involved and is actually when you see the grants/funding to some of the ongoing projects. There are many here that say that they don't trust government so how can they demand more proof from them if they already stated they don't trust them. I believe some won't be satisfied until their opinions are validated, so if that science doesn't align with those views it will be dismissed before it is even considered.
 
I think we agree more than not on these points, Shuswap. Thanks for your post.

I agree some good science comes out of the funding envelope (e.g. ACRDP) that DFO and industry sometimes partner in. However, I would caution that the set-up for that funding has some major biases that preclude it from being an effective funding source to look at many negative facets of the operations of the industry. There is a reason the baseline work was not done. As I have consistently stated: we need an environmental assessment for the sites/operations. And yes - of course - everyone should be held accountable - including claims from the so-called "anti" lobby. Again - why we need an environmental review process.
 
Love to see an environmental impact study done.

Then we can compare it to the agriculture industry and see how little damage is being done when compared to other protein investments.
 
Research cattle feed lots. They're worse than fish farms. Which is why I rarely eat beef.

Then compare the cattle industry to the energy sector for GHG's and ask yourself WTH people are up in arms about energy when there's something just as bad plus bad for their health that they can stop consuming overnight with no impact. Brainwashed masses is all I can think of, it hasn't trended on tweetbook yet.
 
Then compare the cattle industry to the energy sector for GHG's and ask yourself WTH people are up in arms about energy when there's something just as bad plus bad for their health that they can stop consuming overnight with no impact. Brainwashed masses is all I can think of, it hasn't trended on tweetbook yet.

Well that's odd .. and all this time I was reading this to get my numbers.... Do you really believe what your saying?
Notice what the trends are doing in the different sectors.
http://ec.gc.ca/GES-GHG/default.asp?lang=En&n=02D095CB-1#BR-SecAnnex3

Check out Table A15: Agriculture Sector: Emissions (Mt CO2eq)
 
Last edited:
Yes I exaggerated about "just as bad" but the point I was trying to make is still valid.

I see...,. so your trying one of these like some other members in this thread.
1e153-truthiness_comic.jpg
 
Back
Top