Castanet

The only proponents of the transport of bitumen across BC and the export of bitumen to China are the same people who are either working in the tar sands or have been laid off and waiting to get called back to work. That's the only thing that makes sense. Why would anyone want to see more flooding in Texas, more forest and grass fires from CA to BC, not to mention all the other climate change related disasters around the globe?

Cactusflower wrote:The only proponents of the transport of bitumen across BC and the export of bitumen to China are the same people who are either working in the tar sands or have been laid off and waiting to get called back to work. That's the only thing that makes sense.

Only makes sense to you perhaps, the world is a bit more complex then it appears to you - perhaps you need to take your blinders off

The amount of money brought in to this Nation's Economy which, if you like it or not, directly effects you - goes well past just the people working up in the Oil Sands.

Sorry Cactus flower but I haven't worked a day in my life in the oil fields and I never will. I have however lived in Canada all my life and enjoyed the benefits as all Canadians have from oil. For years it was the major supporter of our economy and still is to some extent. Now I live off pensions and investments which are still supported by oil. The time for oil to take a drastic change will come, but that is still a long way off. We are working towards it, but until then we must take every step we can to continue to enjoy it's benefits as safely as we can.

I feel pipelines are the very best method of transporting petroleum products and according to this basic little poll about 90% agree with me.

Cactusflower wrote:The only proponents of the transport of bitumen across BC and the export of bitumen to China are the same people who are either working in the tar sands or have been laid off and waiting to get called back to work. That's the only thing that makes sense. Why would anyone want to see more flooding in Texas, more forest and grass fires from CA to BC, not to mention all the other climate change related disasters around the globe?

There's some kind of fancy schmancy name used by elite on here to label that kind of argument. I'm not a fan of label-and-dismiss, so I've never bothered to learn it.

But here's what I see: you're suggesting people who prefer pipelines over other transportation methods want to see natural disasters happen, because if we don't use pipelines, those things won't happen any more. Seems pretty fanciful to me.

One could say "Why would anyone want to see trains exploding in cities or spilling into rivers?" or "Why would anyone want to see Canada's economy crash and make it more difficult to deliver education and health care and force people go hungry?"

I don't think for a moment you want any of those things, and accusing you of them simply divides us and distracts from the conversation.

We should be talking about how best to manage the transition away from fossil fuels to better technologies, and thinking globally as well as locally. If we feel there's likely another 20 or 30 years before this happens, how do we best manage the risks in the meantime?

IMO, pipelines are a much better alternative to trains and trucks.

to sell tar to other countries doesnt do anything for climate change. so unlesz you live in the fantasy land of *removed* the answer is clear . shut down the tar sands.

maryjane48 wrote:to sell tar to other countries doesnt do anything for climate change. so unlesz you live in the fantasy land of *removed* the answer is clear . shut down the tar sands.

?

What you have here are comments from a couple of posters who are simply put..........ZEALOTS........ones who have a complete lack of reasoning ability. They see things in one light and NOTHING will convince them otherwise. Their comments are repeated continuously on the subject and can be seen throughout many different threads..........NO OIL, NO GAS, NO GAS BURNING VEHICLES, NO TRANSPORTING OIL!!!!! Blah, Blah, Blah! Rest assured, these zealots are also complete hypocrites. I read their comments as "comic relief".........nothing else........and I mean nothing else!

Energy and fuel systems WILL eventually change but when it becomes mainstream and provides DEPENDABLE and AFFORDABLE power as oil has I am pretty sure none of us will be around. In the mean time.........more of those safer pipelines and more trains if we have to because oil is not going to be replaced anytime soon.

maryjane48 wrote:to sell tar to other countries doesnt do anything for climate change. so unlesz you live in the fantasy land of *removed* the answer is clear . shut down the tar sands.

We do not sell tar. There is no tar. Just a term eco terrorists dreamed up to further their extreme left wing agenda. Lies from the myopic extremists that do not understand science or nature.
BTW the natural product from the earth, bitumen, is just exactly that, natural. Another inconvenient truth for the eco terrorists to swallow and choke on.

Wiki (my bold)
"Oil sands are either loose sands or partially consolidated sandstone containing a naturally occurring mixture of sand, clay, and water, saturated with a dense and extremely viscous form of petroleum technically referred to as bitumen"

I hope this clears up any confusion on this topic: There are those of us who do not want any tar sands expansion, since it would be only for the export of bitumen to foreign countries. We are concerned about reaching our GHG emissions targets, nothing more, nothing less. The rest of you can argue until the cows come home about the benefits of pipeline vs rail or truck. I vote for 'none of the above'.

Cactusflower wrote:I hope this clears up any confusion on this topic: There are those of us who do not want any tar sands expansion, since it would be only for the export of bitumen to foreign countries. We are concerned about reaching our GHG emissions targets, nothing more, nothing less. The rest of you can argue until the cows come home about the benefits of pipeline vs rail or truck. I vote for 'none of the above'.

We are all entitled to our individual opinions, I'm not saying I'm for or against transportation of bitumen.
What I am is a realist

Cactusflower wrote:I hope this clears up any confusion on this topic: There are those of us who do not want any tar sands expansion, since it would be only for the export of bitumen to foreign countries. We are concerned about reaching our GHG emissions targets, nothing more, nothing less. The rest of you can argue until the cows come home about the benefits of pipeline vs rail or truck. I vote for 'none of the above'.

As earlier mentioned.................

That's it? No more debate? Does that mean that y'all finally agree that we should leave the bitumen in the ground and try to support the economy in a more planet-friendly way?

Cactusflower wrote:That's it? No more debate? Does that mean that y'all finally agree that we should leave the bitumen in the ground and try to support the economy in a more planet-friendly way?

No debating with zealots............let 'em wallow in bitumen...........

Look up the word 'zealot' in the dictionary. I think you'll find it describes the bitumen pipeline fanatics, not the people who are concerned about the environment and the future of our planet.

Cactusflower wrote:Look up the word 'zealot' in the dictionary. I think you'll find it describes the bitumen pipeline fanatics, not the people who are concerned about the environment and the future of our planet.

zeal·ot
ˈzelət/Submit
noun
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Hmmmm - pretty much nail on the head for the anti-pipeline crowd