Where's Trudeau?

[rustled]

It makes no sense to you because you chose to read (and quote) only what you wanted to. My point was that Alberta had no intention of buying B.C.'s power anyway, so why is Notley now bringing it up? You'd be foolish not to know the answer to that.

Oh, the irony!

Whether or not Alberta truly had any intention of purchasing BC's power, I'd suggest Heyman and Horgan's actions here show that every province in the country (indeed, every jurisdiction in the world) should be very leery of entering into any kind of a business deal with this government. Notley was prudent to discontinue talks, since the only thing you can count on with them is not to count on them. They're still trying to catch up on all the homework they didn't bother doing while in opposition, where they got in the habit of saying whatever they wanted without consequence.

Who in their right mind would invest in BC under the current regime? It remains to be seen how long JT will find it prudent to stand by while this government drags our province down this path.

[Cactusflower]

It makes no sense to you because you chose to read (and quote) only what you wanted to. My point was that Alberta had no intention of buying B.C.'s power anyway, so why is Notley now bringing it up? You'd be foolish not to know the answer to that.

Oh, the irony!

Whether or not Alberta truly had any intention of purchasing BC's power, I'd suggest Heyman and Horgan's actions here show that every province in the country (indeed, every jurisdiction in the world) should be very leery of entering into any kind of a business deal with this government. Notley was prudent to discontinue talks, since the only thing you can count on with them is not to count on them. They're still trying to catch up on all the homework they didn't bother doing while in opposition, where they got in the habit of saying whatever they wanted without consequence.

Who in their right mind would invest in BC under the current regime? It remains to be seen how long JT will find it prudent to stand by while this government drags our province down this path.

What's ironic is how, when the pro-bitumen posters lose a debate on Trudeau and Notley's position on dilbit being exported to China without any 'world-class plan' to clean up a tanker spill in the ocean, try to change the topic to 'Site C Dam'. We already had years of that debate, so let's try to stay on this topic, okay?

[CapitalB]

What's ironic is how, when the pro-bitumen posters lose a debate on Trudeau and Notley's position on dilbit being exported to China without any 'world-class plan' to clean up a tanker spill in the ocean, try to change the topic to 'Site C Dam'. We already had years of that debate, so let's try to stay on this topic, okay?

Step 1 change the topic, step 2 make a big deal out of a side point, step 3 blame the opposition for something unrelated step 4 ... step 5 profit?

You know what they'll say though; We don't need a plan, our pipeline regulations are rock solid and they'll never spill.

[rustled]

What's ironic is how, when the pro-bitumen posters lose a debate on Trudeau and Notley's position on dilbit being exported to China without any 'world-class plan' to clean up a tanker spill in the ocean, try to change the topic to 'Site C Dam'. We already had years of that debate, so let's try to stay on this topic, okay?

More irony, given the source:

Cactusflower wrote:
So Alberta's going to halt construction of the Site C dam? Good news. Notley's going to save B.C. taxpayers a ton of money. It's the best way to show Trudeau that his approval of that project was a stupid decision as well.

Resorting to disingenuous and misleading terms like "pro-bitumen" is unlikely to add credibility to the "anti-pipeline" stance.

Once again, we are told there is no "world class plan" to clean up a tanker spill. (IMO, the best plan would have a far greater emphasis on world-class spill prevention.)

What, precisely, should the "world class spill clean-up" plan JT and Notley must have on hand, IYO, entail? Please be as specific as possible. It seems to me the goalposts for getting to anything the protesters will approve keep shifting.

[Cactusflower]

What's ironic is how, when the pro-bitumen posters lose a debate on Trudeau and Notley's position on dilbit being exported to China without any 'world-class plan' to clean up a tanker spill in the ocean, try to change the topic to 'Site C Dam'. We already had years of that debate, so let's try to stay on this topic, okay?

More irony, given the source:

Cactusflower wrote:
So Alberta's going to halt construction of the Site C dam? Good news. Notley's going to save B.C. taxpayers a ton of money. It's the best way to show Trudeau that his approval of that project was a stupid decision as well.

Resorting to disingenuous and misleading terms like "pro-bitumen" is unlikely to add credibility to the "anti-pipeline" stance.

Once again, we are told there is no "world class plan" to clean up a tanker spill. (IMO, the best plan would have a far greater emphasis on world-class spill prevention.)

What, precisely, should the "world class spill clean-up" plan JT and Notley must have on hand, IYO, entail? Please be as specific as possible. It seems to me the goalposts for getting to anything the protesters will approve keep shifting.

There is no 'world-class spill prevention' in the ocean because there is no way to clean up bitumen in water. How many times do we need to post links to the Kalamazoo, Red Deer, and North Saskatchewan rivers before everyone in B.C. realizes how futile it is to clean up bitumen spills?

The only 'world-class spill prevention' is the prevention of bitumen being loaded onto ocean-going tankers.

[CapitalB]

There is no 'world-class spill prevention' in the ocean because there is no way to clean up bitumen in water. How many times do we need to post links to the Kalamazoo, Red Deer, and North Saskatchewan rivers before everyone in B.C. realizes how futile it is to clean up bitumen spills?

The only 'world-class spill prevention' is the prevention of bitumen being loaded onto ocean-going tankers.

While I agree, short of shutting down mordor thats never going to happen. The powers that be are hellbent on shipping our dirty tar by pipe or train and shipping them far and wide. Our sunk cost for the dirty mess has hit a point where we can't even back away from the sands, or the shipping without causing long term economic instability for our whole country. We're too invested, previous governments did their job well and good and have us hooked now.

I think our best bet is to just make sure all the regulations in place are sound, prevention and eventual cleanup resources are well funded and plentiful, and our country as a whole spends the proceeds from the dirty money on better preparing our country for the future.

[rustled]

There is no 'world-class spill prevention' in the ocean because there is no way to clean up bitumen in water. How many times do we need to post links to the Kalamazoo, Red Deer, and North Saskatchewan rivers before everyone in B.C. realizes how futile it is to clean up bitumen spills?

The only 'world-class spill prevention' is the prevention of bitumen being loaded onto ocean-going tankers.

So, this isn't about what is or is not in the plan, after all?

Sounds like it's truly about completely ending our participation in a global marketplace, for this specific resource.

Once that's accomplished, we can sell more of it to the US at fire-sale prices (understanding full well the US pipelines don't meet our environmental standards for safety and pose a greater risk to the environment, but hey, that's their problem, right?), fight incessant NIMYism to use more of it to meet the needs of our own limited Canadian market, and leave the rest of it in the ground.

I don't think JT wants that kind of economic downturn to happen during his tenure. And I doubt any of us Canadians would enjoy what it would do to our reasonable standard of living, either.

[Cactusflower]

So it's agreed.......Alberta has no other means of growing its economy except mining bitumen and shipping it across the country and over to Asian markets, and the rest of Canada should just sit back and do nothing to grow our economy in other ways? Whatever happened to the idea of manufacturing our own goods, and refining our own resources (including raw logs) and shipping them off to be made into products that will be sold back to us at inflated prices......on polluting freighters and tankers?

Canadian governments and industry should be ashamed of themselves for being so incompetent and/or lazy. Where's Trudeau, indeed.

[rustled]

So it's agreed.......Alberta has no other means of growing its economy except mining bitumen and shipping it across the country and over to Asian markets, and the rest of Canada should just sit back and do nothing to grow our economy in other ways? Whatever happened to the idea of manufacturing our own goods, and refining our own resources (including raw logs) and shipping them off to be made into products that will be sold back to us at inflated prices......on polluting freighters and tankers?

Canadian governments and industry should be ashamed of themselves for being so incompetent and/or lazy. Where's Trudeau, indeed.

This strikes me as melodramatic and narrow-minded.

I think most of us realize we do not live in a world of absolutes. Most of us realize having a decent standard of living does require some compromise, and we must carefully weigh risks and benefits instead of cavalierly ignoring the consequences of choosing one extreme and absolute course of action (in this case, shutting down the oil sands) over another extreme and absolute course of action (transporting dilbit with no safety measures in place).

I think most of us see that neither absolute is acceptable, and that there must be a cautious and pragmatic course of action that doesn't significantly undermine our economy for the sake of an ideal.

I think most of us realize that many of the social programs we value are predicated on having a stable and sustainable economy, and that those first and worst hurt by any recession are our most vulnerable, and that our refusal to cooperate or compromise can also have unintended consequences for the environment we are trying to protect.

And I would hope that JT is cognizant of all of these factors when he's being shamed for supporting the judicious use of our resources, including our oil sands.

[Cactusflower]

So it's agreed.......Alberta has no other means of growing its economy except mining bitumen and shipping it across the country and over to Asian markets, and the rest of Canada should just sit back and do nothing to grow our economy in other ways? Whatever happened to the idea of manufacturing our own goods, and refining our own resources (including raw logs) and shipping them off to be made into products that will be sold back to us at inflated prices......on polluting freighters and tankers?

Canadian governments and industry should be ashamed of themselves for being so incompetent and/or lazy. Where's Trudeau, indeed.

This strikes me as melodramatic and narrow-minded.

I think most of us realize we do not live in a world of absolutes. Most of us realize having a decent standard of living does require some compromise, and we must carefully weigh risks and benefits instead of cavalierly ignoring the consequences of choosing one extreme and absolute course of action (in this case, shutting down the oil sands) over another extreme and absolute course of action (transporting dilbit with no safety measures in place).

I think most of us see that neither absolute is acceptable, and that there must be a cautious and pragmatic course of action that doesn't significantly undermine our economy for the sake of an ideal.

I think most of us realize that many of the social programs we value are predicated on having a stable and sustainable economy, and that those first and worst hurt by any recession are our most vulnerable, and that our refusal to cooperate or compromise can also have unintended consequences for the environment we are trying to protect.

And I would hope that JT is cognizant of all of these factors when he's being shamed for supporting the judicious use of our resources, including our oil sands.

"OUR oil sands"? B.C. doesn't have 'oil sands'. Truth be told, neither does Alberta. That's bitumen up there, and the reason they have to sell it for peanuts is because it costs so much to squeeze some oil out of it.

[rustled]

This strikes me as melodramatic and narrow-minded.

I think most of us realize we do not live in a world of absolutes. Most of us realize having a decent standard of living does require some compromise, and we must carefully weigh risks and benefits instead of cavalierly ignoring the consequences of choosing one extreme and absolute course of action (in this case, shutting down the oil sands) over another extreme and absolute course of action (transporting dilbit with no safety measures in place).

I think most of us see that neither absolute is acceptable, and that there must be a cautious and pragmatic course of action that doesn't significantly undermine our economy for the sake of an ideal.

I think most of us realize that many of the social programs we value are predicated on having a stable and sustainable economy, and that those first and worst hurt by any recession are our most vulnerable, and that our refusal to cooperate or compromise can also have unintended consequences for the environment we are trying to protect.

And I would hope that JT is cognizant of all of these factors when he's being shamed for supporting the judicious use of our resources, including our oil sands.

"OUR oil sands"? B.C. doesn't have 'oil sands'. Truth be told, neither does Alberta. That's bitumen up there, and the reason they have to sell it for peanuts is because it costs so much to squeeze some oil out of it.

Hm. Well, I think most of us still see ourselves as Canadians, so yes: our oil sands.

Are you really thinking you have the power to completely redefine "oil sands"? My goodness!
JT is responsible for all Canadians, even those whose personal narratives don't place any reasonable value on being part of Canada. I strongly believe some of these people would be hard-pressed to put their money where their mouths are, and accept the reduced standard of living we'd see if we stopped selling our resources and contributing to the global economy.

[Cactusflower]

Hm. Well, I think most of us still see ourselves as Canadians, so yes: our oil sands.

Are you really thinking you have the power to completely redefine "oil sands"? My goodness!
JT is responsible for all Canadians, even those whose personal narratives don't place any reasonable value on being part of Canada. I strongly believe some of these people would be hard-pressed to put their money where their mouths are, and accept the reduced standard of living we'd see if we stopped selling our resources and contributing to the global economy.

My goodness! I think both you and Trudeau are placing far too much importance on the 'oil sands'. Canada has much more going for it than a big ugly hole in northern Alberta.

[Snman]

[attachment=0]trudeau4.jpg[/attachment]

I found him, trick or treating in India with his family!!!

[CapitalB]

trudeau4.jpg

I found him, trick or treating in India with his family!!!

Have we ever put up an eight hundred foot long billboard to welcome a foreign leader?

[rustled]

Hm. Well, I think most of us still see ourselves as Canadians, so yes: our oil sands.

Are you really thinking you have the power to completely redefine "oil sands"? My goodness!
JT is responsible for all Canadians, even those whose personal narratives don't place any reasonable value on being part of Canada. I strongly believe some of these people would be hard-pressed to put their money where their mouths are, and accept the reduced standard of living we'd see if we stopped selling our resources and contributing to the global economy.

My goodness! I think both you and Trudeau are placing far too much importance on the 'oil sands'. Canada has much more going for it than a big ugly hole in northern Alberta.