Canada does NOT support pipeline.

[Urbane]

Another great commentary from Rex Murphy:

Rex Murphy: Thou must not question Big Environment
Rex Murphy Jan 14, 2012

The environmental movement has enjoyed smooth, mostly untroubled progress since its beginnings in the 1960s, when its activists romped around the northern sea floes off the coast of Labrador. The enviros migrated with almost the same punctuality as the seals: Every spring, you could treat yourself to the sight of them bobbing up and down on the ice-pans, high-bosomed starlets stroking the pelts of large-eyed newsmen and seals alike, whole platoons of photographers aiming for the perfect cute shot, and a kite tail of various enthusiasts and camp followers to give a sense of noise and drama. Labrador is more or less quiet these days: Those Who Care have decamped to the oil sands and other pastures.

Robert Redford, when he can tear himself away from the general dorkiness of the Sundance Festival, is big on saving the planet these days. James Cameron can generally be found rustling the vines somewhere in the Amazon rain forest. Leonardo DiCaprio is always good for a Vanity Fair cover as long as its backlit and there’s a polar bear somewhere. Mixing it up with the environmental crusaders is good PR for Hollywood one-percenters — takes the heat off their monstrous paydays, their jets and, for that matter, most of their silly movies.

Some enviro groups have grown corporate in size, techniques and attitude. Greenpeace is now to the environmental world what GM used to be to the automobile world. The various Sierra Clubs dot the world like McDonald’s. As the example of Canada’s own Northern Gateway pipeline shows, modern environmental protestors have refined a basic set of skills to near perfection: deploying legal challenges to stall a project, taking advantage of hearings to protract and delay, signing on huge numbers of groups and individuals to take part in such hearings. They are expert at singling out one activity and applying all their focus and energy toward stopping it.

The big-name environmental groups are routinely excellent communicators — faster, clearer and quicker with the message than governments or industry. I credit them for this, incidentally. Good for them that they have tuned themselves so finely, learned the game. Businesses and politicians have always been way behind in the new world of publicity and protest, and it is their own fault — half-laziness and half arrogance — that they are.

The greatest advantage the greens have had is the relative absence of scrutiny from the press. Generally speaking, it’s thought to be bad manners to question self-appointed environmentalists. Their good cause, at least in the early days, was enough of a warrant in itself. And when it was your aunt protesting the incinerator just outside town, well that was enough. But when it’s some vast congregation of 20,000 at an international conference, or thousands lining up to present briefs protesting a pipeline, well, let’s just say this is not your aunt’s protest movement anymore.

There is no such thing as investigative environmental reporting — or rather very precious little of it in the established media. Environmental reporters rarely question the big environmental outfits with anything like the fury they will bring to questioning politicians or businesspeople. Advocacy and reportage are sometimes close as twins.

And so the great thing I see about Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s little rant against Northern Gateway pipeline opponents a few days ago — asking whether some groups are receiving “outside money” or if they are proxies for other interests — is not so much the rant itself, but rather the fact that at last some scrutiny, some questions are being asked of these major players. Big environment, however feebly, is being asked to present its bona fides. And that’s a good thing: The same rigor we bring to industry and government, in looking to their motives, their swift dealing, must also apply to crusading greens.

Where does their money come from? What are their interests in such and such a hearing? What other associations do they have? Are they a cat’s paw for other interests? Do they have political affiliations that would impugn their testimony? In hearings as important as the ones over the Northern Gateway pipeline, with the jobs and industry that are potentially at stake, the call to monitor who is participating in those hearings is a sound and rational one.

No one should be excluded from those hearings — at least, no one who has a solid and honest objection to the project. But some amount of transparency from all those environmental groups that demand “transparency” from everyone else is a reasonable ambition as well. Let us have some vetting of the vetters. To that degree, I applaud the Minister.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV’s The National and is host of CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup.

[heymac]

I would think that if it is false then BP would be suing.

Do you believe all the bunk in the junk mail you deliver to our homes? Following your logic anything in print must be true for the fear of being sued if not. Do you seriously think it is even possible to sue every wack job with a blog that gets copied to a site. And if they did sue, what assets could they liquidate from a career environmentalist to even cover the cost of the lawyers never mind damages.
If BP did muscle them and force a retraction, I'd bet it would be buried somewhere obscure and you wouldn't be posting a link to it here.
Think about it dude, if things were even one tenth as bad as portayed in the Gulf, would the news be on the Huffington Post or would it be national headlines?

I guess it couldn't be because BP doesn't want to bring anymore attention to the truth.

[The Green Barbarian]

And again, Rex Murphy hits a home run. It was the laziness of the mainstream media that allowed the entire hoax of man-made climate change to gain the traction it did as well. As continually crazier and crazier pronouncements of world armeggedon continued to pour out of these enviro-groups (and then start being parroted by the fools in the UN-sponsored IPCC, who turned out to be just taking the word of shysters in the pay of enviro-groups) the mainstream media continued to just accept these nutty visions as truth, and never once question - where is the money coming from? Or - why is the doom and gloom mongering continuing to ramp up, with no actual observable changes in our climate? The answer of course was - the enviro-groups had figured out - the scarier the message, no matter how bizarre, the higher our donations go up. And with the media acting as our trumpet, never questioning anything we say, no matter how crazy, this racket just pays more and more and more.

Rex is dead on - with the high degree of sanctimony these enviro-nuts operate with, you aren't allowed to question anything they say. And they can always count on their most devout followers to shout, scream and wail if anyone does question them, with the usual insults about how you either are "in the pay of big oil", or you are "anti-science", or the latest nutty mantra, that "you are part of the Harper agenda to destroy the earth" - yes I actually had a lunatic tell me this, and then got a stunned look when I burst out laughing and asked if anyone could actually be dumb enough to believe that Stephen Harper sits in Ottawa all day like some kind of Bond villain, plotting earth's destruction via encouraging oil sands development - to which I got a response that had me doubling over in laughter - "Well you've seen Avatar haven't you?". :dyinglaughing:

It's high time the media spotlight was turned on these special interest groups, awash in cash and with definite political motives. The billions being syphoned off of taxpayer's back to fund useless "alternative" energy sources that will never be economically viable is a start. Rex Murphy is just scratching the surface - let's hope other journalists follow his lead.

[LoneWolf_53]

Think about it dude, if things were even one tenth as bad as portayed in the Gulf, would the news be on the Huffington Post or would it be national headlines?

Sorry twobits but I have to go with heymac on this one. I paid close attention to the goings on pertaining to that oil spill, and it's quite clear that extraordinary steps were taken right from the start, to implement damage control, not to mention regulate media coverage to quite a degree.

The sheer amount of oil that escaped, that's admitted to, I would add, since you can bet the real figure is far higher, would be more than sufficient to cause mayhem, and mass destruction of life, both in the sea, and on shores, never mind on land yet to come.

One would have to question the use of dispersant for example, admittedly highly toxic, and in short, serving no function beyond making the disaster appear less, than it really was, by forcing much of the oil to go below the surface.

Out of sight, out of mind train of thought in all its glory.

All one has to do is ask themselves, why all the focus on security efforts rather than cleanup? Was there a fear people would skim off some oil and take it home in buckets?

Unless there's something to hide, there would be no need for such extreme measures, as could be easily witnessed.

The problem with oil is, at the end of the day, the industry controls all the marbles, as it's their dollars that put most of the legislators in position in the first place, and in the end, all they care about is money.

The more truth that would leak out, the more evidence to support claims, the more it would cost BP. That's why the area in question has become in effect a police state.

The real impact of that disaster, in regards to health, loss of income, loss of habitat, loss of aquatic life, and lord only knows what all else, is unimaginable I'm inclined to believe.

What we've heard from media in regards to fines and penalties levied against BP, would in my opinion be simply a drop in the bucket to them, but the hoped for goal of said actions, being to somewhat appease outrage from the general public, I would conclude.

I've paid close attention to documentaries done regarding the Exxon Valdez, mostly due to curiosity, and an inherent distrust of big oil. The fact of the matter is that after, what's it been now about two decades?, the people in that area are still dealing with the after effects of what happened.

You can still bring up oil on the beaches with little effort. Yet the disaster in the Gulf was how much bigger than the Exxon Valdez?

I honestly believe that to be the single most devastating act perpetrated on the planet by man to date. That includes Hiroshima I might add.

We haven't begun to see the devastating effects, that will have on the health of citizens, living in the gulf states, but we will for years to come.

Yes it's just my opinion, based on observations, but I feel a very valid, scary one.

[The Green Barbarian]

http://ezralevant.com/2012/01/finding-funding.html

[UnknownResident]

http://ezralevant.com/2012/01/finding-funding.html

Oh jeez GB would you stop posting Ezra Levant garbage?

Reason #1) He's bought and paid for by Suncor. He preaches the ethical oil nonsense, however he fails to mention EVER that Suncor does business in the middle east. See Libya, Syria. Two countries who without a doubt are considered "unethical" by our standards.

Reason #2) Enbridge has provided funding to ethical oil.

It's just disgusting that people listen to Ezra, and ethical oil.

[Urbane]

http://ezralevant.com/2012/01/finding-funding.html




Oh jeez GB would you stop posting Ezra Levant garbage?

Reason #1) He's bought and paid for by Suncor. He preaches the ethical oil nonsense, however he fails to mention EVER that Suncor does business in the middle east. See Libya, Syria. Two countries who without a doubt are considered "unethical" by our standards.

Reason #2) Enbridge has provided funding to ethical oil.

It's just disgusting that people listen to Ezra, and ethical oil.

If you're saying that we should never sell oil to countries that do unethical things then we'd better drop the United States from our list of customers. By the way, I like listening to and reading Ezra Levant so I hope GB ignores your advice.

[UnknownResident]

try reposting without the nested quotations - Jennylives

[The Green Barbarian]

http://ezralevant.com/2012/01/finding-funding.html




Oh jeez GB would you stop posting Ezra Levant garbage?

Reason #1) He's bought and paid for by Suncor. He preaches the ethical oil nonsense, however he fails to mention EVER that Suncor does business in the middle east. See Libya, Syria. Two countries who without a doubt are considered "unethical" by our standards.

Reason #2) Enbridge has provided funding to ethical oil.

It's just disgusting that people listen to Ezra, and ethical oil.

If you're saying that we should never sell oil to countries that do unethical things then we'd better drop the United States from our list of customers. By the way, I like listening to and reading Ezra Levant so I hope GB ignores your advice.

ha ha - of course Urbane I'll ignore anybody who tells me to stop posting Ezra Levant. I do find a lot of Ezra's stuff over the top, but the fact that he makes people uncomfortable, especially those on the left who always have this big holier than thou attitude going on, makes him all the more enjoyable. He makes some really good points in this rant, which is why I posted it. If you don't like it UR, just ignore it. A lot of us have to ignore or simply keep down our bile at all the nutty left-wing craziness that is posted on these forums from The Tyee, the CBC, the Star, the Mop and Pail, and anyone who posts anything from the Communist Center for Policy Alternatives. If you want to tell people to stop posting garbage from those sites, then I'll happily curtail the Ezra posting.

Also - not sure how you can be against the Ethical Oil argument. I just don't get how you can be against Canadian oil, but for oil from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia where women are treated like third-rate beings. It makes absolutely zero sense.

[The Green Barbarian]

Just for UR - here's some more Ezra Levant. Robert Kennedy Jr. flew (on planes that use (gasp!) fossil fuels!) a whole bunch of celebs up to Banff to go skiing, and so Ezra decided to interview these celebs to gauge their take on Canadian oil vs. conflict oil from thug states and dictatorships. What he found was quite interesting, and he was quite surprised at what he was hearing. Enjoy:

http://ezralevant.com/2012/01/ecoelites-speak.html

http://ezralevant.com/2012/01/celebrigr ... ak-up.html

Kenny Loggins seems to the only one completely living in a dream-world, the rest at least get it to some extent. Even Ed Begley Jr.! Amazing!

[LoneWolf_53]

Kenny Loggins came off as though someone peed in his cornflakes. :dyinglaughing:

[The Green Barbarian]

Kenny Loggins came off as though someone peed in his cornflakes. :dyinglaughing:

yeah he was the only one to look truly crazy in those interviews - he didn't want to admit that he flew to Banff to ski. :dyinglaughing:

[UnknownResident]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toR3Tt9fS2E

Does Enbridge fund ethical oil? It's a yes or no question Kathryn.

[twobits]

Read an interesting commentary today by Tom Fletcher about his belief that the pipeline won't fly. Along with the usual opposition the line faces he points out that the oil will flow to market regardless. Some posts back several posters were debating alternative transport to markets....if there were any. Aces in the hole....rail and the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline right of way. Seems the oil will get to market regardless and without all the enviro whining.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/137496303.html

[The Green Barbarian]

Read an interesting commentary today by Tom Fletcher about his belief that the pipeline won't fly. Along with the usual opposition the line faces he points out that the oil will flow to market regardless. Some posts back several posters were debating alternative transport to markets....if there were any. Aces in the hole....rail and the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline right of way. Seems the oil will get to market regardless and without all the enviro whining.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/137496303.html

yes - it will. That's the part I find hilarious - free markets find a way to solve these problems. I remember all the hand-wringing from protestors about how Talisman was running a pipeline in the Sudan, and "exploiting" the Sudanese people, or some such nonsense. Talisman took so much flak for it, and were having such a hard time protecting the line from "rebels" (extortionists) in the Sudan that they finally just sold the line to the Chinese. All the protestors were happy about this for some reason, even though all that actually happened was that now all the money from the pipeline was going to China, and none of their bogus concerns were addressed whatsoever. The same exact scenario is going to play out here - the protestors, professional whiners and bozos will all claim "victory" if/when the Enbridge pipeline doesn't get approved, and the oil will still end up in China anyway. So instead of creating thousands of jobs, no jobs will be created. Why oh why do people listen to these foolish useless protestors, I'll never know.