Canada does NOT support pipeline.

[NAB]

How do you define gloabalization then GB? I seem to recall there was a huge backlash against it some time ago when it reared its head and got underway. But, IMO, just the same when it comes to environmental issues we are certainly in a global community, and if I recall our involvement in Kyoto was certainly a part of that, as well as the rather major say we pushed through during the recent extension rounds as well as Copenhagen and Mexico in between.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully on side with our Federal Government's position with repect to Kyoto and global emissions standards and those who must participate, even their position with respect to emissions and pollution output vs vs other countries than ourselves, ...but I still maintain you cannot get involved in those global things and expect other countries not to want and be granted a say in our activities coming the other way. I suspect a lot of it is behind the scenes competition driven anyway rather than really being about the environment, for example another oil producing nation or multinational oil and gas corp operating there being interested in not seeing Canada rise further beyond supplying ourselves and our major market to the south. I'm fairly sure there are global energy interests who are not too excited about seeing their stranglehold on the USA threatened, as well as potentially seeing increased competition in Asian markets, particularly China and India.

Nab

[Rwede]

Yep. Let's demand a say in how China pumps oil within its borders. Good luck with that.

Again, no other country has any jurisdiction whatsoever in Canada. The choices we make are ours and ours alone. Our resources belong to us, and WE will decide how we utilize them, not some funked out hippy from a California environmental group.

[The Green Barbarian]

How do you define gloabalization then GB? I seem to recall there was a huge backlash against it some time ago when it reared its head and got underway. But, IMO, just the same when it comes to environmental issues we are certainly in a global community, and if I recall our involvement in Kyoto was certainly a part of that, as well as the rather major say we pushed through during the recent extension rounds as well as Copenhagen and Mexico in between.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully on side with our Federal Government's position with repect to Kyoto and global emissions standards and those who must participate, even their position with respect to emissions and pollution output vs vs other countries than ourselves, ...but I still maintain you cannot get involved in those global things and expect other countries not to want and be granted a say in our activities coming the other way. I suspect a lot of it is behind the scenes competition driven anyway rather than really being about the environment, for example another oil producing nation or multinational oil and gas corp operating there being interested in not seeing Canada rise further beyond supplying ourselves and our major market to the south. I'm fairly sure there are global energy interests who are not too excited about seeing their stranglehold on the USA threatened, as well as potentially seeing increased competition in Asian markets, particularly China and India.

Nab

Nab - I still don't get how the sale of oil to China is anybody's else's business, just as the sale of wood by Canada to Korea is no one else's business. Why should anyone have a say other than Canadians, about a pipeline that runs within our borders? Just because it's oil? Just think if all the crybabies and scare-mongers were around in the mid-50's, the Trans-Canada pipeline would never have been built either. I just shake my head at all of the disinformation and complete silly-nannery that is going on with this pipeline. When I was in Prince Rupert this summer, I watched giant freighter after giant freighter coming back and forth into PR from China. Granted, they weren't laden with oil, but somehow, these giant ships are able to make into Prince Rupert every day, and not one silly armegedonist from the UK or California seems to give a crap about these ships - but because a drunk bozo back in 1989 racked up his ship in Alaska, that somehow is relevant to Kitimat in 2012? It's just alarmist nonsense.

[Urbane]

And if you read that Kelly McParland column that I posted some of those on the list to testify know nothing about the pipeline. The hearings are necessary but they shouldn't be hijacked and it should be Canadians deciding the merits or demerits of a Canadian pipeline.

[The Green Barbarian]

And if you read that Kelly McParland column that I posted some of those on the list to testify know nothing about the pipeline. The hearings are necessary but they shouldn't be hijacked and it should be Canadians deciding the merits or demerits of a Canadian pipeline.

I was watching Evan Solomon on Newsworld and he had an economist from the CAW on who is naturally in favour of the pipeline (due to all the union labour it will employ). I know if it had been a Fraser Institute economist etc a lot of people would just dismiss him, but this guy is with the CAW, so if you dismiss the credibility of the CAW, then you're really in trouble politically, as it doesn't leave you too many other places to turn. At any rate, he claimed that right now, due to transportation issues, Canada is missing out on $10 a barrel in price - ie from what I understood, if we are able to ship our oil to China, rather than sell it to the US, we'll get $10 a barrel more. That got me thinking - why would the Americans be so vehemently opposed to this pipeline? Obviously because they'll have to pay world market rates if we find another market. Methinks there are a lot more than just nutty environmental groups behind this whole foreign-sponsored pipeline outrage. When you are exporting 2 million barrels a day, that's a whole lot of money the government is missing out on in royalties, that could be used to pay for all of those massive social programs the Canadian people treasure so much.

[twobits]

None of this crap would be happening in any oil producing nation in the world with the exception of Canada, the USA, and coutries of Europe. They would simply tell us to eff off and rightfully so. If we were China, the decision would have been made two months ago and construction already started. Not saying that is the best way to go given their environmental record but there has to be a happy medium here. I really question the value of all of this "public" input anyway. The bulk of it is rooted in emotion rather than science.

[heymac]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

[The Green Barbarian]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

perfect link Heymac - this is just more scare-mongering from foreign interests, much like all of the yahoos opposing the pipeline.

[Fixer 166]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

perfect link Heymac - this is just more scare-mongering from foreign interests, much like all of the yahoos opposing the pipeline.

What if it's true?
Sickning.

[twobits]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

perfect link Heymac - this is just more scare-mongering from foreign interests, much like all of the yahoos opposing the pipeline.

What if it's true?
Sickning.

Ya, if it's from the Huffington Post it must be true

[Urbane]

Listening to Bill Good this morning on the internet (during the first hour before AM1150 joins the show) and he was talking with a couple of people about the pipeline. He specifically asked one environmental advocate to tell him which way of transporting oil was satisfactory and she wouldn't reply. When pressed she finally said that we should just be finding alternatives. It's fine to be against transporting oil anywhere but I think people who feel that way should stop driving cars or relying on petroleum products in any way.

Listening to the same Bill Good Show later on I heard Keith Baldrey and Vaughn Palmer both say that they think the Keystone Pipeline will never be built. It would take years to get any kind of approval and then years and years tied up in the courts after that. So even though more people support the pipeline than oppose it (at least from the polls I've seen) it looks as if the minority may well win the battle.

[heymac]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

perfect link Heymac - this is just more scare-mongering from foreign interests, much like all of the yahoos opposing the pipeline.

What if it's true?
Sickning.

Ya, if it's from the Huffington Post it must be true

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

[The Green Barbarian]

Listening to Bill Good this morning on the internet (during the first hour before AM1150 joins the show) and he was talking with a couple of people about the pipeline. He specifically asked one environmental advocate to tell him which way of transporting oil was satisfactory and she wouldn't reply. When pressed she finally said that we should just be finding alternatives. It's fine to be against transporting oil anywhere but I think people who feel that way should stop driving cars or relying on petroleum products in any way. .

I hear you Urbane - many times I've seen interviewers try and pin down these enviro types and ask them exactly how we should be transporting oil, and they either refuse to answer, or go on some nutty sidebar about wind farms. When it is pointed out that you can't run your car on a wind turbine, they just clam up. Until someone invents dilithium crystals, or we get electric cars (that still need electricity generated by something) to enter the mainstream, we need oil. It is just plain counter-productive, and stupid, to oppose the safest, least environmentally damaging methods of transporting it.

[twobits]

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?

[twobits]

Listening to the same Bill Good Show later on I heard Keith Baldrey and Vaughn Palmer both say that they think the Keystone Pipeline will never be built. It would take years to get any kind of approval and then years and years tied up in the courts after that. So even though more people support the pipeline than oppose it (at least from the polls I've seen) it looks as if the minority may well win the battle.

Not a new theory but I wouldn't under estimate the Conservation majority mandate left and Harper's resolve. Both the Keystone and Gateway pipelines are legacy projects that by themselves will vault Canada to a position of unpresidented wealth. We are talking about an additional 100 million dollars of export revenue every single day for decades to come and that's just at current prices. That wealth will pull one hell of a social cart.