Kinder Morgan protestors

[Merry]

No. I mean that I was referring to the 2019 federal election. That is when Canadians will vote on whether they think Trudeau made a decision that is in the national interest.

Trudeau may well lose that election, but if he does I'm not sure it will be because he supported the pipeline (although it will undoubtedly cost him a lot of the "green" votes he stole from the NDP in the last election). However, as polls show the majority of Canadians do support the pipeline, it wouldn't make sense for them to switch their vote just because Justin agreed with them.

The carbon tax issue may cost him a lot of votes though, because there are many folks who are not convinced it will change people's habits enough to make much of a difference, and will just be another tax grab (I fall into that category). The ongoing war between the Feds and certain provinces is going to make sure the issue stays in the public spotlight, and becomes ever more prominent as the election gets closer. And I think it may well become a big enough issue to sink the Libs. Time will tell.

The other issue that's going to hurt them big time IMO is their perceived weak response to illegal border crossers; particularly if it becomes an even bigger problem over the coming year. Again, time will tell.

But back to KM - I see that the local residents are tired of the protesters who've set up illegal permanent camps near their homes and want the City of Burnaby to enforce their own by-laws and remove them. A natural reaction if you've got a bunch of squatters living on your doorstep (with all the attendant problems such camps cause). Full time, professional protesters who do stuff like this, and make a nuisance of themselves, are not the kind of protestors most Canadians admire. And it also makes folks like me wonder, where do they get the money from to protest full time like that?

It's been well documented on these forums that if you take the time to follow the money back to it's original source, it appears that American commercial interests who would benefit financially from preventing Canadian oil reaching tidewater are involved in providing that funding. Doesn't that bother you?

[Cactusflower]

^^It doesn't bother me any more than the CAPP and foreign oil corporations that influence the federal and Alberta governments.

[Jflem1983]

^^It doesn't bother me any more than the CAPP and foreign oil corporations that influence the federal and Alberta governments.

If Canada had solar production you would want those people to have influence though rite. Especially if it actually worked and employed a million Canadians ? Brought foreign investment into Canada ?

[fluffy]

^^It doesn't bother me any more than the CAPP and foreign oil corporations that influence the federal and Alberta governments.

So it’s not so much the flow of fossil fuel to foreign markets, as long as it doesn’t flow through B.C.?

[Cactusflower]

^^It doesn't bother me any more than the CAPP and foreign oil corporations that influence the federal and Alberta governments.

So it’s not so much the flow of fossil fuel to foreign markets, as long as it doesn’t flow through B.C.?

Where did you get that idea? Of course I don't want three times as much diluted bitumen flowing across B.C. and loaded on tankers that will travel under three bridges in a narrow inlet, through one of the most populous and busiest ports on the west coast, and past our gulf islands. Who in their right mind would want that?

But there's a second, equally important reason to protest the TMX, and that is the ratcheting up of bitumen production in the 'oil' sands. No amount of carbon tax can offset the added GHG emissions that would entail. Trudeau knows it, McKenna knows it, Notley knows it, and Moe knows it.

Guess who else knows it and will cancel Notley's carbon tax as quickly as Ford cancelled Wynne's. Trudeau's little pipe-dream is going to turn into a nightmare before the thing even gets built.

[Merry]

But there's a second, equally important reason to protest the TMX, and that is the ratcheting up of bitumen production in the 'oil' sands. No amount of carbon tax can offset the added GHG emissions that would entail.

Please read this article and then give us your opinion. It's a well written piece explaining how the "science" surrounding how much GHG emissions affect our climate may not be such great science after all.
http://business.financialpost.com/opini ... ew-problem

I'm all for regulations that cut down on pollution; no argument there. And I firmly support strong enforcement of such regulations. But I'm tired of questionable science being used to justify actions that may or may not be either necessary or helpful. People who use false and/or misleading rhetoric to try to justify actions that are of questionable value is what I take issue with; behaviour that seems to abound these days.

I've always believed in doing my own research before blindly supporting a point of view, and having done so on this issue it seems to me that there are enough educated opinions questioning the so called "accepted science" regarding GHG emissions, that there ought to be more public discourse on the issue. But every time anyone tries to introduce such a discussion, they are shouted down and made out to be evil people who want to destroy the planet. And it is that type of social pressure to silence those who question the mainstream belief that bothers me, and makes me wonder WHAT it is that is so scary about having people questioning issues such as this?

It is certainly true that there ARE a lot of vested interests in the States that have a financial stake in having the general Public not question the status quo regarding the acceptance of the GHG effect on global warming. And that fact, combined with the concerted effort to silence all dissenters, is what pushed me into the dissenting camp. And, from what I can see, it's beginning to push others the same way as me. People don't like to be TOLD what to believe; they prefer to figure it out for themselves. It just takes some folks longer than others. But the tide is slowly beginning to turn against the radicals extreme position. People ARE finally beginning to question what they have up till now been told is "accepted science".

I'm not saying the mainstream thought is wrong; what I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so afraid to listen to dissenting opinions and then discuss them (as reasonable adults, not overbearing zealots). People resent being TOLD what to think, and not being allowed to question what they are being told.

[Cactusflower]

^^Exactly, Merry. People don't like to be told what to think by an overbearing federal government. That old McKenna/Trudeau "The economy and the environment go hand in hand" shtick is getting very tiresome. Their idea of how they're going to achieve it is ridiculous.

P.S. I'm glad I scrolled down to the end of the FP article before carefully reading the whole thing. The fact that the author is a 'senior fellow at the Fraser Institute' tells me all I need to know about his opinions.

[Walking Wounded]

^^Exactly, Merry. People don't like to be told what to think by an overbearing federal government. That old McKenna/Trudeau "The economy and the environment go hand in hand" shtick is getting very tiresome. Their idea of how they're going to make it come to pass is ridiculous.

Or by overbearing zealots reacting solely on emotions instead of facts.

[Merry]

That old McKenna/Trudeau "The economy and the environment go hand in hand" shtick is getting very tiresome.

But the truth is that the environment and the economy DO go hand in hand CF. You'll never get public support for protecting the environment, if you don't at the same time do what is necessary to keep our economy in good shape.

I believe it's both possible and necessary to make sure that we have enough regulations in place to ensure that all of our industries operate in an environmentally sound manner. That doesn't mean NO environmental footprint at all, because that's an impossible goal. Even people living in caves left some sort of environmental footprint. But it does mean making sure that the environmental footprint industries make is no larger than absolutely necessary.

And, just to keep them honest, I also believe it's necessary to have enough Government inspectors to ensure all the regulations are followed. And that the penalties for violators are severe enough to serve as a good deterrent.

Governments in the past have been lax in this regard, and I for one would like to see more public pressure to make them smarten up.

Their idea of how they're going to achieve it is ridiculous.

If you're referring to the Carbon Tax then I agree with you. Industry (which are the biggest polluters) will simply pass that tax on down to the consumer. So I don't believe for one minute it will get them to reduce their carbon footprint the way it is intended. And as for the more direct carbon taxes on the consumer, well I'm of the camp that thinks they'd have to be four times higher than Trudeau is proposing in order to change consumer behaviour in a meaningful way. And if they were that high, they'd put a huge brake on our economy, so that's not practical.

IMO regulation and enforcement of sensible, sound environmental laws would be a far better route to take, because it would produce better results.

I'm glad I scrolled down to the end of the FP article before carefully reading the whole thing. The fact that the author is a 'senior fellow at the Fraser Institute' tells me all I need to know about his opinions.

Which is EXACTLY the sort of attitude I was referring to in an earlier post. Just because someone has a different world view to yourself, doesn't mean they're always wrong about something. Over the years I've learned that life is never as "black and white" as that, because all world views usually have at least something in their favour - no matter how slight. When we choose which one to support, it's rarely because we see one view as being all wrong, and the other as being all right. We merely choose to support the view which MOST favours our own. But how can we decide which one to support, if we refuse to even consider any of the others?

[Hurtlander]

This is why I support pipelines over moving oil by rail.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/train-from ... -1.3986242

[Cactusflower]

This is why I support pipelines over moving oil by rail.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/train-from ... -1.3986242

This is why I support not moving diluted bitumen by any means of transportation.

[Hurtlander]

This is why I support pipelines over moving oil by rail.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/train-from ... -1.3986242

This is why I support not moving diluted bitumen by any means of transportation.

How come only pipeline expansion is being protested and not the increased use of moving oil by rail ?

[Cactusflower]

This is why I support not moving diluted bitumen by any means of transportation.

How come only pipeline expansion is being protested and not the increased use of moving oil by rail ?

Don't ask me; ask the protesters.

[Snman]

Only the pipeline expansion is being protested cuz that's all they are being paid to protest. imho

[Urban Cowboy]

This is why I support pipelines over moving oil by rail.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/train-from ... -1.3986242

This is why I support not moving diluted bitumen by any means of transportation.

As if the environment cares what type of oil gets spilled.

It's already been proven that bitumen is less of an issue than more refined lighter oil, yet I see no one protesting the transport of that.