Discussions

I think you're being nieve to the fact there was never going to be an LNG industry in BC. Christy Clark promised the moon as the liberal leader. Petronas wasn't overly delayed. Market conditions for LNG changed drastically over the years. It wasn't feasible to ship it across the ocean and make a decent ROI.  
 
Building the LNG plant wouldn't have created a vast amount of meaningful jobs once it was built. Permanent full time jobs would be well under 100.  
 
As for pipelines most people are clueless, as to just how fragile the pacific coast can be. In the event of any major spill, it would devastate all of BC. There have been many small spills and has taken over 72 hours for a response.  
 
A tanker that's and entirely different level. Small vessels that have capsized have already done major damage to many communities fishing grounds. It's not about the money for BC it's to protect the oceans. Time and time again the ball has been dropped, and govts said they'd be ready.  
 
Pipeline that crude with XL and keep it out of our waters!  
 
Edited by westcoasterbc, 2017-07-31 02:11:52

Problem is this ship has a maximum capability of 2.1M ice. The ice thickness of the passages is 2-3M with some areas 4M. It would still need to follow a top-class nuclear icebreaker to have any viability.

The LNG plant would have off set carbon emmisions from upwards of 27 asian coal plants.

I do care about the environment. If the folks really cared then why do they not oppose farm salmon. I have signed a petition to stop this. These farms are killing the wild salmon along with the jobs that go with it. I agree and have signed this. I go out of my way to ensure we only buy wild caught salmon.  
https://www.change.org/p/costco-safeway-loblaws-please-stop-selling-diseased-farm-salmon

The rest of the world goes forward and we still can't get anything done in Canada. Here is one example.  
http://www.ep.total.com/en/expertises/liquefied-natural-gas/logistics-yamal-lng-construction-truly-impressive-feat  
 
If LNG can't be shipped thru ice then why can't we ship thru Churchill  
 
http://www.tradewindsnews.com/gas/1345099/first-arc7-called-home-as-yamal-lng-shifts-into-start-up-mode

Coal generates 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, the oilsands about 0.1 percent. Further, oil sands emissions are only slightly higher than other forms of crude, so replacing the world’s coal consumption with Canadian oil and natural gas would dramatically decrease global GHG emissions.  
 
http://boereport.com/2017/10/23/bc-happy-to-export-us-coal-but-not-canadian-petroleum-thats-bad-for-the-environment-and-for-canada/

I don't know anything about LNG, so please don't quote me and tear my head off...but it doesn't seem like anything I'd park my RRSP in. I remember in the 80's early 90's it was the next big thing, MB Hydro buys Centra Gas as it bets on a natural gas future. Then BOOM the bottom falls out. Seems to happen a lot with Natural gas.  
 
On the other hand if it was about the profitability what does the government care if these companies want to invest in the infrastructure? It's not going to cost them money.  
 
Unless a persons talking about Solar or cool alternatives to fossil fuels, I usually check out of the conversation when they start talking about Carbon Emissions. If you have cancer caused by smoking you don't switch to light cigarettes you quit smoking. If you care about carbon emissions (which I don't) you stop emitting carbon.

Canada is still falling further and further behind. It makes no scene to me to be in a race that no one else is in. There are countless articles where the rest of the world is going forward with exploration and production of natural gas and we still cannot build anything. Canada is not open for business. I fear that pushing Justin's agenda on the rest of the world will severely hurt the people of Canada. I for one like the standard of living in Canada and prefer not to go backwards.  
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-signs-gas-pipeline-project-deal-with-china/

http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2017/11/did-china-just-blow-bcs-lng-hopes-out-water/

Oil is dead we need to move on to solar and wind. Electric Cars

Sometimes survival of the human species becomes more important than the economy. And while you may not recognise that capitalism is quickly eroding the human race's capacity to sustain itself, I think the answer to your problem is that you simply don't understand that the planet's ability to sustain an exponentially growing population means that your economic assessment isn't exactly informed. Whether you want to believe it or not, the carbon economy is dead. While it may be lucrative in terms of money it can generate, it may be time for you to acknowledge that there may be other energy sources that need to happen. It all comes down to priorities, and how much you care about your children's right to live the same kind of life that you had.  
 
Most people don't understand the idea of a carbon cycle. The fossil fuels that we are digging up and burning are a source of carbon that have not been a part of earth's atmosphere for millions to billions of years. Pumping it up and burning it means that it is here to stay (in the atmosphere). And while we have been doing this for over a hundred years now, it has now reached a tipping point. You can't keep bringing it to the atmosphere with no mechanism to put it back in equal amounts. That's why it is so important to move off of this fuel and to harness energy from sustainable sources that introduce no net gain of carbon.  
 
Many people think of this situation as one in which they argue to "save the planet". The truth is, that the planet doesn't care and it will survive just fine (over the long term). The real question is whether the human species will be able to exist for a period beyond the next 100 to 200 years. And if you don't care because your priorities are only on the economy and you won't be around to feel the consequences, there is another argument that says that we have an obligation to leave behind a planet that can support future generations. Look at population growth curves, and understand that an increasing population means that carbon consumption is exponential and that the moment of crisis is really not that far ahead. We are seeing it now with massive cities getting flooded, more intense storms, the extinction of species of animals and plants of unprecedented amount.  
 
At what point is economic growth more important than survival? And I know some people will roll their eyes but I think that is simply another case of wilfully ignoring what is happening around you, or not understanding the extent, and the speed of, the way things are changing.

How Burning Fossil Fuels Leads to Climate Change  
 
 
 

I think the discussion on Global Warming really comes down to a discussion about values.  
 
On one hand, maybe you are someone who doesn't care what happens beyond the next 50 years because you may already be 50 years old and won't be around to be affected by it. Maybe your priorities are in living the best life that you can possibly live, and that means making as much money as possible and living the highest quality of life that you can. In this case, you value only what makes your life better. In that case, fossil fuels are a quick and easy way to make the economy work in your favour, and you don't care about the consequences of this on future generations. Maybe you don't have kids, and don't care about how your values collide with the values held by others.  
 
On the other hand, maybe you are someone who places higher value in ensuring that future generations have the right to live on a planet that has a stable atmosphere, and that a broken economic model that values the generation of economic value today is a broken model, and especially when it will have a direct effect on your children's (or grandchildren's) ability to sustain the same life that you did. For many people, I think they value the idea that they want their children to have a better life than they did. Surely, if you look back you will see that our lives are much easier than those of our ancestors.  
 
So the real question on global warming is a question of values, and what you are prepared to sacrifice to ensure that future generations are entitled to the same quality of life that we, as a human population, live today.

Oil is not dead, and it never will be. We will always need it for plastics lubricants etc.  
 
And nothing we do in this country will ever have a measurable impact on climate change. We are far too small of a player on the world stage. As long as our idiot Prime Minister places a higher value on his image on the world stage than on the economy of his own country we are doomed to keep importing unethical oil at the expense of our jobs and economy.

to look beyond the "no oil/all oil" debate here.  
 
As children, we all had people to look after ourselves, including cleaning up our messes. One of the signs of maturity was our growing ability to clean up after ourselves.  
 
Same applies to us as a species. Why wouldn't we want to start keeping things a little better, by not continuing to strip and pollute our planet? We have the technology and the ability, but we keep insisting on filling our diapers because it's convenient.  
 
We all need to grow up.

JackAzz said "Oil is not dead, and it never will be. We will always need it for plastics lubricants etc.     And nothing we do in this country will ever have a measurable impact on climate change. We are far too small of a player on the world stage. As long as our idiot Prime Minister places a higher value on his image on the world stage than on the economy of his own country we are doomed to keep importing unethical oil at the expense of our jobs and economy. "

Your quote "Oil is not dead, and it never will be. We will always need it for plastics lubricants etc."  
 
Sure, that''''s fine. But that doesn''''t mean we keep burning oil for transportation and electricity when there are alternative options.  
 
Nobody expects that fossil fuel use will stop tomorrow, but a very large and significant of the use of this product can be eliminated almost immediately. The technology is there, and the economic potential is much larger focusing on renewables, than to pass some ridiculous notion that Canada is a small player on the world stage and has no influence. What you fail to mention is that on a per capita basis, Canadians are among the highest consumers and polluters using fossil fuels:  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita  
 
So yes, the buck stops HERE!!! Canada will always have a measurable impact on climate change, and having a government whose policies take the lead on organising for a global reduction and transition away from fossil fuel use is an action of LEADERSHIP, and not simply deciding to FOLLOW the rest because you can''''t see beyond your own daily needs. Again, this issue is mainly about ethics, and obviously some posters are unable to see beyond the impact on their own lives, and would rather follow the rest of the world in a march toward an inhabitable planet. One thing I will guarantee is that if you want to stay on your current path, that you will soon find yourself left behind.  
 
Edited by JoeSixpack, 2017-11-15 21:28:42

Wouldn't This Be An Amazing World To Live In (That Is Already Here)?  
 
The only reason you can't understand it, is because it hasn't quite hit you yet that this is how most of the world already lives:  
 
https://scroll.in/article/857703/does-india-need-to-shift-its-capital-from-smog-choked-delhi  
 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/health/delhi-pollution-equivalent-cigarettes-a-day/index.html

Thanks for posting the links about the smog conditions in India, saw the report on the news a few days ago and found it hard to believe. There are countries out there that are taking it seriously, and as much as some people dislike communist countries like China, that county is one of the leaders in the world to try and push the idea of a more earth friendly energy policy. Sometimes it takes liking in such conditions before people get serious.

I totally agree with you. When you live in Canada, one of the largest nations with a vast land mass and low relative population, many people often have a hard time relating to the world outside of their own bubble. Consider, for instance that India has a population density of nearly 1.3 BILLION people living in a land area nearly 1/3 the size of Canada and you will quickly come to the conclusion that something seriously needs to change. Recognizing that on a per capital basis, that Canadians are amongst the largest users of energy and fossil fuels, and that India is among the least, yet still has this apocolyptic smog as a result of fossil fuel use, will make you realize that Canada can and should do much more to mitigate their per capita responsibility to the global carbon crisis. Again, just take a look at the charts on energy consumption to see what each and every Canadian contributes to this global problem. The solution is to take responsibility for this situation and to build a future that we can all be proud of. When it comes down to species survival, borders don’t matter. Nor do borders matters when certain regions of the globe become uninhabitable, and mass migrations mean that certain populations will be forced to (at some point) occupy your space and share your back yard. We as Canadians have it pretty good here. I can’t think of a better place on the planet to live. But with global warming everyone is affected, and a little bit of recognition to the problem will mean that your quality of life here can be guaranteed a little more in the longer term.  
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita  
 
Total energy used per capital per annum:  
 
Canadian: 7380  
 
vs.  
 
Indian: 567  
 
Edited by Kirmit, 2017-11-16 01:14:10

An interesting thing that most people don’t realize which has been happening in many areas of the globe is something called cloud seeding.  
 
Give it a read:  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-s-cloud-seeding-pilots-see-2nd-busiest-year-in-20-years-1.2744786  
 
http://www.weathermodification.com/projects.php?id=6  
 
and then ask yourself if this type of control over weather and climate has been taking place over decades, then what is the REAL situation like (if this was never done). Surely, insurance companies don’t spend money unnecessarily if this type of unusual strategy didn’t work in their favour.

First, thanks to all for keeping this civil, I do realize these topics can easily get out of hand. I think Bill went a little overboard and may have hurt his reputation. Again I am on board for reducing carbon emissions, just not on board with these other countries not doing their part while killing the Canadian economy. I keep wanting to discuss this because I truly believe there are outside forces holding us back like the Tides Organization and where they get their money from.  
 
We all want to make the world a better place "BUT" when we can't even participate that’s a problem. We can’t sell natural gas to China but we can sell coal.  
Last year, 26 million tonnes of metallurgical coal and 6.6 million tonnes of thermal coal moved through the Port of Vancouver. In 2016, more thermal coal than metallurgical coal moved through Ridley Terminals.  
 
IF we truly believed in what we are doing then coal exports would be shutdown immediately

Put it this way, if everybody thinks that Canada has no effect on carbon emissions, and blames the problem on areas like China and India, then your assessment of the situation is completely wrong. India, for instance has probably somewhere around 15% of the world's population. Their per capita consumption is only 7% of what a Canadian's is (which means that a typical Canadian uses 13x more energy and fossil fuels than a typical Indian. And if you really look at the situation, India and China are areas where we have allowed our businesses to source products manufactured from these areas. So while our air might seem (relatively) clean, our carbon footprint is likely much much larger (because we leave our pollution there because the goods are made there). To think that Canadians have no impact on global warming is nonsense. Our impact is huge, and most of the rest of the planet pays for it. It is no surprise that wealthy chinese are looking to buy up properties in Canada to get out of their gas chamber. The quality of life, already, is very poor in these countries with very low wages that barely put food in their bellies. It's not them, it's us.  
 
What many people also don't understand is that our oceans (which cover nearly 2/3) of our planet to an average depth of 4 km deep is what has been buffering the effects from climate change over the last 100 years. Now, we are seeing a change in the properties of these waters. Atmospheric CO2 (from our carbon pollution) has been interacting with ocean waters for a long time. What ends up happening is that the carbon dioxide reacts with ocean water to form carbonic acid (a mild acid). This acid then decreases the pH of ocean water, which has the effect of dissolving calcium based organisms (shell based organisms and coral reefs). The destruction of habitat at the lower end of the food chain has a significant effect throughout the entire chain.  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification  
 
The other thing that oceans do is to hold the energy in the form of heat as a kind of buffer. Most people can't imagine how much water is really held in the oceans. Just think about 2/3 of the surface of the planet, on average 4 km deep!!! Then think of how much energy is required to boil a pot of water on your stove (vs. heating that same volume of air). Water has very high heat capacity, and so it is no surprise that when heat energy is released from water into atmospheric, that it can have severe and immediate disruptions in what we know as weather. It does this because air, by comparison, is much easier to heat up (has less heat capacity). This is why severe and large hurricanes are becoming more and more of the norm, or why severe rain or snow events are also on average becoming more common. The oceans contain vast amounts of water which are a source of energy/fuel, and huge amounts of energy can be released from water into air (a medium which is much less stable).  
 
Time to rethink business as usual. It blows my mind that large coastal cities are getting flooded out and destroyed, and there seems to be no recognition to the real costs of those events. Look at the flooding in Houston, look at the flooding of New Orleans.  
 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=houston+flooding&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=mo8i5i9dpOAy1M%253A%252C_8OJ1GrquFWlqM%252C_&usg=__qupYGXmsRo9cZbtJz-f_87neSBk%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkj9Wb58PXAhVEw4MKHQ2aDvAQ9QEIWjAF#imgdii=w10eBsTzS5pTMM:&imgrc=mo8i5i9dpOAy1M:

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nations-left-empty-handed-as-environmentalist-pressure-kills-b-c-energy-projects  
 
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/vivian-krause-the-cash-pipeline-opposing-canadian-oil-pipelines

So, usually when you want an informed position you look to gather the facts. And a part of fact assessment is looking at the source of the information. So yes, I imagine there are certain indigenous groups that have chosen to seek the financial opportunities of a pipeline, but there are also just as many other groups that have a completely different position.  
 
I'm not sure I see the point of the articles you have pointed out. Both articles are sourced from the Financial Post. The Financial Post is strictly a business media outlet that seeks to provide arguments in favour of corporate interests. Just because you find a few groups that see an unsustainable opportunity doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of what is being introduced into the conversation, but I would love to engage your perspective on this (maybe I am missing something here). Please do explain.  
 
The other side to this is that (in my opinion) for every pro pipeline article that you read about in the Financial Post, I could likely source hundreds of other articles from indigenous groups that have the opposite position. Personally, I don't think it's a small group of activists. Pipeline construction is in direct conflict to a way of life for most indigenous peoples, who rely on the land to sustain a way of life.  
 
Truth be told, from my perspective, I do not believe that the cause of poverty from first nations people has anything to do with not having pipeline revenue through their territories. I would argue that the real cause of their poverty has more to do with the government, and an Indian Act that was designed to keep them in poverty through policies that work to prevent economic development within their communities.  
 
If you consider what is being said in this article, I think most people would be shocked:  
 
No Title To Land =: No Bank To Secure A Business Loan =: No Economic Development ...  
 
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/08/19/private_property_on_reserves_5_myths.html  
 
There is a reason why native communities have lived in poverty for so long, and it has something to do with the true intentions behind the Indian Act, residential schools, strategies of assimilation, etc.  
 
Again, please do explain your articles from the Financial Post. I don''t think I am getting the point.  
 
Edited by JoeSixpack, 2017-11-16 14:52:10

builds wind turbines for hydro power they sell more to the usa then canada when harper was p.m. but wanted oil sent to states now trudeau in hes stil pushing for oil were is the investment for these Canadian companies that are building the renewable energy

think of the jobs that would be created if the economy were shifted to implement the energy infrastructure systems of the future. Elon Musk has completely transformed huge segments of the economy, from replacing NASA operations with Space X, Hyperloop, Tesla Motors, Electric Semis, Powerwall, 5 Billion Dollar Solar Factory, Solar City, Underground Transportation, Paypal, etc. etc. It amazes me the vision that he has taken on, and the vision is about to bring down the establishment if they refuse to keep pace.  
 
If anybody doesn't think that fundamental changes are already rapidly underway, you don't understand the economy. Thinking that somehow we should build polluting pipelines in a dinosaur industry is a fools game, because that path ended long ago. There is a reason why pipelines are not getting built. The costs (economic and social) are too high, and there is no future. Demand that your governments divest from fossil fuel interests and subsidies, and put efforts into building a carbon free future. It's not that far away, and perhaps it is mostly already here. Car companies, lead by Tesla Motors, will be bringing out 100% electric vehicles within the next few years, and this is already a game changer to the fossil fuel industry. The carbon economy is dead, so make sure you pull your investments out before you get caught with massive losses to your life savings.  
 
In the month leading up to the collapse in the price of oil from the high of $100+ per barrel, the heirs to the Rockerfeller fortune divested all of their assets from the oil and gas sector. Do you think it was coincidental that a family that built their fortunes on oil and gas saw that the end of oil was underway?  
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/22/rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change

CDN said "http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nations-left-empty-handed-as-environmentalist-pressure-kills-b-c-energy-projects     http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/vivian-krause-the-cash-pipeline-opposing-canadian-oil-pipelines "

And while pipelines are being discussed, we have this headlined in today’s news on a brand new pipeline:  
 
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline Leaks 795,000 Litres Of Crude Oil In South Dakota  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/indigenous/transcanada-keystone-pipeline-leak-south-dakota-1.4406159

Now just imagine a 795,000 litre spill in BCs pristine coast. If an oil tanker were to have an accident, this spill would be much, much worse. Are the people of BC to accept all the risk to their territory for the inevitable oil spill, so that a private and likely mostly foreign owned oil and gas company, can make their billions?

Interesting, a pipeline leaks briefly until it's failsafe mechanisms trigger a shutdown. 795,000 sounds like a lot, but it's the equivalent of less than 7 rail car tanks. A small cleanup, but also a showcase of pipeline safety.  
But activists and protestors will be all over this, like any other small pipeline leak, blowing the whole thing out of proportion.  
 
Meanwhile railcar derailments are quite common, thousands of litres of oil gets spilled, no one says anything. Railcars carrying 8 million litres smashes and explodes into 200foot fireballs incinerating an entire town and 47 people.. no oil protestors say much of anything, no picketing of railways.  
 
Seems like the anti-oil movement is like a hive mind, with tunnel vision on pipelines.  
The only thing that slowing down pipeline development will accomplish is more oil will travel on rail, gas will cost a little more, and more oil demand will afforded to middle east producers.  
 
Oil demand will drop once renewables and electric cars become mainstream, harming the economy won't help the transition if people don't have as much disposable income as before to purchase new vehicles or outfit their homes with solar panels.