Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberals And Trudeau - Performance Review!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So you believe that companies should be able to shirk their responsibilities simply by selling the affected asset? "We only bought the good stuff. The company that sold it to us, that doesn't exist anymore, is who you should be going after"

    Comment


    • Socialized risks/costs, privatized profits. It's the most common/unifying thread on C2E, from the development threads that fixate on shovels in the ground & cranes in the air to the circle-jerking ad hominem factory that is the political threads.
      Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stoneman View Post
        Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
        Nothing to worry about. Any spills will be cleaned up ASAP.

        B.C. woman still waiting for cleanup of pipeline oil leak on her property

        With the federal government expected to announce its decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on Tuesday, Janice Antoine, a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., wants to know when contamination from the pipeline discovered on her property five years ago will be cleaned up.


        "I, at this point, have no confidence, because in my field there was a spill that occurred and it's been, I believe, five years. We had promises that the contamination would be cleaned up, and the contaminated soil is still sitting there," said Janice Antoine.


        She's a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., where decades-old contamination was discovered on her property in 2014.


        CBC has obtained records from Trans Mountain and found there are seven known contamination sites along the route of the existing pipeline in B.C. and Alberta. According to Trans Mountain, five of the sites are under active remediation and two have remediation action plans under review with the NEB.


        Five of the contaminated sites are in B.C. and the other two are in Alberta.

        https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/c...onse-1.5176102
        Shame on Trudeau and the B.C. NDP government for doing nothing about this for the last 4 years.
        And shame on the company that spilled it over decades and the Conservative and BC Provincial Liberal governments that did nothing about it.

        Comment


        • The CBC report left out some important facts that were better covered in a report last year by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

          According to APTN, the Coldwater First Nation (which opposes the expansion project) is blocking access by Kinder Morgan (now Trans Mountain) to re-mediate decades old contamination the company itself discovered when doing routine maintenance on the existing line in 2014.

          More details here: https://aptnnews.ca/2018/04/24/trave...hey-sign-deal/

          Comment


          • I thought that these pipelines were safe and that any spills were promptly cleaned up? Silly me.

            This thing has been leaking for decades. How many others have been doing so as well that haven't ben discovered yet?

            It's like the old Esso station on Whyte that sat empty for years because the ground was so contaminated.

            Comment


            • I guess JT is asking Trump for help, getting the two men out of jail in China, China is ignoring JT
              Animals are my passion.

              Comment


              • Well, well, well...

                We waited for ages for Scheer to come up with a better plan than the Liberals and he comes up with a carbon tax.

                Scheer acknowledges feds would put price on carbon under his plan to cap big emitters https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politi...ters-1.4477531
                Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                Comment


                • Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
                  Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

                  Comment


                  • It is still a carbon tax.

                    It is still a tax on industry and that trickles down to the consumer.

                    If you charge the refineries millions in carbon taxes, don't expect cheaper prices at the pumps.
                    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-06-2019, 02:07 PM.
                    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by envaneo View Post
                      Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
                      Exactly. Right now, .we pay a carbon tax for heating our houses, and we still get taxed on everything else..
                      Well I guess it's up to the election in Oct, frankly I'm not enamoured with any of them
                      Listening to Singh today, he's totally out to lunch..
                      Animals are my passion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by envaneo View Post
                        Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
                        Yeah, because the energy companies will TOTALLY eat the cost out of the goodness of their hearts.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by envaneo View Post
                          Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
                          So are you saying that the world is right to be trying to prevent Alberta’s oil exports and maybe even taxing our oil (tariffs etc) as we are the producer and that the consumers in their own countries shouldn’t face taxes to reduce their demand for our oil?

                          Like raising the minimum wage, the producer, say a restaurant producing meals faces higher costs. Most consumers don’t have to eat out but those that do, have to pay higher prices.

                          Apparently whether demand falls when costs increase depends on the party and what cost increase they are pushing and it has nothing to do with what those foolish economists mistakenly think results from the supply-demand curves and elasticity.
                          Last edited by KC; 23-06-2019, 06:26 PM.

                          Comment


                          • To me it seems like both liberal and conservative climate plans are flawed. If you are concerned about climate you should criticize both, if concerns is political scoring, that’s another story.

                            what a liberal carbon tax approach does is a one-off shifting the demand lower and so as the supply-demand theory says the supply will come lower to the new lowered demand level. The problem here is that to meet the Paris agreements levels of reduction in GHG emissions, you have to significantly raise the carbon tax (to significantly lower energy consumption) and liberals have avoided that decision (see post #3818 in this thread).

                            Adding to the problem is the fact that external factors might derail the policy intention. In another thread, I posted the annual energy report from BP that showed in 2018 due to extreme hot and cold days, globally (not in Canada specifically) energy consumption grew as households needed more cooling and heating.

                            Media coverage of Scheer climate plan, to extent I had time to explore, mostly dwell on the fact he is proposing a carbon pricing scheme, without calling it tax. Also following the poll results that suggested Canadian are concerned about climate change but shy away from paying the cost, most report suggest Scheer policy is designed to cater to those concerns with non-transparent pricing mechanism. Also the policy lacks some key details which apparently will be released later, such as the actual thresholds for emissions levels and prices.

                            However, what seems interesting in Scheer’s policy, IMO, is linking the carbon cost to investment in research and tools to reduce emissions in future. In contrast to the one-off effect of a carbon tax, such an approach has the potential to advance the technologies needed to address climate change and provide incentives for Canadian companies to take a lead on the global stage in that regard. Of course, execution of the policy is important but I think there is a promise there.

                            Comment


                            • Research and tools to reduce emissions in the future? Like the highly touted carbon capture that isn't even a blip in emission reduction?

                              It's just a way of kicking the can down the road and continuing to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "Don't worry, those folks in the future will solve it for us".

                              You want to reduce emissions? Reduce what's emitting.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                                Research and tools to reduce emissions in the future? Like the highly touted carbon capture that isn't even a blip in emission reduction?

                                It's just a way of kicking the can down the road and continuing to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "Don't worry, those folks in the future will solve it for us".

                                You want to reduce emissions? Reduce what's emitting.
                                Carbon capture has made great advances.

                                What I find interesting is how people don’t want to talk about either nuclear or carbon capture. They regularly spew comments that climate change is real and that the predictions are valid but then get all airy fairy about how we need to respond.

                                The idea that we can tear down landfill and re-mine, re-manufacture, replace and rebuild everything (vehicles, homes, factories, transport infrastructure, etc.) and not initially make matters far worse through bringing-forward massive amounts of production is nonsense. Then that we can just build out solar and wind to replace coal and natural gas seems impossible. So if we keep natural gas in the mix we need carbon capture as natural gas isn’t much better than oil.

                                So how do we eliminate most fossil fuel usage and mitigate its use where it is essentially unavoidable? Right now that would have to be through carbon capture and nuclear.

                                Climate change experts say nuclear is simply necessary and unavoidable. So if that’s the case then to pretend that we don’t need to ramp up nuclear is no different behaviour than we see global warming deniers engaging in.


                                James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'
                                The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam.
                                So what would he do? By Decca Aitkenhead
                                Decca Aitkenhead
                                Sat 1 Mar 2008

                                For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his.


                                “More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong.”

                                “The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.”


                                https://www.theguardian.com/theguard....climatechange


                                To fight climate change, nuclear power is a must

                                https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d08_story.html



                                Prof. James Lovelock in his 100th Year - Gaia discussion for #CCLS2019 - YouTube

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCG04PRYqAw
                                Last edited by KC; 24-06-2019, 05:54 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X