Nothing worse than a poor sour winner

[oneoff]

The recent announcement on "go ahead" for two out of three pipelines has been greeted with protests (for ever approving any pipelines ????).

Excuse me...but the prime minister claims environmental concerns are fully addressed; the indigenous agenda has been addressed; and it will be good for the economy that arguably needs jobs and some projects to avoid slipping into a third world status. Oh yeah..he claims that carbon pricing (tax) is in place too; and that was a prequisite for any pipeline approval.

So what more short of removing every existing pipeline; sealing over tar sands forever; and forbidding anyone to ever burn another lump of coal till even after hell freezes over.

Had to get that one in about hell freezes over because there are indeed people who would have criminal charges laid for that comment about the unproven condition some refer to as "hell".

The main point being that "the only thing that would please certain people if if nothing had EVER been done"

[perfecho]

Some of it is follow the money....US oil shippers and rail road owners....not all are environmentalists...
called free enterprise.....

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If one were to follow the Money. Maybe these paid protesters don't get paid if The pipeline gets built or they stand to lose big bonuses

[oneoff]

I'd bet on the four or so reasons the prime minister gave for it being so right to authorize a couple of pipeline projects. Except in the back of his mind he knew it was time to throw a small bone as he should know a country can't forever finance itself through billions of deficit financing and declining business opportunities that actually self propel themselves.

So maybe it is ...follow some money trail....

Still doesn't explain the protests over his move, unless one issue agendas can consume those supposed former supporters.

[Guest]

well i have no use for him , but good for him !!! at least he realizes we need to make shit happen to make money . the old boy wouldn't have give a shit one way or the other, back in the day . i also heard him tell that french mayor this summer , to get used to it because that pipeline was going to the east coast also

[chuckChuck]

I know most of the Conservative hardliners will never give Trudeau credit for anything. But consider the politics of approving the Kinder Morgan transmountain pipeline expansion. This goes through one of the most environmentalist friendly areas in Canada. This will be a battle.

Keystone XL will likely go through as well.

Most Canadians don't realize how important resource extraction is to the economies of western Canada. The oil producing provinces are in trouble untill the price of energy goes up again. The world price is set beyond the control of Canadians. We let ourselves get too dependent on a resource that goes way up and way down in price. Booms are always followed by busts. This is a resource that is finite. We need a more diverse economy with more value added.


That being said we are going to transition to a low carbon future regardless.

Saskatchewan has negotiated a deal with the feds to burn coal longer than 2030. In exchange Wall will invest heavily in wind, solar, conversions to gas and maybe some carbon capture and storage (CCS). Of the choices wind and solar are cheaper than CCS.

Wall loves to pit the west against the east as it is good politics for his base.

The carbon tax issue will be lost because Wall can do what he wants with the revenue as long as he reduces carbon emissions. Hard to argue against a price on carbon when Saskatchewan will get the revenue to spend how it wants.

[oneoff]

The list of possible "tax" candidates is infinite. And in the eyes of those who can impose a "tax" for the sake of collecting more money there are all sorts of excuses for doing what will be done.

There are also other ways of accomplishing goals that to do it other than extracting money that will be redistributed or wasted or spent arbitrarily by those who employ the tax collectors.

So soon we forget that the prime minister attempted to sell his plan as anything but a tax; and now even in chucks response it is acknowledged as a "carbon tax issue". Only secondarily does it address reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Not paving over and covering prime black dirt outside Regina should be a part of changing the nitrogen to oxygen to CO2 ratios too. Showing leadership by using conference calls and extended holidays for personal enjoyment (and the accompanying players) is what it is.

We were all on our way to transitioning to alternatives; and it won't be completed by 2030; and it won't be without fossil fuels; and it should have included uranium and nuclear and sensible use of coal with wind and solar fitting in where appropriate and feasible. And it involves changing habits and less procreation and staying home and reusing what is thrown away and created as coproduction and vented or combusted wastefully. It will just cost more...except for those who suffer and do without because money is a object and there is no way to make everyone better off than those who are paying all the taxes in the first place.

There is no evidence that any of those factors are recognized as a part of the mix that this POPULAR CRUSADE IS not addressing at the same time as a tax is being created in this country that is being punished for arguably small influences on any front.

Who has any confidence that our leaders have the courage to know anything about practicality and knows the difference between reality and their utopia that will never materialize as expected.