Changing the Narrative on Alberta’s Oil Sands
Imagine that a Canadian government researcher discovered a safe and inexpensive cancer vaccine. Naturally, the government of Canada would try to get it approved for use in the United States. The health and financial benefits to Americans and Canadians would be immense, which they would tout in their promotion of the discovery.
Inevitably, some would oppose the anti-cancer drug on the nonsensical grounds that all vaccines are dangerous. They would organize protests and letter-writing campaigns in an attempt to derail acceptance of the drug. They would recruit media to trumpet the dangers of the vaccine, ignoring its benefits.
If the anti-vaccine groups garnered significant support, the government of Canada would then have to decide: would they adjust their marketing efforts to properly refute the claims of loud but misinformed activists, or would they ignore the main issue driving the anti-vaccine campaign in the hopes of getting the drug approved anyways?
No responsible government would choose the second option.
They would direct their scientists to solidly refute the alarmists, arranging TV and radio interviews, writing articles, and convening open hearings with experts so that the public and media would hear how weak the evidence was on the anti-vaccine side.
The last thing the government would do is encourage the idea that vaccinations were dangerous.
Yet the government of Canada is following exactly the opposite of this commonsense approach when it comes to their promotion of the crucially important Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries in the United States. Rather than adjust their strategy to properly address the main reason for opposition to the pipeline — the feared impact of oil sands expansion on climate change — the government mostly ignores the issue, choosing instead to promote the project in exactly the same way they did before President Barack Obama rejected the pipeline in 2012.
There are a number of factors that suggest another failure is likely. Although the U.S. State Department draft report on Keystone XL released last week came to generally supportive conclusions — as did their report in 2011 – Secretary of State John Kerry is a well-known climate activist, and it is he who must approve the project before the file goes to Obama. In contrast to 2011 when then-Secretary Hilary Clinton came out in support of the pipeline even before her department had approved the project, Kerry has remained non-committal.
That Kerry used his first major address as secretary to make an urgent call for strong action on climate change should seriously concern XL boosters.
You flat earthers WILL go after 1st world countries but you stay mute on third world countries that can acutally chew their air. Until you go after those people we WILL shut you down.
You flat earthers WILL go after 1st world countries but you stay mute on third world countries that can acutally chew their air. Until you go after those people we WILL shut you down.
<a href="http://1389blog.com/2012/01/11/why-is-tides-foundation-usa-trying-to-shut-down-canadas-oil-sands-industry/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://1389blog.com/2012/01/11/why-is-tides-foundation-usa-trying-to-shut-down-canadas-oil-sands-industry/</a>
<a href="http://1389blog.com/2012/01/11/why-is-tides-foundation-usa-trying-to-shut-down-canadas-oil-sands-industry/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://1389blog.com/2012/01/11/why-is-tides-foundation-usa-trying-to-shut-down-canadas-oil-sands-industry/</a>
If Canada ever shelves its oil sands its economy will be sorely hurt. Canada does not need our pipeline. Canada is currently considering moving it by pipeline to both coasts. To the West Coast for export and East Coast for refining. Another idea is to move it by rail in either direction or to build a new rail line to Alaska and ship the oil out of Valdez. If the pipeline is turned down Canada must move fast to protect its own interests.
In the US, the pipeline will also move Bakken oil. Today more oil is moved by rail out of the Bakken than... (show more)
If Canada ever shelves its oil sands its economy will be sorely hurt. Canada does not need our pipeline. Canada is currently considering moving it by pipeline to both coasts. To the West Coast for export and East Coast for refining. Another idea is to move it by rail in either direction or to build a new rail line to Alaska and ship the oil out of Valdez. If the pipeline is turned down Canada must move fast to protect its own interests.
In the US, the pipeline will also move Bakken oil. Today more oil is moved by rail out of the Bakken than by pipeline. Railroads can move all of it given increases in tank car manufacturing and rail line extensions. New contracts fro Bakken oil have been signed for refineries in NJ and PA. I see 100 car unit trains now going through my town in Montana on the way to Seattle, WA refineries.
So if the pipeline is not built there are workarounds. (show less)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy</a>
There's no need for enemies, with friends like the Precautionary Principle (espousing the same concepts as were formerly called "the Lalonde Doctrine" in Canada and "Vorsorgeprinzip" in Germany during the '30's)?
There's no need for enemies, with friends like the Precautionary Principle (espousing the same concepts as were formerly called "the Lalonde Doctrine" in Canada and "Vorsorgeprinzip" in Germany during the '30's)?
It is absolutely untrue as sinz54 tries to claim that the majority of scientific evidence supports AGW. Certainly, scientific evidence acknowledges climate change, for such has been the reality in our universe since the planet first existed, with long phases of warmth and cold - all caused naturally and primarily by the sun.
As for the oil sands and their extraction and shipment, they are no more causal of 'global warming' than the extraction and shipment... (show more)
It is absolutely untrue as sinz54 tries to claim that the majority of scientific evidence supports AGW. Certainly, scientific evidence acknowledges climate change, for such has been the reality in our universe since the planet first existed, with long phases of warmth and cold - all caused naturally and primarily by the sun.
As for the oil sands and their extraction and shipment, they are no more causal of 'global warming' than the extraction and shipment of other fossil fuels - and if anyone thinks that the Canadian government will allow its economy to sink to the level of that of the US because it fails to enable current economic development - then they are 'stuck on stupid'.
Furthermore, (show less)
That argument is in direct opposition to the national science academies of over twenty nations including our own, plus (in this country alone) NOAA, NASA Goddard, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, plus the Royal Society in Britain.
All these scientific bodies accept that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.
Claiming that all these scientists worldwide are wrong and only you are right, is a guaranteed losing argument.
Of course, there are still a VERY few scientists who don't accept AGW. Just like there are still a VERY few scientists who don't accept evolutionary biology. ... (show more)
That argument is in direct opposition to the national science academies of over twenty nations including our own, plus (in this country alone) NOAA, NASA Goddard, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, plus the Royal Society in Britain.
All these scientific bodies accept that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.
Claiming that all these scientists worldwide are wrong and only you are right, is a guaranteed losing argument.
Of course, there are still a VERY few scientists who don't accept AGW. Just like there are still a VERY few scientists who don't accept evolutionary biology. But it's clear that too many conservatives have chosen to reject all those thousands of other scientists and go with these few, ONLY because these few are telling them what they want to hear.
As far as the scientific community is concerned, *whether* global warming is occurring is no longer in doubt. The real issue is what to do about it. That is what we should be addressing.
And rejecting mainstream science is not the way to win over new voters.
(show less)
That is misleading. How many of these groups polled their members and showed that a majority of them actually agree with the science academy statements?
ZERO
So, the statements from these groups are justr the statements of carefully selected members of the politically correct executive of these groups, not the rank and file scientists.
That is misleading. How many of these groups polled their members and showed that a majority of them actually agree with the science academy statements?
ZERO
So, the statements from these groups are justr the statements of carefully selected members of the politically correct executive of these groups, not the rank and file scientists.
Go read the peer-reviewed literature in journals of climatology. The view is 99.5% unanimous that AGW is real.
The skeptics don't even bother to publish in peer-reviewed journals. They write BLOGS.
Go read the peer-reviewed literature in journals of climatology. The view is 99.5% unanimous that AGW is real.
The skeptics don't even bother to publish in peer-reviewed journals. They write BLOGS.
You flat earthers WILL go after 1st world countries but you stay mute on third world countries that can acutally chew their air. Until you go after those people we WILL shut you down.
You flat earthers WILL go after 1st world countries but you stay mute on third world countries that can acutally chew their air. Until you go after those people we WILL shut you down.
Second, if you are referring to Chinese coming to work in Canada as 'settling' and 'colonizing' Canadian territory, that's impossible. Canada has very clear and firm immigration policies. And third, immigrants to Canada have to abide by Canadian laws and education and culture. So, your dire threats are empty.
Second, if you are referring to Chinese coming to work in Canada as 'settling' and 'colonizing' Canadian territory, that's impossible. Canada has very clear and firm immigration policies. And third, immigrants to Canada have to abide by Canadian laws and education and culture. So, your dire threats are empty.
Immigration is a basic reality of humans since their emergence and their loyalties are to their current home. They are Canadians.
Second, your comment about the Han is empty. All societies privilege themselves first and the Chinese have been isolated from external diversity for many years. That's breaking down. Your racist hostility to Chinese is equally empty.
As for China's economic rise, why shouldn't it move out of a peasant agricultural economy and into a modern industrial economy? Do you think this shouldn't take place?
Immigration is a basic reality of humans since their emergence and their loyalties are to their current home. They are Canadians.
Second, your comment about the Han is empty. All societies privilege themselves first and the Chinese have been isolated from external diversity for many years. That's breaking down. Your racist hostility to Chinese is equally empty.
As for China's economic rise, why shouldn't it move out of a peasant agricultural economy and into a modern industrial economy? Do you think this shouldn't take place?
Then, rather than insisting on integration and insisting that the law of the land is dominant, multiculturalism allows and encourages these newcomers to retain their old ways and even, to bring their old laws with them!
This has nothing to do with ethnicity; it has to do with the govt policy of cultural relativism or multiculturalism. That's a disaster anywhere.
Instead, immigrants must... (show more)
Then, rather than insisting on integration and insisting that the law of the land is dominant, multiculturalism allows and encourages these newcomers to retain their old ways and even, to bring their old laws with them!
This has nothing to do with ethnicity; it has to do with the govt policy of cultural relativism or multiculturalism. That's a disaster anywhere.
Instead, immigrants must assimilate and integrate; acknowledge the laws and values of the new land, educate their children in them and speak the new language. The Canadian immigration policy, newly rewritten, rejects the old isolationist multicultural balkanization and insists on Canadian values and integration. See also the excellent Australian Values Statement which every immigrant must sign, which insists on acceptance of Australian laws, values and language.
(show less)