Evil Americans Still Ruin the World for Petrodollars

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pretty ridiculous article unfortunately.

Tsk. When we Euros patronisingly condemned the US of Bush, where were the Canadians to stand up for their southern neighbours, eh?
Yet, here you, Rabbit and others are, standing up for the evil empire to your north.


With that Nobel prize winning Marxist in the Oval Office we can't possibly scold the Yanks. (For now..)
So the Canucks will have to stand in. Bring down that neo-liberal, neo-colonial fascist Harper, says I!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...pt-petro-state

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, Canada's record on carbon emissions is disgraceful, shameful, loathsome etc. The tar sands of northern Alberta are an international scandal. But the problem is not in a former Prius of a country turning into a Hummer. Canada's dilemma is much more interesting that that. It is the decline of a democracy (partly as its media died, thank you Conrad Black) and the descent of a nation into a political stasis, and it could happen to any country that doesn't mind the political store. What takes place when a nation can't decide on a government and lets a rightwing minority, quivering with hate, have just enough power?


Catastrophe, that's what.


Countries supposedly get the government they deserve. I'm not sure Canada deserved Harper. Canadians can agree with Judge Monbiot's assessment but ask the court to take into account our previous, as Rumpole would say.


First, no one disagrees more with Harper's refusal to slow climate change than Canadian voters. Indeed, more than three-quarters of Canadians say they are embarrassed that Canada hasn't taken an international lead on the issue, a recent poll revealed.


Even Albertans – home of the tar sands because they need the money and who is to say them nay – agree on this. Quebeckers, the sophisticates of the nation, are 86% in favour of Canada taking action. Toronto, while suffering economically, is maniacally devoted to hemp, bicycling and meticulous recycling rules. We hate green garbage incompetents. We love the Kyoto protocol, we want to prostrate ourselves in Copenhagen next month, but until we make our mind up about whether to make Michael Ignatieff prime minister, we can't.
May I humbly beg for patience with my country, which is stuck like a beaver in a dam of its own making.


Second, Canadians are still smart and decent. Only the government hews to the party line. On every issue, from abortion rights to rendition for torture to fair treatment of non-white citizens who had the temerity to take a holiday and can't come home because they lost weight and don't quite look like their passport photo, Harper is determined to turn Canada into America-lite. He doesn't mean the America of Obama. He means the America of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, with its private affluence and public squalor.

American travellers used to shove a Canadian flag on their backpack for better treatment overseas. I'm sorry that the reverse has happened and Canadians now switch the conversation to Obama as quickly as possibly before the subject of clubbing seals arises.
We have shamed our better natures. But we Canadians will rid ourselves of Harper and rise again to be the decent and intelligent nation you Brits once patronised with such delight.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tsk. When we Euros patronisingly condemned the US of Bush, where were the Canadians to stand up for their southern neighbours, eh?
Yet, here you, Rabbit and others are, standing up for the evil empire to your north.


With that Nobel prize winning Marxist in the Oval Office we can't possibly scold the Yanks. (For now..)
So the Canucks will have to stand in. Bring down that neo-liberal, neo-colonial fascist Harper, says I!

I might be a tad more convinced if such articles actually appeared in Canadian papers, not as condescending screeds in leftist British papers. And they didn't include such ridiculous statements as "The tar sands of northern Alberta are an international scandal."

Also, didn't Canada already re-elect Harper once? That's the only poll that matters. Not one opinion poll, and certainly not a couple leftist enviros ranting in a British paper, which is everything you've provided so far.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I might be a tad more convinced if such articles actually appeared in Canadian papers

This week in Canada's tamest paper, the Globe and Mail:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dear citizens of Canada,


Like most of the world's people, I have always held your nation in high regard. Yours is one of the best-loved countries on Earth, renowned for being friendly, peaceful and responsible. Your government is now burning this goodwill.


After abandoning the commitments the previous government made under the Kyoto Protocol, ensuring that Canada will be the only signatory to wildly miss its targets, the Harper administration is now sabotaging the climate talks that will culminate in Copenhagen next month.
During the negotiations in Bangkok in October, developing nations were so dismayed by Canada's wrecking tactics that most of them walked out while your officials were speaking. In Barcelona this month, non-governmental organizations attending the talks presented Canada with their Fossil of the Week award: Yours was the country that had done the most to prevent an agreement from being reached.


The excuses made by the Canadian government for its filibustering and obstruction become more feeble by the day. As I understand his current position, your Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, will not contribute to an international treaty until his government knows what its domestic policies will be, and he will not formulate its domestic policies until there's an international treaty. He appears to be seeking to delay and weaken any international agreement, while claiming that there is no point in setting strong national targets if the rest of the world isn't pulling its weight.
Canada's tactics have caused shock and revulsion everywhere. They are dragging your good name through the mud. Stephen Harper and Jim Prentice threaten to do as much damage to your international standing as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to that of the United States.
No one who has followed this process has any doubt about which interests the government is protecting. The Canadian oil sands are a threat hanging over the whole world. The extraction and processing of this material is so polluting that it makes crude oil look green. Canada already has almost the highest per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions in the world. The full-scale exploitation of the oil patch threatens to turn your beautiful country into the dirtiest country on Earth.
The oil-sands industry is causing damage out of all proportion to its value – not only to the world's ecosystems but also to Canada's.


Oil has a politics all of its own: To extract it, you must close your eyes and ears to the people you are harming. As the Nigerians, the Iraqis, the Russians and the Ecuadoreans can testify, this process brutalizes a nation. It creates a political class that owes its existence to a primitive and destructive industry. The industry will employ that class to trample your civilized values: social justice, human rights, environmental protection, the common decencies we owe to other human beings.


No one who has seen images of the oil-sands operations can quite believe what Canada is doing to its own land. No one can quite believe that this prosperous country is treating its aboriginal peoples like Nigeria treats the Ogoni of the Niger Delta. The oil sands are turning Canada into a harder, crueller place.
This is the oil curse that so many other countries have experienced. Some people in Canada boast that the oil sands will make you a second Saudi Arabia. This may be true in more than one sense: They could turn you into an oil-dependent state whose politics revolt the rest of the world.


Your government's behaviour in the talks is so destructive and the development of the oil sands is so damaging to global efforts to prevent climate breakdown that I have decided to break my self-imposed ban on flying to travel to Canada.


I hope to add my voice to those pleading with your government to stop wrecking the negotiations. I hope to encourage you to rise up against an industry that is attacking the prospects of all the world's people and wrecking your national image. We know that at heart you are a decent and sensible people. Please don't disappoint us.

It is not Canada vs. the world, it is private Canadian and foreign interests vs Canadian citizens. Rogue corporations are plundering and destroying Canada.

Surely Canada can not let itself be treated as Nigeria?

Only two oil sands operations set to meet rules to deal with liquid tailings Posted: December 1, 2009
Section:

Simon Dyer and Joe Obad, December 1, 2009, Calgary, -- A comprehensive review of regulatory documents filed with the Alberta government suggests most oil sands mining operations will not comply with a new provincial law designed to limit increases in tailings, the toxic liquid waste produced by oil sands mining operations.


"Two mines have proposed plans to start cleaning up the legacy of toxic tailings on the landscape," said Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute. "It is troubling that other companies are not willing to make the same effort and have submitted plans that appear not to meet the directive rules."


The review conducted by the Pembina Institute and Water Matters found that only two oil sands operations reported they would meet the rules to reduce toxic tailings between 2011 and 2013 (the start date for binding rules to capture and start solidifying liquid tailings). The seven remaining operations submitted plans that will not comply with rules for reducing their production of liquid tailings by the first target date in 2011. Some companies submitted plans suggesting they may not meet the rules for tailings management for over 40 years.


Oil sands companies were required to submit tailings management plans by September 30, 2009, in accordance with the newly released Alberta Energy and Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) Directive 074: Tailings Performance Criteria and Requirements for Oil Sands Mining Schemes. The ERCB released the directive because of concerns that oil sands companies were not adequately addressing the clean up of tailings waste.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It is not Canada vs. the world, it is private Canadian and foreign interests vs Canadian citizens. Rogue corporations are plundering and destroying Canada.

You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live. I think, Louis, that you are exaggerating. Whether it is intentional or whether your entire viewpoint on the situation comes from the article and a few minutes on Google, I respectfully think you need to perhaps consider some more options. I'm still deciding on the best article to post in response, but it might take a while.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live. I think, Louis, that you are exaggerating. Whether it is intentional or whether your entire viewpoint on the situation comes from the article and a few minutes on Google, I respectfully think you need to perhaps consider some more options. I'm still deciding on the best article to post in response, but it might take a while.

I enjoy a certain lightheartedness of tone, with a few teases thrown in for good measure.

Underneath all that, I am afraid I am quite serious about this subject. I think Canada is undergoing a major ecological disaster. A major social disaster.

Canada is now the country with the highest Co2 emission per capita in the wotld. And the country that most obstructs international pollution agreements.

And what for? For the well-being of all Canadians? No. A few plunder and destroy Canada, like a plague of locusts, while the average Canadian will still be paying for cleaning it all up - if at all possible - for generations to come.

Oil has a logic all of its own. It is a dirty business. It creates a political class that owes its existence to a primitive and destructive industry. The industry will employ that class to trample civilized values: social justice, human rights, environmental protection, the common decencies we owe to other human beings.

CANADA: Govt Threatens Tar Sands Activists with Anti-Terror Laws
By Chris Arsenault

VANCOUVER, Oct 20 (IPS) - The provincial government in Alberta, Canada is threatening to unleash its counterterrorism plan if activists continue using civil disobedience to protest the tar sands, Canada's fastest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent weeks, Greenpeace has staged three daring protests inside tar sands mines, temporarily shutting down parts of the world's largest energy project. On Oct. 3 and 4, activists blocked construction of an upgrader needed to refine heavy tar sands oil, belonging to Shell in Ft. Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Civil disobedience from Greenpeace, leading to 37 arrests, has enraged Alberta's conservative government. "We're coddling people who are breaking the law," complained Premier Ed Stelmach during a media scrum in early October.

"Premier Stelmach's public suggestion that he will use the 'force of the law to deal with these people' confirms his lack of knowledge of the limits of his authority and the clear rule that our system of justice cannot be interfered with or manipulated for political reasons," responded Brian Beresh, the defence lawyer representing arrested activists, at a news conference in Edmonton.

Legal scholars, including University of Alberta law professor Sanjiv Anand and Tom Engel of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, have criticised the provincial government for attempting to politicise legal proceedings.

"We're going to be working very closely with industry and our solicitor general will be reviewing all of the guidelines we have in place," said a visibly irritated Premier Stelmach in early October.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48930

It is not far-fetched to describe the current events as a 'Nigeriasation' of Canada. Canada's foundations are a wee bit stronger than Nigeria, so let's say that Canada needs to look a bit more to Norway, and a bit less to Venezuela or Brazil.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm an oil baron and I'm okay
I dig all night and I steal all day

I cut down trees, I rip up dirt
I turn Canada 'to a lavat'ry
On Wednesdays I go chopping
And have buttered wildlife for tea

I tear down trees, I destroy and burn
I love to crush wild flow'rs
I put on devil's clothing
And put hippies behind bars

I burn down trees, I poison natives
Thanks to the sands of tar
I wish I'd been Arabian
Just like my dear Abdull-ah

That's hilarious. Very clever too.

Sorry, should've acknoledged you post earlier.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I enjoy a certain lightheartedness of tone, with a few teases thrown in for good measure.

Underneath all that, I am afraid I am quite serious about this subject. I think Canada is undergoing a major ecological disaster. A major social disaster.

Why? Because some enviro's say so? Good grief man.

Canada is now the country with the highest Co2 emission per capita in the wotld. And the country that most obstructs international pollution agreements.

So what? It's not proven CO2 is the main reason besides the previous temperature increase.

And what for? For the well-being of all Canadians? No. A few plunder and destroy Canada, like a plague of locusts, while the average Canadian will still be paying for cleaning it all up - if at all possible - for generations to come.

Bull. Who do you think it getting high paying jobs? How many jobs are created in those communities to support those jobs? Canada will be destroyed because of some mining? What farcical claims.

It will certainly help all Canadians. The tar sands are a model of forward political thinking - being supported for decades by both ruling parties.

Oil has a logic all of its own. It is a dirty business. It creates a political class that owes its existence to a primitive and destructive industry. The industry will employ that class to trample civilized values: social justice, human rights, environmental protection, the common decencies we owe to other human beings.

Blah blah blah. Any facts to back up that libel? No, because it's nothing but rhetoric with no basis in reality.

Those accursed facts, actually existing and all.

Facts? Yes, he shows figures that CO2 emissions have increased. That politics have occurred. That it takes water to make oil. That certain companies are investing.

What he has no facts for are his allegations that the tar sands are environmentally hazardous or pollute or anything to back up his fundamental claim that the tar sands are harmful.

Huh? I don't quite understand, as I can't find any examples of that in the article.

Made explicit; most of his argument is that this thing is evil (terribly evil!) and so the decent people of Canada should have no part in it because no one will like them anymore.

Like most of the world's people, I have always held your nation in high regard. Yours is one of the best-loved countries on Earth, renowned for being friendly, peaceful and responsible. Your government is now burning this goodwill.

...Canada will be the only signatory to wildly miss its targets,... developing nations were so dismayed by Canada's wrecking tactics that most of them walked out while your officials were speaking. In Barcelona this month, non-governmental organizations attending the talks presented Canada with their Fossil of the Week award: Yours was the country that had done the most to prevent an agreement from being reached.

Canada's tactics have caused shock and revulsion everywhere. They are dragging your good name through the mud. Stephen Harper and Jim Prentice threaten to do as much damage to your international standing as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to that of the United States.
...The full-scale exploitation of the oil patch threatens to turn your beautiful country into the dirtiest country on Earth.

As the Nigerians, the Iraqis, the Russians and the Ecuadoreans can testify, this process brutalizes a nation.

No one who has seen images of the oil-sands operations can quite believe what Canada is doing to its own land. No one can quite believe that this prosperous country is treating its aboriginal peoples like Nigeria treats the Ogoni of the Niger Delta. The oil sands are turning Canada into a harder, crueller place.
... Some people in Canada boast that the oil sands will make you a second Saudi Arabia. This may be true in more than one sense: They could turn you into an oil-dependent state whose politics revolt the rest of the world.

Your government's behaviour in the talks is so destructive and the development of the oil sands is so damaging to global efforts to prevent climate breakdown that I have decided to break my self-imposed ban on flying to travel to Canada.

I hope to add my voice to those pleading with your government to stop wrecking the negotiations. I hope to encourage you to rise up against an industry that is attacking the prospects of all the world's people and wrecking your national image. We know that at heart you are a decent and sensible people. Please don't disappoint us.

All this ranting has proven nothing about the "dangers" of tar sands because they are without facts. What pollutants are there, how does that compare to other industries, what's the safe level?

The only support for tar sands being terrible or bad is rants by enviros. If you strip away the rhetoric, there's nothing there. It's a hollow man, blustering arguments on the outside and underneath no real reason for reasonable people to be upset.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

What he has no facts for are his allegations that the tar sands are environmentally hazardous or pollute or anything

The extraction of tar sands creates many toxic and hazardous by products.

That is why the - very oil industry friendly - Alberta government has enacted pollution regulation.

Only two out of nine oil companies even intent to meet this very basic Alberta regulation.

Most of Canada's oil sands miners are unlikely to meet new timelines for cleaning up the vast volumes of toxic effluent they produce, according to a new analysis of corporate regulatory filings. Some projects, including Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.'s Horizon and Imperial Oil Ltd.'s Kearl, which has not yet been built, will be at least a decade late in meeting provincial criteria designed to speed the processing of liquid tailings, a pair of environmental groups found after scrutinizing 900 pages of plans.


The industry has already produced tailings waste ponds the size of downtown Vancouver. Their presence - and growth - have helped generate widespread environmental opposition to the oil sands.
Although companies say they are working hard to diminish their environmental footprint, only two of nine oil sands mines have sketched out a way to meet the new tailings rules, a revelation that is likely to focus more scrutiny upon the industry.


"It's quite astonishing," said Simon Dyer, the oil sands program director at the Pembina Institute, which co-wrote the analysis with Water Matters, and wants many of the plans rejected. "I haven't seen regulatory applications before where companies submit things that apparently aren't compliant with the rules."

The reaction of the Alberta gov't has not been to forbid the operation of corporations that openly refuse to comply with the regulation of the very Albertan gov't.

Instead, Alberta threatens to use its anti-terror laws against Albertan citizens who demand their gov't enforces its democratically decided laws.

Linky to a Canadian quality paper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1385146/

[Megas Methuselah]

You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live.

Come again?

EDIT: Here ya go.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Come again?

EDIT: Here ya go.

I didn't say that some people didn't have it bad. Not everything revolves around the natives, and hence that statement does nothing to disprove my claim. Alberta is not a bad place to live at all.

[Megas Methuselah]

...that statement does nothing to disprove my claim. Alberta is not a bad place to live at all, if you're white.

Ok, fixed; we're cool now.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This week in Canada's tamest paper, the Globe and Mail:

Written by the same Brit who wrote the OP article, right? And with even less facts. Most of his argument amounts to peer pressure and nothing more. It is just a leftist enviro pretending his fringe ideas are shared by a significant amount of people.

It is not Canada vs. the world, it is private Canadian and foreign interests vs Canadian citizens. Rogue corporations are plundering and destroying Canada.

Surely Canada can not let itself be treated as Nigeria?

You must be kidding. Such hyperbole is absurd. Rogue corporations? You're manufacturing hype out of thin air. Try some facts with your rhetoric next time. I'm not going to pay attention to outrageous statements that don't have anything in the way of facts backing them up.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Written by the same Brit who wrote the OP article, right? And with even less facts. Most of his argument amounts to peer pressure and nothing more. It is just a leftist enviro pretending his fringe ideas are shared by a significant amount of people.

Indeed. The Globe and Mail may well be one of the best papers in Canada, and indeed I read it regularly, but that doesn't make their opinion sections and guest pieces any more rational than anyone else's.

[Meneldil]

Though I've read scary reports from what's happening there, this article doesn't show any fact or number. Not a single one. I know it's an opinion article, but you would expect some numbers or testimony. Here, we have nothing. The guy's simply not doing a very good work.

Then, it's full of average Canadian self-congratulatory myths, such as "Canadians are nice", "Canadians don't pollute", "Everybody loves Canadians", "Canada leads the way of this issue", or the ever worthy of a good laugh "The world cares about Canada".

[Furunculus]

more on the canada tar-sands:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...doesnt-add-up/

Kicking BP and Shell over the economics of Canada's tar sands doesn't add up

By Rowena Mason Energy Last updated: March 11th, 2010

The group of investors vociferously trying to persuade BP and Shell to re-evaluate their potential investments in the Canada tar sands has now enlisted a group of MPs in Britain to propose an early day motion questioning the project’s financial viability.

The move is part of a pretty well-coordinated campaign mobilised by FairPensions (members: ActionAid, WWF and a number of trade unions). This year, the rebels have managed to get enough shareholder support to submit motions to the oil companies’ annual meetings against the Alberta prospects, which environmentalists argue will be responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

Shareholders obviously have a perfect right to kick up a fuss about investments they’re not keen on. Around 25pc of the FTSE-100’s dividends are paid out each year by BP and Shell, so the importance of these two companies’ decisions to UK pensions cannot be under-estimated.

However, it does seem slightly disingenuous that FairPensions is trying to claim that a big reason for their concern is the economics of the projects. They question the margins that will be made by the oil companies and warn of possible high legal fees from environmental challenges, plus the rising costs of climate change legislation.

But if they were so concerned about the right economic decisions being made by companies like BP, they would be having a look at its portfolio of renewables and “other” unit, which made a stonking $2.3bn loss in 2009. Yet there seems to be no issue with wind, solar and biofuels: all eco-friendly, low-carbon projects that are undertaken to improve the company’s green image and prepare for a future of heavier regulation of emissions/higher financial penalties, rather than turn an immediate profit.

What’s more, if you look at an investment like BP’s Project Sunrise, it represents a low proportion of the company’s overall capital expenditure. It is currently planning to spend $1.25bn on the venture over the next few years out of a total $20bn yearly budget on exploration and new projects. If given the go-ahead, BP’s oil sands will only be pumping out 60,000 barrels out of 4m barrels per day by 2014 – around 1.5pc of overall output.

I’m not taking sides on the environmental controversy of this debate. BP claims the extra carbon dioxide emissions of Project Sunrise – from well to wheel – will only be an additional 5-15pc. The campaigners put this figure at a much higher 12-40pc.

It’s just that all the talk about the oil sands’ profitability seems to obscure this real purpose of this argument – do the tar sands pose an unacceptable environmental risk and how much do we care about it? Obviously the economics of the project are borderline unless oil stays in the $80-100 per barrel range, confirmed by the fact that Shell’s Peter Voser has decided to slow the pace of investment at the moment to concentrate on conventional reserves.

But it is highly unlikely that BP and Shell would have been examining these prospects if there were not a probability that they could make some money and they will be subject to the same financial feasibility tests as every other investment – there would be little point in them wasting all this time and money just to spite the environmentalists. And I somehow doubt that the campaigners would be putting all this effort into an anti-tar sand campaign if the projects were the cleanest form of crude extraction in the world.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's terribly destructive though I am uncomfortable with such large scale digging

[The Wizard]

Shell making good money ruining Canada... the Dutch empire strikes back

[Furunculus]

Shell making good money ruining Canada... the Dutch empire strikes back

hey! don't do us down, Britain has still i believe got a 40% stake in Shell. :p

[Subotan]

Not entirely unreasonable, no. Still, it isn't safe to presume. Since you joined two years after I did it is possible you missed some of my earlier posts on the issue.

Fair enough, you probably did mention something before I joined.

He isn't in the same province, and is over 700 kilometers away. Without being disrespectful to him, I don't think that simple proximity gives him any more of an understanding of life in Alberta, especially since he doesn't necessarily directly benefit from the sands (being in Saskatchewan)

Still, a Canadian is more likely to be better informed about the situation than a Brit and a probable German (Unless of course, you are well informed), particularly as Meth will be most aware as to the effects on First Nation peoples.

Written by the same Brit who wrote the OP article, right? And with even less facts.
CR

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...%80%A6-canada/

Those accursed facts, actually existing and all.

Most of his argument amounts to peer pressure and nothing more.

Huh? I don't quite understand, as I can't find any examples of that in the article.

It is just a leftist enviro pretending his fringe ideas are shared by a significant amount of people.

Cool, I'm on the fringe
Regardless, Climate Change denial is much more of a fringe movement than whatever George Monbiot says.

Indeed. The Globe and Mail may well be one of the best papers in Canada, and indeed I read it regularly, but that doesn't make their opinion sections and guest pieces any more rational than anyone else's.

True. But then, I would trust the opinion column in, say, the Daily Telegraph more than I do in the Sun, even though I read neither. There's a correlation between the respectability of the paper and that of the people who comment.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Still, a Canadian is more likely to be better informed about the situation than a Brit and a probable German (Unless of course, you are well informed), particularly as Meth will be most aware as to the effects on First Nation peoples.

I didn't see you bowing down to quid's opinion in the switzerland thread :p


The original article posted was terrible. A bunch of hyperbolic statements and things like "chemicals are released into the streams" without mentioning quantity. A good article would put everything into perspective with other industries, have solid numbers meaningful numbers, etc. There is no frame of reference provided for the numbers that he did state, so they are useless.

I learned nothing from the article other than the fact that some people are very upset with the oil extraction in alberta.

[Husar]

Rogue corporations

language warning

He also has some ideas who to tell about such rogue activities.

(I'm not saying you're like him, I was just reminded of it.)

[Subotan]

And they didn't include such ridiculous statements as "The tar sands of northern Alberta are an international scandal."

I'd say it's an international scandal. Seeing as what those tar sands are doing to the global climate, international is the only way to describe it.

You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live.

Maybe we should ask someone who lives there, hm? Meth?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maybe we should ask someone who lives there, hm? Meth?

I have never revealed my current place of permanent residence on this forum, nor have I revealed my past ones. Don't presume. Besides, as far as I know Meth lives in Saskatchewan. Though I'm sure that you've lived there.

The tar sands aren't an international scandal. Their impact on the environment as opposed to their benefit is practically nonexistent, or at the very most is significantly overblown.

[Subotan]

Oh I did. Yes I did!

Thanks

I have never revealed my place of permanent residence on this forum. Don't presume.

Apart from the fact that it says Deutschland as your, uh, location, and it has done for some time? It is not unreasonable to assume that you are living in Germany.

Besides, as far as I know Meth lives in Saskatchewan.

So?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Apart from the fact that it says Deutschland as your, uh, location, and it has done for some time? It is not unreasonable to assume that you are living in Germany.

Not entirely unreasonable, no. Still, it isn't safe to presume. Since you joined two years after I did it is possible you missed some of my earlier posts on the issue.

So?

He isn't in the same province, and is over 700 kilometers away. Without being disrespectful to him, I don't think that simple proximity gives him any more of an understanding of life in Alberta, especially since he doesn't necessarily directly benefit from the sands (being in Saskatchewan)

[KukriKhan]

It's about the "tailings", right? The leftover stuff containing heavy metals, that needs intense management to keep it from hurting flora and fawna (the twins I dated in the 70's from Indianapolis; there was this one time... *ahem*).

Screaming: "You have to stop mining!" is about as effective as "You have to stop driving!".

Not gonna happen. Better to direct attention to mitigation or conversion. Left-overs are always useful for something.

[Furunculus]

Also, didn't Canada already re-elect Harper once? That's the only poll that matters. Not one opinion poll, and certainly not a couple leftist enviros ranting in a British paper, which is everything you've provided so far.

CR

that is all the attention the great moonbat deserves; contempt.