NDP says oilsands 'may have to be left in the ground'

[rob the knob]

CRAZY!!!!


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/linda-mcquaig-says-oilsands-may-have-to-be-left-in-the-ground-1.3183999



Toronto Centre NDP candidate says meeting climate change targets may require halting projects

CBC News Posted: Aug 07, 2015 7:55 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 07, 2015 11:30 PM ET


Linda McQuaig, a star New Democratic Party candidate, says Alberta's oilsands may need to remain undeveloped in order for Canada to meet its climate change targets.

The NDP candidate for Toronto Centre told CBC News Network's Power & Politics there should not be a rush to extract from the oilsands without proper environmental assessments.

"A lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we're going to meet our climate change targets," McQuaig said.

"We'll know that better once we properly put in place a climate change accountability system of some kind," she told host Rosemary Barton. "And… once we have a proper review process for our environmental projects like pipelines."

McQuaig is a journalist and author whose books include Shooting the Hippo, which attacked the Liberal government's slashing of social programs to reduce the deficit, and It's the Crude, Dude, which examined the connection between America's dependence on foreign oil and its invasion of Iraq.


Media placeholderPlay Media
Candidates debate the debate11:48

Calgary Conservative candidate Michelle Rempel, appearing on the panel with McQuaig, quickly responded.

"For the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are dependent on Canada's energy sector, listen to what you just heard. Instead of standing up for the energy sector or Canada's economy, you're hearing 'I want to tax this, I want this oil to be left in the ground.'"

McQuaig later qualified her comments. "I didn't say I want this oil left in the ground. I said we have to have environmental standards." McQuaig suggested that former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed has himself called for a moratorium on the oilsands.

In fact, in 2011 Lougheed voiced his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline on economic grounds.

"I would prefer … we process the bitumen from the oilsands in Alberta and that would create a lot of jobs and job activity," he told Anna Maria Tremonti of CBC Radio's The Current .

"That would be a better thing to do than merely send the raw bitumen down the pipeline and they refine it in Texas that means thousands of new jobs in Texas."

A study published in the scientific journal Nature in January claimed Canada's oilpatch would have to be left mostly unexploited if the world is to avoid a rise in average temperature of two degrees or more.

During the federal leaders' debate Thursday, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair did not spell out party policy on support for pipelines. Instead, he argued he would make sure projects undergo a rigorous review before approval.

Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper, along with other G7 leaders, has committed to a zero carbon economy by 2100.:thumbsdow

[Sugarphreak]

...

[birdman86]

Jesus christ.

[revelations]

Welp, for the time being the study originators (not the NDP) might get their wish :dunno:

[Toma]

No, don't even think it's legit.... Total Hoax

"The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here"

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805#ixzz3iNiWWF87
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2015/media/204626/_original/1438289472/1035x690-R1241_NAT_NoReturn_S.jpg

[Toma]

Nothing to see here:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/12/california-orders-largest-water-cuts-farmers

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b6/b4/32/b6b432aeeba029ef02a781b580be3603.jpg

[Toma]

Or here...:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2309/

"Europe and Pacific Northwest face record heat"

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2309_europeheatwave_720_60.jpg

[Toma]

Move along...

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/hail-storm-smashes-nose-of-plane-forces-emergency-landing/55465/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL27jt-UEAAODlT.jpg

[Toma]

Global conspiracy. Science that has given us modern medicine, taken us to the moon, given us super coliders...

It's all a big fat lie, nothing to see here:

"Global warming’s effects are coming on faster than previously thought."

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/01/22/global-warmings-effects-are-coming-on-faster-than-previously-thought/

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2015/01/KingTideIMG_20131018_095016-590x442.jpg

[Toma]

Nothing to see here, continue on with heads buried in the sand;

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2297/

"Study: A third of big groundwater basins in distress[/img]

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2297_gracegroundwater_768_60.jpg

[Toma]

... or here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2318/


Just 5 questions: Sea surface topography

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2318_sealevelsJul21_768_60.jpg

[Toma]

..Or here.....

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2317/


California's accumulated precipitation “deficit” from 2012 to 2014 shown as a percent change from the 17-year average based on TRMM multi-satellite observations. Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio.

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2317_californiadrought_768_60.jpg

[Toma]

...or here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2315/

"Study: Fire seasons getting longer, more frequent"

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2315_wildfire_768_60.jpg

[Toma]

Definitely nothing to see here either:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2312/


"Greenland’s undercut glaciers melting faster than thought"

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2312_undercutglaciers_768_60.jpg

[Toma]

Jees, pesky governments colluding with those lying scumbag SCIENCE guys

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/impacts


Australia faces significant environmental and economic impacts from climate change across a number of sectors, including water security, agriculture, coastal communities, and infrastructure.

Leading scientists advise climate change will cause increases to the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Rising sea levels pose a significant risk to coastal communities, while the world’s oceans could become too acidic to support coral reefs and other calcifying marine organisms.

[Toma]

What? Even that American guy?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

https://youtu.be/r4lTx56WBv0

[rob the knob]

harper killed the dinosaurs two
ass!

[MrSector9]

what percentage of global pollution does Canada contribute?

[Toma]

And this guy?? Coincidence that the massive melt, and their claim to the North Pole and Arctic regions?

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/ambiguous-russian-climate-pledge-mystifies-many/

http://www.businessinsider.com/melting-arctic-is-important-to-united-states-2015-1

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/198662.jpg

[Toma]

Originally posted by rob the knob
harper killed the dinosaurs two
ass!

Of course he would have, if he was around.

:nut:

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by Toma


Of course he would have, if he was around.

:nut:

you crazy!

what is eco tuner?

do you tune electric cars? NO gas polluters killing earth?

[Toma]

Originally posted by rob the knob


you crazy!

what is eco tuner?

do you tune electric cars? NO gas polluters killing earth?

Ahhh, the Ad Hominem.

When you have no point to make.... :nut:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by MrSector9
what percentage of global pollution does Canada contribute?

We're about tied for 10th/11th with Japan. Behind the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany, the UK, France and Indonesia.

According to Berkeley anyway, source article was published in Jan 2014 though.

[Toma]

Per Capita, we have higher carbon emissions than FUCKING CHINA.

[schocker]

Originally posted by Toma
Per Capita, we have higher carbon emissions than FUCKING CHINA.
1.35 billion vs 35 million, no shit :nut:

[Env-Consultant]

Originally posted by rob the knob
harper killed the dinosaurs two
ass!

Yeah, Two Ass!

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant


Yeah, Two Ass!

you crazy communist?

[Toma]

Originally posted by schocker

1.35 billion vs 35 million, no shit :nut:

Why no shit??

What is the ultimate measure of "our share" of anything?

Does it not take more energy with more people?

:nut:

Why should we be entitled to more waste per person?

[Toma]

Originally posted by rob the knob


you crazy communist?

DICTATOR or Democracy?

Who's crazy?

Don't answer that. 25% of voters they obviously preferred the dictator closet baby.

[Env-Consultant]

Originally posted by rob the knob


you crazy communist?

Yes.

[Darell_n]

No changes will help the planet without dealing with the root of the problem, human over-population. So either our infestation makes it off this planet and the plague spreads, or we consume ourselves. Every environmental strategy is only delaying the inevitable.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Darell_n
No changes will help the planet without dealing with the root of the problem, human over-population. So either our infestation makes it off this planet and the plague spreads, or we consume ourselves. Every environmental strategy is only delaying the inevitable.

Irrational belief, without evidence.

Our planet can hold double the population, not double the corporation.

[schocker]

Originally posted by Toma


Why no shit??

What is the ultimate measure of "our share" of anything?

Does it not take more energy with more people?

:nut:

Why should we be entitled to more waste per person?
China is a second world country and a large number of people live in poverty.....

[Toma]

Originally posted by schocker

China is a second world country and a large number of people live in poverty.....

True, 200 million out of 1.4 billion live in poverty.

Even if you subtracted ALL of those, we are still MUCH worse.

[Redlined_8000]

NDP :banghead: :banghead:

[Toma]

Originally posted by Redlined_8000
NDP :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Fixed!

[Redlined_8000]

Originally posted by Toma
:thumbsup:

Fixed!

I cant pay for my eco tunes without oil sands money :thumbsdow :(

[Toma]

Originally posted by Redlined_8000


I cant pay for my eco tunes without oil sands money :thumbsdow :(

Don't be selfish. Don't be a quitter. Embrace change and a challenge.

And you, and I, and we, will survive, and be better off.

[googe]

Yeah, this isn't even an NDP quote. It's like they missed this part:


A study published in the scientific journal Nature in January claimed Canada's oilpatch would have to be left mostly unexploited if the world is to avoid a rise in average temperature of two degrees or more.


The NDP person is saying what the study said. The scientists are basically saying, if you don't leave that shit in the ground, we all die.

Better headline:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-study-says-most-of-canada-s-oil-reserves-should-be-left-underground-1.2893013

[Toma]

Originally posted by googe
Yeah, this isn't even an NDP quote. It's like they missed this part:



The NDP person is saying what the study said. The scientists are basically saying, if you don't leave that shit in the ground, we all die.

Better headline:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-study-says-most-of-canada-s-oil-reserves-should-be-left-underground-1.2893013

Fucking communist CBC!

Die!!!!!!! Die CBC, DIE.

lol

[Toma]

Most of the Earth's fossil fuels will have to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming, according to a new study published in the scientific journal Nature.

And Canada's oil patch would have to be left mostly unexploited if the world is to avoid a rise in average temperature of two degrees or more, as almost every country in the world has committed to do..

[JRSC00LUDE]

They can't pay for all their pipe dreams without oil revenue ... Oh wait, yes they can. Higher taxes!

[revelations]

Originally posted by Toma


/wonders if TOMA has ever read up about paleo-climatology

[Toma]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
They can't pay for all their pipe dreams without oil revenue ... Oh wait, yes they can. Higher taxes!

For whom?

Why do real PHD, Nobel economists disagree with your analysis?

So beyond has transformed itself from smarter than scientists, to expert google economists.

lol

[JRSC00LUDE]

Is there an example of a successful NDP economic policy?

Or of successful socialism?

One that makes the world say, holy shit this works!

?

[Toma]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
Is there an example of a successful NDP economic policy?

Or of successful socialism?

One that makes the world say, holy shit this works!

?

Is there one that shows Crony Capitalism, 2% corporate tax rates, corporatism (dictatorship, rule by those that control capital) is ever successful?

One that makes the world say, holy shit this works!

NDP aren't socialist, by any means either, but I guess would depend on the dogma you are currently mindful too.

[Toma]

It's not enough that this Crony capitalism made it so BOTH adults in a househodl had to work?

When that was no longer enough, they gave us cheap credit.

When that was dried up, and it couldn't be any cheaper, massively transferred wealth up high...

Now they want to raid the environment more. Work us longer hours, get rid of our weekends?

Why do you love Dictatorships and slavery?

Why do you believe that socializing debt, and privatizing profit like the CONservatives do, is something noble?

If they are some awesome, why could they not balance the budget of a Province of 5 million people, at a time that Oil prices were at RECORD highs?

Why could they not balance the Federal budget when our biggest trading partner was having the biggest economic boom and recovery, since the end of the dirty 30's?

Why do you refuse to educate yourself?

At some point, you have to look at your FAILED ideology, and look at real results and stats, and outcomes, versus their cheap meaningless rhetoric and dogma

[JRSC00LUDE]

Does this mean you can't answer my question?

[Toma]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
Does this mean you can't answer my question?

Ditto.

But yours is invalid, as it rests on several pre suppositions, that do not pass the bullshit test.

[Toma]

From Senator Bernie Sanders....

[Toma]

Robert Reich, PHD economist, Professor at U Cali... Secretary of Labour Under Clinton (only Administration in ~40 years in the US that pulled off a budget surplus)....

http://robertreich.org/post/86359911960


The real choice isn't between capitalism or socialism or any other kind of "ism." It's between an economy that works for the many, or the few. Economies are based on rules. Those rules are created by legislators, judges, and administrators. The underlying question is whether those public officials are acting for the benefit of the broad public or for benefit of the moneyed interests.

Remember, many, or the very few....

Democracy (many), dictatorship (few).... Pick.

[16hypen3sp]

So when Lougheed said to keep the bitumen in AB and process it here, I'm assuming he means upgraders to process the bitumen into SCO? And then what? What does the NDP want to do after that? We still need pipelines.

Why does the NDP even speak of the Lougheed idea and then go onto to say "leave it in the ground"???

I read a comment earlier from what I think was an NDP supporter, that read "All they had to do was keep their mouths shut but no, they just couldn't help themselves."

[Nitro5]

So if we stopped developing the oil sands completely, shut it down the world will be saved? The CO2 produced from extracting the oil is so much that it will have a measurable impact on the overall CO2 concentration?

we are killing the world here. Canada holds the planet in our hand and we, personally, can either save or destroy the planet!

[HiTempguy1]

Canada's worldwide emissions output is 2%. Until China, America, THE WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION, India, Russia, and Japan make drastic changes to their policies (these countries account for 75% of worldwide output), what we do means nothing. Crippling our economy while other refuse to do their share is nothing more than idiotic.

And this is why the NDP can not be put in power, because they dont understand our place in the world. :dunno:

[dirtsniffer]

CO2 emmisions per person is such a crock anyways. CO2 emmisions should be based on area. The atmosphere doesn't care how many people live on the earth. The only thing it sees is a CO2 concentration leaving the earths surface. Here is a quick chart I put together and it shows that Canada is actually below the world average for CO2 emmisions per square km

http://i60.tinypic.com/16axfus.jpg

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
Is there an example of a successful NDP economic policy?

Or of successful socialism?

One that makes the world say, holy shit this works!

?

Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.

Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, and Belgium are run off off more NDP-esque platform than a CPC one or even the Liberals.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.

Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, and Belgium are run off off more NDP-esque platform than a CPC one or even the Liberals.

Thanks for answering a simple question and providing points of reference, now I can look at them to see what common elements are perceived to provide the greatest benefit. :thumbsup:

I'm not naive enough to believe what we have now is in any way perfect, I'm just equally not naive enough to think the federal NDP are some sort of mythical savior.

[Xtrema]

Even without climate change, fracking elsewhere may keep oilsand in the ground forever.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Toma]

Nope, this is normal...
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/technology/stinking-seaweed-piling-high-on-beaches-in-tourism-dependent-caribbean-1.3185228


Caribbean nations mulling emergency meeting to discuss unprecedented seaweed problem

http://www.cbc.ca/polopoly_fs/1.3185247.1439207481!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_300/mexico-caribbean-seaweed-invasion.jpg

[Nitro5]

And stopping the oil sands will fix it!

[vengie]

Originally posted by Toma
Nope, this is normal...
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/technology/stinking-seaweed-piling-high-on-beaches-in-tourism-dependent-caribbean-1.3185228



http://www.cbc.ca/polopoly_fs/1.3185247.1439207481!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_300/mexico-caribbean-seaweed-invasion.jpg

Clearly caused by oil and gas... not the billions of gallons of sewage released into the ocean every year by cruise ships, 3rd world countries, etc...

[Toma]

"Little Johny does it.too, mom, must be ok for me to do it."

lol. 8 year olds rationalizing their undesirable behavior. lol.

[Toma]

Originally posted by vengie


Clearly caused by oil and gas... not the billions of gallons of sewage released into the ocean every year by cruise ships, 3rd world countries, etc...

clearly.

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
CO2 emmisions per person is such a crock anyways. CO2 emmisions should be based on area. The atmosphere doesn't care how many people live on the earth. The only thing it sees is a CO2 concentration leaving the earths surface. Here is a quick chart I put together and it shows that Canada is actually below the world average for CO2 emmisions per square km

http://i60.tinypic.com/16axfus.jpg

Looks like I'm not the only person who agrees


Part of the hypocritical attack on Canada from the international community when it comes to climate change is that we bear a special burden because our “per capita” emissions of industrial greenhouse gases are among the highest in the world.
Today, I’m going to explain why this argument is nonsense and how, looked at in another equally valid way, Canada is one of the world’s lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
First off, saying Canada has among the highest “per capita” emissions falsely makes it sound as if every Canadian has an oil well pumping in his or her backyard.
But it’s the method environmentalists and “green” politicians deliberately use, ad nauseam, to avoid having to admit Canada’s emissions are insignificant on a global scale.
Today, we’re responsible for about 1.6% of global emissions (the oilsands, one one-thousandth) down from 2.1% a decade ago.
Further, our global share of emissions has been going down despite the fact Canada is the second-largest and second-coldest country in the world, with a relatively small population.
In this context, of course our per capita emissions are going to be higher than many other countries.
For example, a key reason why Germany’s per capita emissions are lower than ours -- while its actual emissions are higher -- is that Germany is one-third the size of Ontario, with a population 2.3 times the size of Canada.
Given that, think of the small amount of fossil fuel energy it takes to ship goods or produce, or to travel across Germany, compared to the huge amount it takes to do the same things in Canada. Then think of the population difference.
So yes, Canada’s per capita emissions are and will continue to be higher than in many smaller, warmer, more populated countries.
The reason -- while this may come as a shock to Al Gore -- is that Canadians have no control over the fact their country is the second largest and second coldest in the world, or that, compared to many other nations, we have a relatively small population.
But there’s another method of measuring a country’s greenhouse gas emissions that is every bit as legitimate as doing it based on population.
That’s doing it based on the size of the country.
Indeed, the Statistics Division of the United Nations -- which is climate change central -- did these calculations a few years back and produced the following results.
Among the world’s major greenhouse gas emitters (currently we’re in ninth place) Canada had the second highest per capita emissions at 17.91 tonnes.
That compared to 4.92 tonnes for China; 19.74 for the U.S., 1.38 for India; 11.13 for Russia; 10.23 for Japan; 1.94 for Brazil; 10.22 for Germany and 1.77 for Indonesia.
But, when the UN did the calculations based on the equally valid method of the size of the country, Canada’s emissions were the second lowest at 59.11 tonnes per square kilometre.
That compared to 681.30 tonnes for China; 632.91 for the U.S.; 489.77 for India; 92.40 for Russia; 3,449.80 for Japan; 43.26 for Brazil; 2,355.42 for Germany and 213.40 for Indonesia.
Indeed, you could say the rest of the world should be following Canada’s lead when it comes to emissions per square kilometres of territory.
If it did, the problem of rising emissions would be solved.

[Toma]

Ideological difference. Luck of geography entitles you to pollute more.

We get the argument, we just don't agree with it.

How about you use inhabited land area instead then, would that make more sense if your gonna oull the "we are entitled" card?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Huge reserves are being discovered everywhere right now.... shale, fracking, and more oil sands.

China has been quietly developing their own extraction operations in the Sichuan province.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/chevron-starts-china-shale-gas-exploration-builds-sichuan-plant

Fact is if it isn't us, it will be somebody else supplying the market. If we "leave it in the ground", it does nothing to curb world emissions.

Another fact is that Canada leads the entire world in responsible extraction... so letting somebody else take our market share is a lot worse for the environment from a global perspective. Us pulling out of O&G is probably one of the worst things for global emissions... and not just C02, developed countries won't be placing nearly as strict rules on other types of emissions which are far more harmful.

That's why ours will stay in the ground. We are the only responsible one and that increase the cost. So everyone else's oil will leave ground first before ours.

There is a reason Saudi is pumping even demand isn't there. The end is near and everyone is trying to cash out before the end comes.

[dirtsniffer]

http://i62.tinypic.com/vctkdf.jpg

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Xtrema


That's why ours will stay in the ground. We are the only responsible one and that increase the cost. So everyone else's oil will leave ground first before ours.

Well, not really. The plants that are in place will run for the next 50+ years. Sure, the oilsands won't GROW, but it will certainly churn out dolla dolla bills. So we have to diversify our economy, but the current economic situation shouldn't go downhill/backwards at least.

And make no mistake, if China, the EU, and America all see growth, oil will easily hit $100/barrel sooner rather than later. The whole "supply/demand" thing is bullshit, its all "what investors feel oil is worth".

[Redlined_8000]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Canada's worldwide emissions output is 2%. Until China, America, THE WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION, India, Russia, and Japan make drastic changes to their policies (these countries account for 75% of worldwide output), what we do means nothing. Crippling our economy while other refuse to do their share is nothing more than idiotic.

And this is why the NDP can not be put in power, because they dont understand our place in the world. :dunno:

Exactly.

The oil sands GHG emissions is 0.1% of global GHG emissions. So why does NDP want to neuter Albertas most suscesful industry? :thumbsdow

[Darkane]

The oil sands should not be left in the ground, but limited in growth. Allow companies to prove why their particular project will have less impact, and potentially set an example for other outfits to follow.

Shit, if anything only allow pilot projects with substantial (5years) operation before allowing expansion to commercial. That way the pilot model can and should be adhered to.

[mazdavirgin]

:facepalm: Does Toma think posting 1 line posts numerous times in a row helps his point? No it just makes it look like he has no concept as to how to use a forum or the edit button...

[reijo]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Well, not really. The plants that are in place will run for the next 50+ years. Sure, the oilsands won't GROW, but it will certainly churn out dolla dolla bills. So we have to diversify our economy, but the current economic situation shouldn't go downhill/backwards at least.

And make no mistake, if China, the EU, and America all see growth, oil will easily hit $100/barrel sooner rather than later. The whole "supply/demand" thing is bullshit, its all "what investors feel oil is worth".

Because their vision is too limited ... too small based on a continent (USA) and world basis. Canada is simply too small with too few people to really count for a whole lot (even emissions-wise as pointed out).

However, "shutting" in the oil sands will definitely affect us here. Goodbye to your car mods, house values and your employment possibilities/economy and add moving expenses.

Without oil think Saskatchewan (without the oil sands west of Saskatoon/Alberta border).

It is not just the jobs in the oil patch that are affected but all the spin-offs - e.g. those oil/gas people buy food, homes, vehicles, etc. etc. We will ALL feel that one way or another. And then add extra taxes on top of that. If this happens, the situation will not be good for us here in Alberta.

Therefore, I think it is better to not vote NDP then if you are interested in your own welfare here (no pun intended). Personally, I'm not interested in moving again if I can help it.

R

[Toma]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
:facepalm: Does Toma think posting 1 line posts numerous times in a row helps his point? No it just makes it look like he has no concept as to how to use a forum or the edit button...

Toma thinks, makes no difference what I post to you lol.

Permanently brainwashed, emotional believers such as yourself, cannot be shown the light, no matter what technique is used. Science has proven that. Well, besides MK Ultra, but you've already had your single allowable dose.

I would have posted a few more examples, but the damn 1 minute between posts rule saw my ADD kick in, and I had to move on.

[googe]

Arguments about current output are not actually relevant for this discussion. That's a different issue. This study is saying that the doomsday scenario is based on exploiting our known reserves.

Per capita, per area, etc, does not matter. They are saying if those reserves as they are known, as in the location and size, are exploited, whether 1 person does it or 1 billion people do it - if that oil leaves the ground - the result is global catastrophe.


"The first-of-its-kind research, published in the journal Nature, identified not only the amount, but also the geographical locations of carbon-based fossil fuels that should not be extracted if the world is to keep global temperatures from rising above a dangerous threshold, said scientists at University College London (UCL) Institute for Sustainable Resources.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/01/08/alberta-oil-sands-deposits-must-be-left-ground-avoid-catastrophic-warming-study-158620

They didn't single out Alberta. They named what has to be left alone for the planet to survive. Even more critical is the Arctic. But coal and natural gas in other countries are also on the list.



"The report also concludes that no country's Arctic energy resources can be developed if global temperature increases are to be kept manageable. It adds that about one-quarter of Canada's natural gas reserves and four-fifths of its coal would also have to be left in the ground."

[Sugarphreak]

...

[A790]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Also, the lead author of that journal article doesn't exactly come off as overly credible. He looks like a WOW geek.
I don't see how his appearance has any bearing on the validity of the information presented.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Well, not really. The plants that are in place will run for the next 50+ years. Sure, the oilsands won't GROW, but it will certainly churn out dolla dolla bills. So we have to diversify our economy, but the current economic situation shouldn't go downhill/backwards at least.

And make no mistake, if China, the EU, and America all see growth, oil will easily hit $100/barrel sooner rather than later. The whole "supply/demand" thing is bullshit, its all "what investors feel oil is worth".

Holy this is a uninformed post. Supply and demand is bullshit? Man I've said it before...you really need go take some basic economics courses to understand life because you post crap like this way too much. These same courses will help you understand unions a bit better as well.

My take on the situation is who the hell cares about emissions? Canada is vilified by people like Toma when we produce a lot less emissions based on our land mass. Add in the fact we have the worst climate in the world next to Russia forcing us to use heat our homes 24 hours/day for 8 months of the year. This same weather forces the majority of the country to use cars as the only means of transportation which includes letting your csr warm up for 5-10 mins before driving. The size of our country also requires long travel distances for any transportation. Despite everything against us we are still one of the most environmentally concious countries in the world. Look at hour strict our oil and gas regulations are compared to any other country in the world. We are responsible, plain and simple. So many factors the sheep like Toma don't understand.

[mazdavirgin]

http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/I-am-not-saying.jpg

Real science.

[ZenOps]

Comparing coal to oilsands is not valid.

Coal is usually directly converted into usable electricity energy, oilsands have to first be extracted into crude oil by burning natural gas, energy and time must then be expended again to refine crude into usable products like gasoline.

In many ways - oilsands are worse than coal, because you can always run an electric car directly off the electricity created by a coal plant.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Type_S1


Supply and demand is bullshit?

Sure is. The whole concept of commodities trading distorts supply and demand, making anyone that argues that any pricing is due solely because of supply and demand full of shit. Its due to the whim/feelings of investors, which is not supply and demand.

But hey, argue against that all you want :dunno: And my thoughts on unions are perfectly sound and accepted by many people, just because YOU don't agree with it doesn't make you right :rofl: I'm a pretty conservative individual myself, but sometimes the mental gymnastics people pull here to support the US style race to the bottom is terrifying.

[killramos]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Comparing coal to oilsands is not valid.

Coal is usually directly converted into usable electricity energy, oilsands have to first be extracted into crude oil by burning natural gas, energy and time must then be expended again to refine crude into usable products like gasoline.

In many ways - oilsands are worse than coal, because you can always run an electric car directly off the electricity created by a coal plant.

Cause you totally aren't skipping a few steps in the mining coal -> Electricity process at all there.

:rolleyes:

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I don't see how you could take that guy seriously if he walked into a room and through his thick nerd lisp went "Hey Guys... ya know.... if you keep using oil, it is going to destroy the earth and stuff"

Seriously? :rofl:

Requirement to be a scientist in Sugarphreak's eyes: 1. Don't be nerdy

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Toma]

Supply and Demand theory, "free market" theory etc rests on assumptions on the conditions of the market, producers, and consumers that DO NOT EXIST in the real world.

Nor can they exist outside of perhaps a garage sale.

I always laugh at the Americans on the US forums thst actuslly think they have "free markets".

hahaha. Silly kids, thats why school is important.

[BandW]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Sure is. The whole concept of commodities trading distorts supply and demand, making anyone that argues that any pricing is due solely because of supply and demand full of shit. Its due to the whim/feelings of investors, which is not supply and demand.

The feelings/whims of investors is just one factor of many that influence overall supply and demand.

You're thinking of supply and demand incorrectly if you frame it as "producers and consumers" so to speak.