Reply With QuoteShouldn't Canadians love Big Oil and all the money it brings them? If I lived in Canada I would be all over politicians who support Big Oil.
Not only is the Kyoto protocol long gone, now they won't even meet the Copenhagen promise of 17% below 2005 levels:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...n-environment/
The Harper government sees politics as a constant battle of “sword” and “shield” issues.
The Prime Minister wields them like a great lord in Game of Thrones – going on the offensive on “sword” issues; parrying on “shield” issues, where even talking about them is considered a vote-loser.
There is no subject on which the Harperites are more defensive than the environment, and, given their recent stumbles, it was a particularly inopportune time for the release of a new report from the Environment Commissioner, Scott Vaughan. He suggested Tuesday there is no plan to meet the targets on greenhouse gas emissions that the government set for itself and, consequently, those targets are unlikely to be met.
To be fair, the Tories haven’t been completely inactive on the file.
Regulations to control greenhouse gases have been developed behind the scenes. The problem is, that’s where they have remained.
The Conservatives circulated a notice of intent to regulate the oil and gas sector last summer that went to Cabinet but was spiked in the face of opposition from the industry and Ed Stelmach’s Alberta government.
As Mr. Vaughan pointed out in his spring report on Canada’s 2020 climate change commitments, in the absence of such regs, the government is unlikely to hit its target of emission levels 17% below 2005 levels.
In 2006, I interviewed the Conservative government’s first environment minister, Rona Ambrose. Legislation was a “national priority,” she said. The government was prepared to impose regulations unilaterally on large emitters in the oil and gas, electricity and automotive sectors, she said.
In Copenhagen in 2009, the Conservatives pledged to hit the same target as the Americans – namely, 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press
Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan thinks the Conservatives are unlikely to meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets because they've made no plans to do so.
Yet, Mr. Vaughan’s report said, not only is there still no plan to achieve those targets, there is also no economic analysis on what the cost of doing so will be to the Canadian economy.
The government has introduced regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. Regulations have been proposed for the electricity sector but are not expected to take effect until 2015. But there are no regulations for the oil and gas sector.
Environment Canada’s own Emissions Trends calculator estimates GHG emissions will be 7.4% above 2005 levels by 2020, not 17% below. Canada emitted 631 million tonnes of GHGs in 2005; that rose to 690 million tonnes by 2009, before dipping thanks to the recession. But Environment Canada’s own numbers suggest that dip is temporary and forecast an increase to 785 million tonnes by 2020. The oil sands will add an estimated 62 million tonnes in that period, while the transportation sectors already regulated are expected to reduce emissions by just 11-13 million tonnes.
Peter Kent, the Environment Minister, continued to insist that the government is making “significant progress” towards its target but, while it may not be an outright lie (emissions are down), neither is it remotely true.
By appearing indolent and indifferent, the Conservatives risk backlash from those who may have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in the past.
Another Tory political calculation is that the world is divided into carnivores, who don’t care about the environment, and herbivores, who do and never vote Conservative.
Yet there seem to be an increasing number of people who fit neither pigeon-hole. Recent polls suggest a majority of Canadians believe in man-made global warming — a number that is likely rising in the wake of yet another winter of record-breaking warm temperatures. A crowd estimated at 250,000 people took to the streets of Montreal to celebrate Earth Day last month.
Governments that stand against action will increasingly look like an old calendar.
Some form of carbon pricing to bring down intensity emissions is inevitable, if Canada is to escape being tagged as purveyors of “dirty” oil by jealous trading partners. Better that pricing be imposed by the Conservatives than a future federal NDP government that wants to reduce profits in the oil sands to bring down the value of the dollar and boost manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec.
If the Conservatives do not dust off their regulations for the oil and gas sector, they may again raise the dander of the Alberta government – but this time, rather than being asked to sit on their hands, Premier Alison Redford may ask Ottawa to provide some leadership on the climate change file.
National Post
Let's resume the main points of our previous discussion:
1) Harper works directly for the oil lobby
2) He probably honestly thinks that the energy sector is Canada's economic future, so it's not like he's doing it "without a reason"
3) The result is still that the only way to preserve the value of oil on the long term is to torpedo international agreements for as long as possible
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Shouldn't Canadians love Big Oil and all the money it brings them? If I lived in Canada I would be all over politicians who support Big Oil.
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
I am not so blinded as to oppose cashing in on a major resource, but I question Harper's management of the question.Originally Posted by regexcellent
The sensible thing to do would be to take the money and use it to fund a transition to an oil independent economy. The Conservatives obviously won't do this, as this it would accelerate the worldwide transition and reduce our profit window. Instead they're busy sacking environmental regulations in poisoned omnibus bills, GOPing Canadian politics.
Yep, this is really what we need now: American Congress level politics
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
In related news, today's headlines are revealing that personal acquaintances of Gaddafi organized fund raising events for the Conservatives.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Here's a newsflash: We wouldn't meet that level regardless of what Harper did.
The people who promised that were mentally retarded.
There's no point in discussing absurdity.Let's resume the main points of our previous discussion:
1) Harper works directly for the oil lobby
Harper represents his constituents whose interests are directly connected with the health of the energy industry. He is doing his job as an elected member of the legislature.
Only a Quebecker or someone similarly lacking in rationality would argue something otherwise.2) He probably honestly thinks that the energy sector is Canada's economic future, so it's not like he's doing it "without a reason"
I think this is a stretch. More appropriately he's weighed the tradeoff between reducing GHG by 0.1% globally and torpedoing the strongest part of Canada's economy and decided only a moron would think it's a good thing to agree to nebulous agreements with no consequences for the world's largest polluters.3) The result is still that the only way to preserve the value of oil on the long term is to torpedo international agreements for as long as possible
Boris is from Quebec. People from Quebec tend not to have the ability to think rationally.
Alberta directly makes money from oil -- which they see and are clearly jealous about.
Quebec indirectly makes billions of dollars each year in charity from Alberta due to oil, which they cannot comprehend.
Of course the energy sector is Canada's economic future.
Does thinking in French screw up your brain or something?
It's not language-based, it's culture.
The people who are born in Quebec with a good head on their shoulders recognize that it's a not a place for intelligent people and move away (see KH).
The people left in Quebec are people who don't know any better. And they don't know any better because they're stupid.
Except KH was, I believe, an anglophone, so it could still be the pernicious effects of the French language.
There's plenty of intelligent Francophones from Quebec. They just no longer live in Quebec.
One of my best CS profs was from Quebec and a frog.
I have a friend from Trois-Rivieres (I think?) who is a francophone Quebecer, got his degree at University of Ottawa, and now lives in Rochester.
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
Haha, you tard.
1) Quebec will soon make billions too from patches found in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence
2) What I criticized Alberta for, I'll criticize Quebec for
3) We have already established that Alberta's Quebec contribution to equalization was $1.4b, i.e. it's not "billions".
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Like the federal legislation doesn't work for its contributors.
It's a bit more than a disinterested stance towards the economy, you tool.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Except it's not humanity's future.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
No, it'll never make billions per year from that.
Semantics.2) What I criticized Alberta for, I'll criticize Quebec for
3) We have already established that Alberta's Quebec contribution to equalization was $1.4b, i.e. it's not "billions".
Only $1.4B per year, or about $700 per year per taxpayer from Alberta directly to poor third-world Quebec.
So as soon as Quebec's oil yields around $1.4b, we'll call it semantics if it's not "billions".
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
You clearly don't understand the energy sector if you think Quebec could ever get close to $1.4B a year in oil royalties.
For the uninformed crowd, Quebec's PM, John Charest, is a former federal conservative heavyweight.
He's already preparing his bid to be Harper's successor by favoring Albertan investors in extremely shady oil and gas deals.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
The problem with Gulf of the St. Lawrence is this: it's 1-2 billion barrels of oil at most and it's in an incredibly environmentally sensitive area. Quebec is throwing a hissy fit over Alberta mining frozen tundra while they are considering drilling for oil in an area known for its diverse wildlife, fishing, and tourism industry?
For comparison, Alberta has proven and currently technologically/economically viable reserves of about 180 billion barrels.
Quebec doesn't even qualify as a small-time player.
Hydro-Quebec sold the rights to it in exchange for priority dues, so we wouldn't need to extract that much to get to $1.4b.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Recent unexpected results have set hopes at around 30-40 billion barrels.
You are absolutely correct about the ecological factor. Hence "what I criticized Alberta for, I'll criticize Quebec for".
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Yes, you would...to get $1.4B per year.
It's horseshit.
I don't think so.
We're talking about unconventional shale oil, so as technology develops in the next few years, these barrels will become available.
But here's the real deal that convinces me that we're on to something bigger.
The rights to Gulf oil belonged to Hydro-Quebec, and exploration was conducted by government engineers. In a rather "strange" turn of event:
a) Hydro-Quebec sold the rights at an undisclosed price
b) The Ministry department was shut down and all 26 engineers were hired by the companies whom the rights were sold to
c) At the same time, Charest's government was cheerleading shale gas investments in other areas of Quebec, proclaiming that shale fossil fuels were Quebec's future
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
I do, and the industry does.
Who is claiming it's anything beyond 2?
If we're counting "what if" technological scenarios, then Alberta has something like 1.2 trillion barrels.
I am merely pointing out that the timely disbanding of government prospection by a cabinet nationally recognized for its corruption could very well be a sign that there's something real down there.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
The amount of proven reserves is a fluctuating number dependent on prices.
Just like with minerals, where the word "ore" refers to reserves that can be profitably extracted, so the same rock can be ore at 100 feet depth and not be ore at 500 feet depth.
Whenever gas prices come back down again Alberta will have a much smaller amount of proven oil.
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
Lets assume a royalty rate of 14% for the ease of the math-- To get to 1,4 B you need to produce oil valued at 10 billion bucks per year. At 100 bucks a barrell thats 100 million barrells a year
That strikes me as a lot-- Obviously if your royalty rate is twice as high you need half as many barrells-- If the royalt is a net royalty of some form instead of a gross, then you might need additional production
I have not worked shale oil but I know that shale gas requires a lot of fractures which means very expensive wells which are less capable of maintaing a high royalty burden and remaining economic. Obviously the economics of oil are far superior to that of natyral gas but the fact remains that the plays must be competitive to be developped and the fact that Quebec is undevelopped emans that it lacks a lot of the needed infrastructure. Any ramp up will take time
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks