No.

that would only entrench the fight more. More high paying jobs in AB and gov't subsidies have to help that industry, which is not bad as many industries are subsidized, but to have those subsidies flow into AB would just be another reason for hate.

Build those refineries in economic need areas in Northern BC and Northern Quebec. BC for access to the Asian market. QB for access to NY and the rest of the US.

If the Fed's did that, suddenly BC and QB would be the ones arguing for the Pipelines to bring the product in as cheaply as possible to them so they could get the majority of the 'finished product' mark up and taxes that right now US Refiners are enjoying.

Would you say it was fair that it has been ~50 times that you've repeated this identical pair of talking points in a row since the last time I addressed them? Obviously you spam them so outrageously frequently in any whataboutBCism you can tangentially find, so addressing them substantively isn't really worth it and every time you spam this pair it says far more about you than anybody else.

Let's do coal first. The federal government passed a ban on tanker traffic in northern BC. This is the ban that effectively killed Northern Gateway (although it also wasn't approved) and some of the arguments here are about the relatively treacherous waterways in pristine environments with relatively little infrastructure to support things like large cleanups. In contrast, the ban does NOT apply to port of vancouver with its short and open trip to international waters and extensive anti-spill infrastructure (something further negotiated in the transmountain expansion).

So do you think Canada should also ban oil and coal exports through port of vancouver?

As for raw sewage, as it happens I live in what was the last major jurisdiction in BC to not have a sewage treatment plant and advocated for one since I was a kid. We now have one. It was a long debate because the indications was that the plant was extremely expensive for a pretty marginal change in pollution, indeed with a bunch of studies indicated that given the swift currents outside of victoria the negative effects on marine life is extremely small and if you cared about the environment this was one of the least effective ways to spend the billions. Nevertheless, in line with federal mandates to end any sewage dumping by 2020 victoria built the plant. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that you would have voted to spend the money to build it. Am I wrong?

I get that you two are both older, and that the whole "let's build a refinery in Canada!!!!" genius-brain idea was super in vogue in the 90s, but I think its time to let go of that errrr.....pipedream. It isn't happening economically. And it isn't happening politically. You guys had your pro-albertan oil export guy in office for a decade and not even he thought revining petro-canada and subsidizing refineries in Canada was a good move.

If you want to spend billions of federal government subsidies to advance a Canadian economic interest, spend it on clean energy. We should be focusing on reducing our dependency on oil, not trying to squeeze even more out of it.

I don't get the 'whataboutism' complaint on this issue.

it seems very poorly applied as I think a consistent approach for a NATION would be the most important thing if you do not want division.

To try and suggest certain Provinces can get away with things and to raise it is wrong creates a selective focus, that even if the complaint is legit, is likely to get dismissed.

I mean, it could be 100% true that AB may have issues around Oil that need to be addressed but if SK or NF raise them as a complaint while they have the exact same issues, then saying trying to discuss that is 'whataboutism' missed the mark.

Yes it is whataboutism but it is also very appropriate in that instance.

This post seems to assume both cannot be true.

And I am not interested generally in emotion based arguments. I fully accept that todays younger people tend to look at this topic based on emotions only and I agree the emotional stance is one that wants Oil interests to go away. It is just that logic and reality SHOULD take precedent over emotion.

Fact is (FACT) Oil as a commodity is not going away any time soon even if Canada invests heavily in alternative energy. And I would have the gov't dedicate the taxes they take in on oil, to being used to build out Clean Energy so that we get the full benefits from both.

If you remove the emotional arguments you have to accept that your feels will not impact AT ALL the Oil coming out of AB. That oil is coming up even if they have to subsidize it and it is being put on Trucks to market.

So all you can do is lessen the impact of it coming up and the transport of it.

The FEELS argument wants to PUNISH AB by denying them better economics because 'dirty oil' even if it means more CO2 emissions. They will take the latter to deny the former and that is just self defeating.

Why exactly should the federal government prioritize subsidizing fossil fuels? If it made economic sense, ok, sure, maybe we can sacrifice our long term environmental obligations for short term economic gain. But it doesn't. Not even close. This is why people like you talk about canadian refining this is in the context of it having to be subsidized by the canadian government. I think we should be increasing the taxation on fossil fuels, not pouring extra money into it to subsidize it! Maybe it is just a case of the FEELS that makes you want to subsidize it?

On whataboutisms, it is important to note that lozen uses those same two one-sentence, contextless, throwaway talking points to criticize BC literal dozens and dozens and dozens of times ITT. If there is anything remotely related to the environment then WHAT ABOUT BC DON'T YOU KNOW ABOUT SEWAGE. Yes, lozen. I've been fighting against it in my city my entire life. Sit down.

I never said that.

What I said is that FACT that oil is coming up.

So why not prioritize making it as CLEAN as possible if it is?
Why not do both and take the immense money from fossil fuels and pour them into building out Clean Energy so you pay for the transition form one to the other?

It makes both economic and environmental sense. See above.


that would be silly.

i prefer improving our short term and long term environment obligations and it is FACT a pipeline is cleaner than transport via Trucks.

Lets be cleaner and more responsible.


Make your case. Don't just present the typical millennial emotional position with no facts of substantiation. Provide some data.

If you need me to I can present the economics on Oil production and also the assessments that transport via trucks is dirtier than via pipeline.


This is s nuanced discussion so you need to follow close and dig deep.

Refineries absolutely are a function of SCALE and Canada will never compete with Texas scale refineries so if you take JUST the refineries in a bubble they are not profitable in Canada.

HOWEVER...

There are other economic components outside just the refining that can be considered to make the case for subsidies and them potentially being profitable.

I am not offering this as the final analysis but just showing what some of the Math looks like.

Is Canada really sending $80 million in oil wealth to the Americans every day?

So based on the above Math, can you make a case for subsidizing one area because you make so much money in other areas of this?

And then add in all the high paying Union jobs that come with that, all paying income tax in Canada instead of those jobs now being in the US.


Me too. These are not mutually exclusive.



Seems emotional mainly because it is anti environmental but I will await some logic on this position.


Oh on. I am not a millennial and don't argue emotionally. I support my view with data and facts as I did.



OK, but lozen aside you agree a consistent approach to RESOURCES and their Environmental Impact across Canada is important and if any Province is pointing fingers hypocritically that should be in the discuss. Right?

BTW AB did get a new Rifinery back in 2017 and we proved we can lead worldwide in the Greening of that technology.

So again why ship our Canadian Oil off to the US creating more CO2, to refineries that will emit more CO2 to then ship it back to Canada as finished product (again emitting more CO2) when we can do it in Canada cheaper and capture all the economic benefits here???


There is no answer, i've seen other than the emotional response of 'we don't like Oil so even positive steps within that process will be fought!'

New policy: I shall stop reading your posts at the first lie. This is what you said:
I don't think the government should subsidize oil production.

Don't blame me because you don't know how the language works.

My use of 'if' there is to say 'whether they do or don't'.

Anyway I have explained why subsidizing it would not necessary be bad and you are completely ducking answering all the key questions of why it is better to have more CO2 via trucking and US refineries because you have no answer.

You can pretend it is the use of 'if' that makes you go no further but the facts are that if you want the World and Canada and particularly AB to be cleaner and strive towards reducing CO2, then you should support Pipelines and these better refineries.

If your entire view is based on emotion (and in many cases spite in not wanting AB to make more money) then you fight that.

What you cannot do is claim a reasoned and explainable position that is not based in emoting. You'll just say 'what you think' but be unable to articulate any good reasons for it as they are emotion driven.

Fair enough. Back to snoozed you go.

Yeah the sewage stuff in the ocean is a bit over the top .
For mtl at least .
It happens once for an emergency issue and the majority of people here were condemning it already .
It isn’t something that will happen again .

Edmonton actually has the same problem iirc. In a big storm, there is overflow and sewage makes it into the river without passing through the sewage treatment plant. Locally there is a big money ticket debate in vancouver which also has that same problem that more should be done to upgrade the storm drains to prevent storm-based sewage leakage. And those are fine and reasonable cost-benefit debates to have, but used as this sort of bludgeon whataboutism is just silly.

Some of my posts age well, others....not so much. But really it was a single day after my whole "northern BC is much more dangerous with poor infrastructure so tanker bans up there make sense while port of vancouver is a short safe distance to open ocean" speach got spoiled REALLLLLLLY quick

https://globalnews.ca/news/8292259/l...-zim-kingston/

New Cabinet Tuesday will see what he does with the defense minister and of course Mr Woke had to have 50% Female and 50% male which will be a challenge losing 4 female members in the election.
Alberta should get a cabinet post as well
Oh and Id be fine if all the cabinet members were female if they were the most qualified

Ewwww, what a gross title National Post. Who are you, lozen?

That title has quickly been replaced, but you can still see it in the url:https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ced-by-a-woman

Of course that woman, Anita Aanad is the one who led the absolutely incredibly procurement process throughout the pandemic and why we had among the best in the world rollouts of vaccines in this country. I hope she does well.

I am not sure what your asking? I never wrote it.

I am just glad the Harjit is gone maybe after 6 years of doing nothing someone will fix the problem

Glad to see Trudeau appointed a nut to the Environment portfolio

You know its bad for Alberta when both Kenney and Notley against it

I was indeed glad. Canada has made targets and done nothing for too long. Trudeau's biggest accomplishments are that he actually started us down a meaningful carbon reduction path, but there is a lot more to be done. We need someone as minister who is going to push as hard as possible to get something actually done.

Like bill C-10? Other than being a wack job environmental activist why do your think he'll be the one to achieve Trudeau's utopia?

"nut", "wack job", the branding is happening a bit quickly for somebody whose name you had never heard of yesterday, don't you think?

Oh I was aware of him before being appointed yesterday. Reality is the climate phony will fail in reducing emissions in the near future.

Kenney would have been better served putting separation on the ballot instead of equalization?

lol. I always forget your deep wealth of knowledge with ya know the quebec environmental movement. The rest of us plebs in Canada maybe know of C-10 but probably couldn't name even a majority of the minor ministers like for heritage.

Regardless, the madder Albertans are that an environmentalist is in charge of the ministry of the environment, probably the better it is for the environment. This is great news.

Lol yes because only sane normal people climb the CN tower to hang flags and get arrested.

But again why do you think he'll be the one to save the environment? What has he done other than being a wack job activist that climbs buildings and get a arrested?

Hey you've been going deep in that wikipedia page since yesterday! Well, I don't necessarily think he'll be the "one" to save the environment, but certainly that 20 years ago he did a pretty mild environmental activism doesn't discredit him. I think there is the potential that having a committed environmentalist in a leadership role will actually give some of the action that lozen pretends he really wants.