Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
blackbird

BC Liberals in horserace with NDP

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm curious where you think the limit is and at what point an expense to the environment is great enough to not make it worth the price? 

People that want to ban pipelines, oil, natural gas, and other industries are living in an alternate reality.  Not sure who is supporting them, but almost every job is somehow dependent on these industries and resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Surely you're not suggesting the Liberals are the middle path between the Greens and NDP because that would be pretty weird.

Nah, I was thinking of Alberta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see where this goes. All the parties will be living under the threat of another election which could damage any of them depending on what triggers it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, blackbird said:

People that want to ban pipelines, oil, natural gas, and other industries are living in an alternate reality.  Not sure who is supporting them, but almost every job is somehow dependent on these industries and resources.

Okay, but the question still stands, is the environment completely expendable as far as the economy is concerned or not? Where is the limit or line that marks the point at which the environment trumps the economy instead of the other way around? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Okay, but the question still stands, is the environment completely expendable as far as the economy is concerned or not? Where is the limit or line that marks the point at which the environment trumps the economy instead of the other way around? 

How about the ability to get Oil that's going to be extracted regardless to market without more inefficient methods. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Boges said:

How about the ability to get Oil that's going to be extracted regardless to market without more inefficient methods. 

What about it?  The most efficient way of doing anything with oil is to disregard the environmental costs.  Are you suggesting these costs are to be disregarded without limit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about it?  The most efficient way of doing anything with oil is to disregard the environmental costs.  Are you suggesting these costs are to be disregarded without limit?

I would say there's a limit. But is anyone seriously entertaining shutting down the Oil Sands? JT certainly isn't. The NDP government in Alberta isn't either.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say alternative energy producers are definitely serious about putting the tar sands out of business and for good reason...well, two good reasons, 1. its profitable, but more importantly this limitless disregard for the environment needs to be stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm curious where you think the limit is and at what point an expense to the environment is great enough to not make it worth the price? 

There is no tolerable amount of hydrocarbons.  BC should set an example by closing all airports, blockading all ports, tearing up rail tracks  and removing all gasoline pumps in the province.  People are just going to have to be cheerful when the climate police come to remove their furnaces and fireplaces too.  Shivering in the dark will keep everybody warm enough.

 

It is not clear how they will keep cows from farting copious amounts of methane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Wilber said:

It will be interesting to see where this goes. All the parties will be living under the threat of another election which could damage any of them depending on what triggers it.

It is not wild speculation to assume that there will be zero pipelines or LNG facilities built in BC.  There is no scenario available now that would see political approval of anything in the province, and several that would see outright rejection  of both approved and proposed projects.  Even if Clark wins another seat, her majority is so thin that every government backbencher could blackmail her or be bribed to cross the floor.

 

More likely or perhaps almost certainly big money in oil and LNG like Petronas and Kinder-Morgan will take the strong hint and just decide not to invest in Canada.  They will join the already huge flight of capital by multinationals who recognize that Canada is just  not a friendly place for them in the resource industry. 

 

We have only ourselves to blame.  We are simultaneously unwillingly to recognize how our fat, comfortable social contract is funded(hint: it is not through deficits), and then constantly elect fools that reinforce our bad choices.  And... here we go again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, overthere said:

There is no tolerable amount of hydrocarbons.  BC should set an example by closing all airports, blockading all ports, tearing up rail tracks  and removing all gasoline pumps in the province.

That would be rather silly. How about we simply determine an appropriate limit to our economy's impact on the environment and then live within it?  Why is that so much to ask - why does it have to be all or nothing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, overthere said:

It is not wild speculation to assume that there will be zero pipelines or LNG facilities built in BC.  There is no scenario available now that would see political approval of anything in the province, and several that would see outright rejection  of both approved and proposed projects.  Even if Clark wins another seat, her majority is so thin that every government backbencher could blackmail her or be bribed to cross the floor.

 

More likely or perhaps almost certainly big money in oil and LNG like Petronas and Kinder-Morgan will take the strong hint and just decide not to invest in Canada.  They will join the already huge flight of capital by multinationals who recognize that Canada is just  not a friendly place for them in the resource industry. 

 

We have only ourselves to blame.  We are simultaneously unwillingly to recognize how our fat, comfortable social contract is funded(hint: it is not through deficits), and then constantly elect fools that reinforce our bad choices.  And... here we go again.

The scenario is the possibility of another election. If the NDP and Greens are too obstructionist on some issues for the public's taste, or the Liberals can sell the idea that they are not acting in the best interest of the province, it could work out quite well for the Liberals if they could call another election.

The Liberals didn't get a majority so get over it. There is a lot of chess to be played here and all the parties have something to lose if they get it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Okay, but the question still stands, is the environment completely expendable as far as the economy is concerned or not? Where is the limit or line that marks the point at which the environment trumps the economy instead of the other way around? 

Obviously there has to be a middle point.  That's what the BC Oil and Gas Commission and the Alberta Energy Regulator are for, to name a couple.  There is no benefit to leaving heavily regulated hydrocarbons in the ground if they will only be replaced by product from a less regulated region.  No-one who drives a car that runs on gasoline refined from Canadian crude is going to suddenly stop doing so if Canada stops refining it.  I'm more than happy with making sure environmental protection costs industry a lot more than it does now, if such a position can be justified.  And that applies to everything, not just oil and gas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, overthere said:

It is not wild speculation to assume that there will be zero pipelines or LNG facilities built in BC.  There is no scenario available now that would see political approval of anything in the province, and several that would see outright rejection  of both approved and proposed projects.  Even if Clark wins another seat, her majority is so thin that every government backbencher could blackmail her or be bribed to cross the floor.

 

More likely or perhaps almost certainly big money in oil and LNG like Petronas and Kinder-Morgan will take the strong hint and just decide not to invest in Canada.  They will join the already huge flight of capital by multinationals who recognize that Canada is just  not a friendly place for them in the resource industry. 

 

We have only ourselves to blame.  We are simultaneously unwillingly to recognize how our fat, comfortable social contract is funded(hint: it is not through deficits), and then constantly elect fools that reinforce our bad choices.  And... here we go again.

Well, I can honestly say I have spoken in favour of responsible resource development and opposed radical environmentalism on comment sections on the internet.  But it seems so little in the face of the big foreign money that funds World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, and other envirnomental organizations.  Canada is really getting propagandized by radical environmentalist organizations, which have rich foreign backing.  B.C. is taking the brunt of it right now.  These are dark times we are living in.  Trudeau is an impotent Prime Minister and seems paralyzed on the Energy East pipeline.  He is probably afraid of losing Liberal votes in Ontario and Quebec.  A lot of people are inward looking and don't care about the rest of the country.  We need a PM who can show strong leadership and get these pipelines built, but I am not too optimistic.

A lot of people want better health care, education, better government pensions, old age homes, affordable housing but a lot of these people are doing everything to prevent resource development by going out and voting for the NDP and Greens.  Therein lies the problem.  They get what they vote for.  Margaret Thatcher once said the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2017 at 7:42 PM, blackbird said:

Well, I can honestly say I have spoken in favour of responsible resource development and opposed radical environmentalism on comment sections on the internet.  But it seems so little in the face of the big foreign money that funds World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, and other envirnomental organizations.  Canada is really getting propagandized by radical environmentalist organizations, which have rich foreign backing.  B.C. is taking the brunt of it right now.  These are dark times we are living in.  Trudeau is an impotent Prime Minister and seems paralyzed on the Energy East pipeline.  He is probably afraid of losing Liberal votes in Ontario and Quebec.  A lot of people are inward looking and don't care about the rest of the country.  We need a PM who can show strong leadership and get these pipelines built, but I am not too optimistic.

A lot of people want better health care, education, better government pensions, old age homes, affordable housing but a lot of these people are doing everything to prevent resource development by going out and voting for the NDP and Greens.  Therein lies the problem.  They get what they vote for.  Margaret Thatcher once said the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

Again we have a situation where common sense and logic has been replaced by emotionalism and foolishness. As far as I am concerned those who voted for the NDP or the Greens have no clue about how the real world works. These dumb environ"mental"ists are out to send Canada back to the 19th century. They won't be happy until we are all living on reserves. What Canada needs is more unemployed politicians. Maybe then the people can get things done properly for a change. Hey, you never know. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody, including the BC Green Party, is suggesting that all natural resource industries should be shut down.  Many people do think, however that our natural resources industries are not being managed responsibly.

A few years ago there was a mining project that would have destroyed an entire lake, as in the lake would not physically exist anymore. The mining company said that destroying the lake was the only financially viable way to mine the area. The BC Liberals did an environmental assessment and shipped it off to the feds for approval.  The feds-- this was the Harper government-- said "are you freaking kidding me? This is a disaster!" and rejected the project.   The mining company goes back to the drawing board and magically, they discover that there actually is a financially viable way to mine the area without destroying the entire lake. Once again the Liberals rubber stamp it and ship it off to the feds and once again the federal government-- still Harper-- says the new plan is still a disaster that they can't approve.  And they're still at it... the BC Liberals and the mining company are trying to find a way to make the project go ahead that bypasses federal approval.

How bad is the BC environmental process if even the Harper government was canning stuff that BC approved?  How cozy are the Liberals with industry that companies can get this kind of favor?

I'm not against using resources responsibly, but I don't want to see irreplaceable things destroyed for the sake of creating a few jobs that will be gone in a few years.

 -k

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The environment must be safeguarded but enough resources must be used to allow for a prospering economy, as well. In an area with as low a population density as BC (and Canada more generally), these two goals are not at all mutually exclusive. In fact, greater economic prosperity can allow for increased funding for environmental stewardship to actually reduce damage to the environment. For example, more funding for the provincial parks would allow improved trail maintenance and camp sites, which would reduce environmental damage. 

When it comes to pipelines, as far as I have seen, they are by far the safest and most economical way to transport oil and gas. Regulators should follow an incremental, iterative process to improve safety and reliability requirements over time. Reliability requirements should be tightened over time and for subsequent pipeline projects, which meshes well with companies also learning from prior projects and being able to construct future ones in a more cost effective and robust manner. 

In a place like BC, there really doesn't have to be some stark choice between a prosperous economy or a clean environment... we can most certainly have both, and for the most part already do. All it takes is good management and a limited rate of population growth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be disconcerting to many around here to see Kimmy and Bonam turning into a couple of snow-flakey lefties.

What's the world coming to? 

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It must be disconcerting to many around here to see Kimmy and Bonam turning into a couple of snow-flakey lefties.

What's the world coming to? 

I have always been a supporter of managing the environment carefully and well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's that working out for you - are your concerns being addressed to your satisfaction?

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

How's that working out for you - are your concerns being addressed to your satisfaction?

In Canada, I'd say for the most part yes. As kimmy said, even the Harper government frequently stopped projects from going ahead when they were deemed too environmentally harmful. Here in the US under the new administration, it's probably gonna be a bit of a different story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2017 at 1:58 PM, eyeball said:

That would be rather silly. How about we simply determine an appropriate limit to our economy's impact on the environment and then live within it?  Why is that so much to ask - why does it have to be all or nothing?

Exactly. This is what climate economists like William Nordhaus and Richard Tol try to do. They suggest internalizing the externalities of CO2 by taxing it at the appropriate rate. Unfortunately, their advice isn't really followed by anyone.

 

All this banning of pipelines or new plants is inefficient. The most economicially efficient way to reduce emissions is to tax CO2 emissions. Eliminate all other forms of mitigation and only focus on the correct level of tax. Ideally, try to pursue a global pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one wants to talk about this? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ndp-green-agreement-1.4136539

Quote

 

The B.C. Green Party has agreed to support the NDP in the legislature, setting up the possibility of 16 years of Liberal rule coming to a dramatic end.

NDP Leader John Horgan and Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver made the joint announcement Monday afternoon at the B.C. Legislature, saying they had reached a four-year agreement.

"In the end, we had to make a difficult decision," Weaver told reporters, describing the negotiating sessions his party held with the NDP and B.C. Liberals since election night ended without a definitive result three weeks ago.

"A decision we felt was in the best interest of B.C. today. And that decision was for the B.C. Greens to work with the B.C. NDP to provide a stable minority government over the four-year term of this next session."

 

Coalitions seem rather rare in Canada. Does anyone believe it'll last a full four year term? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll preface by saying that I did vote Liberal.  However, coalition governments are a bad idea.  The Green people voted Green because they didn't want the NDP, and most that I saw speaking up were very adamant that they were not NDP, that they were Green.  Even when asked to flip their votes for strategic purposes, they were offended at the notion.  I also realize that the idea of Green voters being closer to NDP ideals is out there, but even I was surprised at the numbers of Greens who would otherwise had voted for Liberal. 

I know the other side is gonna argue that more people voted against the Liberals than for the Liberals, so therefore it's all OK, but I gotta think there are many Greens who are very disappointed with this outcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...