Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Ewall87

Do you support Western Oil & Gas?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

There are federal subsidies in America for both, and renewables come up well short, and that has little to do with with oil and gas getting more subsidies, they are just cheaper and more efficient.

This article is about Canada. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/green-energy-economy-1.5143757

"The report declares that while Canadians obsess about pipelines and shrinking employment in coal, oil and gas, they and their leaders have been ignoring a sector that is outgrowing the rest of the economy, attracting billions of dollars in investment and creating more jobs than either the fossil fuel or mining sectors." 

"It estimates the clean energy industry accounts for about three per cent of Canada's GDP ... and employed 298,000 people in 2017."

 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jacee said:

This article is about Canada. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/green-energy-economy-1.5143757

"The report declares that while Canadians obsess about pipelines and shrinking employment in coal, oil and gas, they and their leaders have been ignoring a sector that is outgrowing the rest of the economy, attracting billions of dollars in investment and creating more jobs than either the fossil fuel or mining sectors." 

"It estimates the clean energy industry accounts for about three per cent of Canada's GDP ... and employed 298,000 people in 2017."

 

Outgrowing doesn't mean it's going to go on forever. It is nowhere near being cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, even on it's current trajectory, which will slow down at some point anyway. Wishful thinking is a helluva drug, claims of the green energy economy taking over have been greatly exaggerated.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Outgrowing doesn't mean it's going to go on forever. It is nowhere near being cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, even on it's current trajectory, which will slow down at some point anyway. Wishful thinking is a helluva drug, claims of the green energy economy taking over have been greatly exaggerated.

I was actually surprised that renewable energy is already 3% of Canada's GDP, and without federal subsidies. It will soon to overtake oil and gas (~5% of GDP).

https://www.investcanada.ca/industries/renewable-energy

"With the world's fifth-largest capacity for renewable energy at 89 GW and renewable sources generating 64 percent of its total electricity"

Exporting renewable energy to the US is as simple as connecting a production site to the existing power grid. No pipelines or shipping necessary. 

The more I learn, the more surprised and impressed I am at the current state of renewable energy in Canada, quietly overtaking fossil fuels already, attracting huge investment as it is clearly the way of the future, and poised for massive rollout.

In response to the thread title - "Do you support Western Oil & Gas" - I guess I'd have to say ... I support workers who are looking to the future and considering how their skills can be transferrable to renewable energy, or upgraded for that purpose. And I support oil and gas energy companies that are diversifying into renewables. 

I don't support oil & gas companies that fund lobbyists and propagandists who misinform workers and the public. The current angst of oil workers is largely due to those misinformation campaigns about the rosy future of the business: All their projections assume continuing, even increasing,  investment, and that's just not something the fossil fuel industries can count on any more. Their predictions of another forty years of expansion just aren't realistic: Workers are not being told the truth.  

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jacee said:

I was actually surprised that renewable energy is already 3% of Canada's GDP, and without federal subsidies. It will soon to overtake oil and gas (~5% of GDP).

In response to the thread title - "Do you support Western Oil & Gas" - I guess I'd have to say ... I support workers who are looking to the future and considering how their skills can be transferrable to renewable energy, or upgraded for that purpose. And I support oil and gas energy companies that are diversifying into renewables. 

I don't support oil & gas companies that fund lobbyists and propagandists who misinform workers and the public. The current angst of oil workers is largely due to those misinformation campaigns about the rosy future of the business: All their projections assume continuing, even increasing,  investment, and that's just not something the fossil fuel industries can count on any more. Their predictions of another forty years of expansion just aren't realistic.  

It's not overtaking fossil fuels, it's not even close to doing so, they have a 40% profitability gap to close.

You only support oil companies who do what you want, and those who don't have no right to free speech if you had your way. Funny how your solution to every problem is the silencing of those who think differently from you. 

Your predictions for the next 40 years aren't realistic either, they are wishful thinking based.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

It's not overtaking fossil fuels, it's not even close to doing so, they have a 40% profitability gap to close. 

Renewable Energy's 3% of GDP is pretty damn close to Fossil Fuel's 5%, especially when RE is rising and FF is falling. 

The profitability is already there, IF it was a level playing field of equal subsidies. Fossil fuels are on corporate welfare support, and being overtaken by renewables even so. Without FF subsidies, it would be all over already.

You only support oil companies who do what you want, and those who don't have no right to free speech if you had your way. Funny how your solution to every problem is the silencing of those who think differently from you.

You think it's "free speech" for oil companies to lie to their workers to keep them working right up until the company closes its doors, declares bankruptcy, and runs away with workers' pension funds, using their money to pay out massive executive severance packages and whatever portion of their debts is required under bankruptcy laws? Do you know how many times that has happened in Canada? It's common business practice. Workers lose every time. 

Your predictions for the next 40 years aren't realistic either, they are wishful thinking based.

It's all about the money: The movement of investments from fossil fuels to renewables is nearing a tipping point, even without equal subsidies. Past the tipping point of profitability, the massive shift of investors' money will happen so quickly your head will spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows what the future will bring.  Maybe they will find a way to transport goods with clean energy.  Very unlikely due to the weight and power needed. 

But you cannot honestly believe that we can continue on with our heavy dependence of fossil fuels.  They take millions of years to form.  It's simple math.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the market decide, if renewables or fossil fuels can't win on a level playing field, they shouldn't get corporate welfare to prop them up, and neither should fossil fuels. If renewables are really the future, show the courage of your convictions, and enough of the energy subsidies. Getting the government out of the way is the solution, more government intervention just backing a different side is not the solution.

The free market is far more innovative than government picking the winner and losers. The market is your friend, not your enemy. 

Pro tip.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

No one knows what the future will bring.  Maybe they will find a way to transport goods with clean energy.  Very unlikely due to the weight and power needed. 

Already there: 

  • Incumbent truck makers are accelerating their electric truck projects toward launching in 2020.
  • They have landed orders from big fleet operators such as Walmart, United Parcel Service and Anheuser Busch.
  • Battery electric and hydrogen trucks may work great, but charging stations are scarce in most U.S. states.

And you can bet that charging stations will be there when needed: Capitalists go where there's money to be made. 

Electric ships, planes and heavy equipment are also far along in development.

And railways are already there. (We never should have switched to trucks.)

But you cannot honestly believe that we can continue on with our heavy dependence of fossil fuels.  They take millions of years to form.  It's simple math.

I get that.

I assume you're talking to Yzer... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Let the market decide, if renewables can't win on a level playing field, they shouldn't get corporate welfare to prop them up, and neither should fossil fuels. If renewables are really the future, show the courage of your convictions, and enough of the energy subsidies.

The market has already  decided: 

Fossil fuels currently get massive federal subsidies, and that is the only reason they are still profitable investments. 

Renewables do not get those subsidies, and they are quickly  overtaking fossil fuels in attracting investments and in profitability anyway.  

You say you believe in a level playing field ... but if federal fossil fuel subsidies are removed, profitability is lost, investors will flee and the oil and gas industries are finished. 

Nobody wishes that abrupt devastation on oil and gas workers ... except apparently you Lol ...  so Canadians still support some subsidies to ease the transition. 

Of the G7 countries, Canada is 7th (last) in removing subsidies for oil and gas (even behind Trump's USA). 

That's pretty bad ... but it's also a pretty good indicator that Canadians are supporting Western Oil & Gas ... literally propping it up, making it profitable, with our own money. Otherwise, it would already be finished. 

Considering the facts, there is absolutely no justification for 'the West' to be blaming 'the East' or the federal government. That is literally biting the hand that feeds them. 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fossil fuels are more profitable with or without subsidies. They aren't being overtaken just because renewables are closing some of the gap. Profitability is not lost without subsidies, some projects that aren't profitable without subsidies will be gone, but they were fake make work to begin with. The subsidies do not account for the gap in productivity, cost and profitability. The tipping point is not near, and even if the tipping point is reached, that doesn't mean fossil fuels go away, it just means they lose market share and better investments will gain market share.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Fossil fuels are more profitable with or without subsidies. 

Prove it.

Cos I'm pretty sure that's a lie.

That's what the corporate snakes do ... lie to workers to keep them loyal and obedient and working ... right up to the moment they close their doors in the dark, declare bankruptcy, and run away with the workers' pension funds. 

Ontario workers are very familiar with the corporate snakes. They actually tried to claw back pensioners by 20%! Can you imagine being 80+ years old and suddenly your pension is cut that much? Can you imagine being the kind of cutthroats that would even THINK of doing such a thing to elderly people? Ultimately, they settled for clawing back elderly pensioners' supplemental health benefits: eyeglasses, hearing aids, walkers, wheelchairs, oxygen, medications, etc ... stolen by corporate snakes to fund their executives' severance packages, as they gut the company. 

Note to author of this thread: If it seems that 'the East' is yelling at the oil and gas workers, it's because we're workers too, and we're trying to warn you that the corporate snakes are lying to you, and what the lying snakes will do to workers.  

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Corporations Bad, Therefore Fossil Fuels Are Doomed. Renewable Energy Corporations Are Different, Because I Say So.

Insightful analysis.
:rolleyes:

No, climate change is bad. Look what happened to the Roman Empire. I live in Saskatchewan and I have yet to hear the Premiers of Sasakatchewan or Alberta say what they are planning to ensure future generations have access to oil. You cannot operate a machine without lubricant. We are sitting on an enormous deposit of uranium and yet there seems to be no plan to start building nuclear plants in western Canada. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No, climate change is bad. Look what happened to the Roman Empire. I live in Saskatchewan and I have yet to hear the Premiers of Sasakatchewan or Alberta say what they are planning to ensure future generations have access to oil. You cannot operate a machine without lubricant. We are sitting on an enormous deposit of uranium and yet there seems to be no plan to start building nuclear plants in western Canada. 

The best way to make climate change worse is for the government to step in and try and solve it instead of the market. If you care about climate change, the market is your best friend, not your worse enemy.

Enough of the Malthuisan Zero-Sum Socialism in the guise of Environmentalism, that holds the actual cause back and will kill more people than climate change could ever dream of. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, trying to address the problem by making it worse and creating a even worse problem makes no sense.

Rome did not fall because of climate change, it was one element that speed up the process, but not even close the most important element, it's actually way down the list.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Enough of the Malthuisan Zero-Sum Socialism in the guise of Environmentalism, that holds the actual cause back and will kill more people than climate change could ever dream of. 

Could you please elaborate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Could you please elaborate. 

Communists have a worse environmental record than Capitalists and have killed more humans than Climate Change will ever come close to killing. Zero-sum economics where the only way someone can get ahead is to exploit someone else, there is no such thing as a win-win, has held humans back and lead to more people being killed than the economic system you are claiming is responsible for climate change by exploiting the existence of win-win economic scenarios.

If "environmentalists" really care about the environment and this isn't about pushing far-left economics, then these so called environmentalists wouldn't be pushing far-left economics as the only solution to climate change, because that will make the problem worse, and create a bigger problem than climate change.

If "environmentalists" don't really care about the environment and it's all about pushing far left economics, then the environment is just a way to sell a bad idea by cloaking it in the mantle of a better idea so people are more likely to support the bad idea.

So what comes first to you Queenmandy85, cleaning up the environment or a centrally planned economy? Because the later makes the former much harder, as history shows repeatedly.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what communism has to do with it. Physics is non-political.

Transitioning to nuclear power means jobs in the mining, steel, rail and manufacturing industries. It means profits for corporations. Do you have something against making money? Do you have a problem with exporting power plants around the world?

The whole idea behind carbon pricing is to use the market to encourage people to reduce the use of fossil fuels. You totally fail to understand the ramifications of the greenhouse effect. Sea level rise is not the most worrisome consequence. It is when sea levels begin to drop that the real problem begins.

And, if you are right and the earth is not going to warm, what do you propose to ensure there is petroleum for future generations?

 

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I don't know what communism has to do with it. Physics is non-political.

Transitioning to nuclear power means jobs in the mining, steel, rail and manufacturing industries. It means profits for corporations. Do you have something against making money? Do you have a problem with exporting power plants around the world?

The whole idea behind carbon pricing is to use the market to encourage people to reduce the use of fossil fuels. You totally fail to understand the ramifications of the greenhouse effect. Sea level rise is not the most worrisome consequence. It is when sea levels begin to drop that the real problem begins.

And, if you are right and the earth is not going to warm, what do you propose to ensure there is petroleum for future generations?

 

What does physics have to do with policy proposals to address the issue? Nothing. That part is entirely political and has nothing to do with physics, pretending it does is disingenuous or naive. The proposals being pushed by most environmentalist groups are proposals that have a problem with making money, and have a problem nuclear too, and the only solutions they want are central planning around renewables while punishing all of their competition with government intervention. They hate the free market and if you suggest it to them, they will just claim you're a climate change denier.

Their supported policies has nothing to do with science, in fact they fly in face of it, while claiming to be it's champions. It's bullsh*t. Real Environmentalists should throw these undercover commies using their cause to push a radical agenda under the bus, because they are the real enemies of environmentalism, preventing all the best ways to address the problem from being implemented. They don't really want the problem solved, because then they couldn't cram more virtue signalling central planning down our throats if it's actually solved. Successful corporations and the free market are not the enemies of environmentalists, but they are the enemies of the undercover commies hijacking the environmentalist movement.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Environmentalists are not where I look to for information. Chemistry and physics have established that greenhouse gases regulate the re-radiation of energy. That is not political opinion. It is a process you can test in any ungergraduate lab. The results are predictable and measurable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Environmentalists are not where I look to for information. Chemistry and physics have established that greenhouse gases regulate the re-radiation of energy. That is not political opinion. It is a process you can test in any ungergraduate lab. The results are predictable and measurable.

The problem is not the science, the problem is the policies people are pushing in the name of science.

The climate changing is not proof that the best way to address the issue is through excessive central planning of the energy industry.

The climate changing is not proof that the free market is the enemy of the climate and therefore no free market solutions can be tried, while the only solutions that can be tried are one's that constrain the free market and give more control of the economy to the government.

Yet plenty of morons are claiming that is the case and the science somehow backs that up, and anyone who disagrees with them is just a climate change denier. But the science claims no such thing, and those pretending it does are using the name of science as a trojan horse for radical left wing policy proposals.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you have expressed very eloquently what you are against and I have to agree there are a lot of wing-nuts on both sides of the politics. It is an indictment on the education system.

What we need are positive ideas on what to do. I've proposed building reactors across the country, electifying and rebuilding the rail network including urban transit, building high speed rail from Montreal to Calgary, etc. If you can see a way to acquire the capital from Canadian non-governmental sources, more power to you. Sir John A. was okay with using the power and treasure of the Crown to get the trans-Canada railway built. If he hadn't, we would not have a country.

Bill C-69 will have to be tweaked to expedite the construction of the reactors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hillarious that on the one hand, we have Trudeau who studied engineering and was a math teacher referred to as "a failed drama teacher." On the other hand, we have Jason Kenny who is a failed Philosophy major trying to teach Trudeau all about the physics and chemistry of climate change. Kenny has never held a real job unless you count his being a paid lobbiest for special interest groups.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The best way to make climate change worse is for the government to step in and try and solve it instead of the market. If you care about climate change, the market is your best friend, not your worse enemy.

I agree. The government should not be meddling by propping up fossil fuel profitability with subsidies. 

Remove the subsidies and renewable energy is more profitable. The market will do the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, you have expressed very eloquently what you are against and I have to agree there are a lot of wing-nuts on both sides of the politics. It is an indictment on the education system.

What we need are positive ideas on what to do. I've proposed building reactors across the country, electifying and rebuilding the rail network including urban transit, building high speed rail from Montreal to Calgary, etc. If you can see a way to acquire the capital from Canadian non-governmental sources, more power to you. Sir John A. was okay with using the power and treasure of the Crown to get the trans-Canada railway built. If he hadn't, we would not have a country.

Bill C-69 will have to be tweaked to expedite the construction of the reactors.

 

There is no public will for nuclear power. It's dirty and dangerous from the uranium mining to the burying of radioactive waste. 

It's a nonstarter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jacee said:

It's dirty and dangerous from the uranium mining to the burying of radioactive waste. 

How many Canadian miners have died from mining uranium? How many have died from the waste?

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in Saskatchewan in one year than have died in nuclear accidents world wide since its inception. The resistance to nuclear power is caused by a lack of education. It is clean energy.

We had the first accident in Chalk River, Ontario. A nuclear engineer from the US Navy went in with a team to shut it off. Nobody knew if he would survive. His name is President Jimmy Carter.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...