David Suzuki compares the oil sands to slavery

[jammies]

Gandhi changed minds by preaching non-violent resistance and then showing how it's done. David Suzuki ought to be mindful of that example.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

Gandhi changed minds by preaching non-violent resistance and then showing how it's done. David Suzuki ought to be mindful of that example.

so what your saying is that if Ghandi was David Suzuki he'd preach non violence and stab hobo's on the side.

Sounds about right

[jammies]

Yep. Hypocrites only convince those who already agree with them.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

They just don't understand how the larger system works, mainly due to inexperience or not-wanting to understand.

I have a friend who works for David Suzuki Foundation and have had these conversations. They celebrate Keystone XL's failure. I counter with more oil by rail. They counter we shouldn't us any oil and should use green tech. I counter with show me a green tech that works to the scale of oil at similar cost today. I further counter that more oil will come from murderous regimes. They counter with "you will be on the wrong side of history" and I am "a climate change denier".

That is what it is in a nutshell. These folks have limited knowledge of a complex subject and are driven from an emotional place. Facts in the end are meaningless. They are doing something righteous and anyone who descents is wrong.

Incidentally it makes them controllable weapons/puppets, one that David is focusing with comments like this. Human manipulation at it's finest perpetrated by a sweet little old man who loves his trees.

Interestingly that sounds a lot like how terrorists would be radicalized.

[CrunchBite]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

In all fairness many of the environmentalists/actors have cursory knowledge of the subjects/causes they are passionate about. Look up Jane Fonda in Vancouver for example. Same goes for many of the people who work for environmental groups such as Sierra Club or David Suzuki Foundation. They just don't understand how the larger system works, mainly due to inexperience or not-wanting to understand.

I have a friend who works for David Suzuki Foundation and have had these conversations. They celebrate Keystone XL's failure. I counter with more oil by rail. They counter we shouldn't us any oil and should use green tech. I counter with show me a green tech that works to the scale of oil at similar cost today. I further counter that more oil will come from murderous regimes. They counter with "you will be on the wrong side of history" and I am "a climate change denier".

That is what it is in a nutshell. These folks have limited knowledge of a complex subject and are driven from an emotional place. Facts in the end are meaningless. They are doing something righteous and anyone who descents is wrong.

Incidentally it makes them controllable weapons/puppets, one that David is focusing with comments like this. Human manipulation at it's finest perpetrated by a sweet little old man who loves his trees.

Soooo like arguing with an Oiler fan?

[flamesrule_kipper34]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so what your saying is that if Gandhi was David Suzuki he'd preach non violence and stab hobo's on the side.

Sounds about right

OT and by no means singling you out but why is Gandhi misspelled so often?

How are people pronouncing the name that makes them think the the H comes at the beginning of the name?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It wasn't before the discovery of oil, why would it be after they stop taking it out of the ground? People will always require farming for sustainability and Southern Alberta is a tremendous area for providing such.

How silly of me, after the oil is gone Southern Alberta will have the best farm land on the planet, after-all, there will be a million+ people looking after it.

Fact: Calgary is an Oil only city, it has no other sustainable industry for it to remain a major city if fossil fuels are no longer needed. Without Oil Calgary will make Detroit look like a boom town.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by T@T

How silly of me, after the oil is gone Southern Alberta will have the best farm land on the planet, after-all, there will be a million+ people looking after it.

Fact: Calgary is an Oil only city, it has no other sustainable industry for it to remain a major city if fossil fuels are no longer needed. Without Oil Calgary will make Detroit look like a boom town.

Are you willfully this dense or do you have to work at it?

Southern Alberta has great farm land, fed by irrigation that has nothing to do with the O&G sector. Farmers take care of farmland, not the oil patch. Even if by some miracle we could abandon fossil fuels tomorrow the farmland will still be there, still operated by farmers. I suspect you like putting food into your guts when your hungry; that has nothing to do with the oil and gas sector.

O&G could pull up all their stakes in Alberta tomorrow and I can guarentee come spring all the farmland in this province is going to be seeded.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I find it rich not that he has many homes, or burns tons of oil while crusading against the oil sands, but that he has turned the conversion to net human benefit. So let's play his game.

By shutting down Oil Sands there is a net loss of ethically developed oil. That oil will need to be replaced (refineries gotta refine 24/7). So you will need to replace those barrels from somewhere. Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Lybia? Iran? Congo?

Those countries unlike Canada have human rights issues. They have a lively black market slave trade. So by eliminating the oil sands you are increasing human rights injustices.

Therefore David Suzuki is a lot like a slave trader himself using his logic. His arguments for a reduction of oil sands oil will factually empower human rights abusers. So it's basically the same thing right?

David Suzuki needs to realize that discourse like this does nothing productive. It in facts hurts his cause and his credibility. It radicalizes the conversation in both directions. I think go forward we need balance, and David isn't it.

Canada needs the oil sands. They need to be developed responsibly. I too don't see why we can't remove the zealots on both sides and have a dialog like grown ups.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

In all fairness many of the environmentalists/actors have cursory knowledge of the subjects/causes they are passionate about. Look up Jane Fonda in Vancouver for example. Same goes for many of the people who work for environmental groups such as Sierra Club or David Suzuki Foundation. They just don't understand how the larger system works, mainly due to inexperience or not-wanting to understand.

I have a friend who works for David Suzuki Foundation and have had these conversations. They celebrate Keystone XL's failure. I counter with more oil by rail. They counter we shouldn't us any oil and should use green tech. I counter with show me a green tech that works to the scale of oil at similar cost today. I further counter that more oil will come from murderous regimes. They counter with "you will be on the wrong side of history" and I am "a climate change denier".

That is what it is in a nutshell. These folks have limited knowledge of a complex subject and are driven from an emotional place. Facts in the end are meaningless. They are doing something righteous and anyone who descents is wrong.

Incidentally it makes them controllable weapons/puppets, one that David is focusing with comments like this. Human manipulation at it's finest perpetrated by a sweet little old man who loves his trees.

=

[polak]

Tourism, Transportation and Distribution, and Farming. That's pretty much it for Calgary industry outside of Oil?

Without Oil we'd quickly become irrelevant. Like Winnipeg did once the Panama Canal opened.

[troutman]

+35,000 net migrated to Calgary last year. I'm sure that figure will drop for 2015, but I think people are coming here for more than O&G. Is the economy more diverse?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by troutman

+35,000 net migrated to Calgary last year. I'm sure that figure will drop for 2015, but I think people are coming here for more than O&G. Is the economy more diverse?

They come here for higher paying jobs. O&G causes the higher paying jobs. When those jobs are gone people will leave.

Take a look at Fort Mac. obviously its a little bit of a different situation, but look at how many people left now that there are not nearly as many higher paying jobs.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by troutman

+35,000 net migrated to Calgary last year. I'm sure that figure will drop for 2015, but I think people are coming here for more than O&G. Is the economy more diverse?

Calgary 2016 net migration forecast is 16,000, which is a huge decrease. Almost same number for Edmonton. What's worse, these two numbers are projected to last for the next three years. The reported moderate job growth in 2015 was due to gains in educational and social services sectors that helped offset huge job losses in the energy and mining sectors. What has not been reported that the gross income gains in new educational and social services sector jobs are not even close to being offset by the income losses in the energy and mining sector jobs.

Yes, people are still coming to Alberta, because of some work being available due to government's increased levels of spending, which is better than in many other parts of Canada. However; this is true spending - it's all infrastructure and social investment. It's great as a temporary relief of economic pressure and I am happy they are doing that. But there is no credible GDP generation plan that is based on value creation at this point. Without solid GDP creation, there will be less and less tax dollars to spend. The massive attack on oil sands is only exacerbating our problems. David Suzuki is a twat.

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Calgary 2016 net migration forecast is 16,000, which is a huge decrease. Almost same number for Edmonton. What's worse, these two numbers are projected to last for the next three years. The reported moderate job growth in 2015 was due to gains in educational and social services sectors that helped offset huge job losses in the energy and mining sectors. What has not been reported that the gross income gains in new educational and social services sector jobs are not even close to being offset by the income losses in the energy and mining sector jobs.

Yes, people are still coming to Alberta, because of some work being available due to government's increased levels of spending, which is better than in many other parts of Canada. However; this is true spending - it's all infrastructure and social investment. It's great as a temporary relief of economic pressure and I am happy they are doing that. But there is no credible GDP generation plan that is based on value creation at this point. Without solid GDP creation, there will be less and less tax dollars to spend. The massive attack on oil sands is only exacerbating our problems. David Suzuki is a twat.

100% agree.

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by polak

Without Oil we'd quickly become irrelevant. Like Winnipeg did once the Panama Canal opened.

Interesting.

Here's an article I just that offers a cursorily glance at the effect the Panama Canal had on Winnipeg:

The Panama Canal and the decline of Winnipeg

( . . . )"Because the canal was opened just as the First World War began, its real impact for the transportation of goods between North America and Europe was not fully realized until about 1920. Thanks to the miracle of the canal, for example, Vancouver and other Pacific ports were now more than 8,000 kilometres closer to European ports than they had been." ( . . . )

[Sr. Mints]

double post

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Calgary 2016 net migration forecast is 16,000, which is a huge decrease. Almost same number for Edmonton. What's worse, these two numbers are projected to last for the next three years. The reported moderate job growth in 2015 was due to gains in educational and social services sectors that helped offset huge job losses in the energy and mining sectors. What has not been reported that the gross income gains in new educational and social services sector jobs are not even close to being offset by the income losses in the energy and mining sector jobs.

Yes, people are still coming to Alberta, because of some work being available due to government's increased levels of spending, which is better than in many other parts of Canada. However; this is true spending - it's all infrastructure and social investment. It's great as a temporary relief of economic pressure and I am happy they are doing that. But there is no credible GDP generation plan that is based on value creation at this point. Without solid GDP creation, there will be less and less tax dollars to spend. The massive attack on oil sands is only exacerbating our problems. David Suzuki is a twat.

Thank you - that is interesting. I would have guessed a smaller net migration than that for 2016. Three years of that is 48,000 people.

I would like to see a survey of what jobs people are coming here for.

A new friend from Manchester, came here from BC to practice acupuncture.

My neighbor went to Queens and came here from Ontario to build open source products. His wife also went to Queens and came here to manage projects for international airlines. Now she does pipeline projects.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

Interesting.

Here's an article I just that offers a cursorily glance at the effect the Panama Canal had on Winnipeg:

The Panama Canal and the decline of Winnipeg

Yup. Learnt about it in Geography. God I loved that class.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by troutman

...
I would like to see a survey of what jobs people are coming here for...

I cannot provide a link to a pdf document, but here's the breakdown for Calgary:

The biggest weekly income losses to September 2015 due to lost jobs came from the energy, professional, construction, manufacturing and general business sectors totaling almost $9K/week x number of jobs lost in these sectors. These are all value generating job sectors.

The biggest weekly income gains to offset the above came from the health care and social services sectors totaling $3K/week x number of jobs gained in these sectors. These are all service and welfare sectors.

There is a modest number of full-time jobs gained reported for 2015. But the income gains are minuscule compared to the losses.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Are you willfully this dense or do you have to work at it?

Southern Alberta has great farm land, fed by irrigation that has nothing to do with the O&G sector. Farmers take care of farmland, not the oil patch. Even if by some miracle we could abandon fossil fuels tomorrow the farmland will still be there, still operated by farmers. I suspect you like putting food into your guts when your hungry; that has nothing to do with the oil and gas sector.

O&G could pull up all their stakes in Alberta tomorrow and I can guarentee come spring all the farmland in this province is going to be seeded.

Talk about dense get with the program man, read-understand-post. in that order

I'm not saying Alberta wouldn't be great farmland, I'm saying without O&G Alberta will crumble economically, or do you think farming can support over 4 million people?