Alberta Politics Thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Peter12 sites one politically-charged op-ed from someone with a clear ideological motive, and claims it as fact.

You could start forum.peter12dogma.com but I doubt it'd get as many hits as this post.

The Guardian is not an outlet that is anti-abortion.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Guardian is not an outlet that is anti-abortion.

It doesn't matter. Deal with subject matter not the site. But better yet, none of this matters here. Its useless, irrelevant, and detracts from the thread.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Delgar

It doesn't matter. Deal with subject matter not the site. But better yet, none of this matters here. Its useless, irrelevant, and detracts from the thread.

Fair enough. I got very side-tracked.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We're really going to have an abortion debate in a thread about provincial politics?

To be fair, this is an Albrrta politics thread.

[Wiggum_PI]

Article today from the Fraser Institute on potential impact of NDP Climate Change Plan.

How Alberta's Carbon Emission Cap Will Reduce Oil Sands Growth

• Based on estimates of future production, this policy has the potential to constrain future oil sands production. In a scenario based on current emissions intensity levels, the policy could reduce cumulative production between 2025 and 2040 by 3.34 billion barrels of oil. In a scenario where the emissions intensity of oil sands production is reduced, the policy could result in cumulative production losses between 2027 and 2040 totaling 2.03 billion barrels of oil.

• The cumulative value of the lost production could be large, totaling CA$254.74 billion (in 2015 dollars) in a scenario based on current emissions intensity levels. In a scenario where the emissions intensity of oil sands production is reduced, the cumulative lost value could be CA$153.41 billion (in 2015 dollars).

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/stud...l-sands-growth

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Article today from the Fraser Institute on potential impact of NDP Climate Change Plan.

How Alberta's Carbon Emission Cap Will Reduce Oil Sands Growth



https://www.fraserinstitute.org/stud...l-sands-growth

To get a sense of the quality of that report take a look at Table 1. They apparently can't get the basic arithmetic straight let alone be making future revenue forecasts and costs per tonne.

Look at the 450 ppm scenario. World growth from 2014 to 2040 is 91%?

Oil demand 2014: 90.6
Oil demand 2040: 74.1

Growth stated in report: 91%
Actual growth: -19%

I mean, this is basic stuff. I wouldn't trust any of the top-line numbers in this report at all.

[GGG]

That's only 600,000 barrels per day in lost production in the worst case scenario and 400k in the reduced emissions scenario. This is compared to a current production of 2.2 million to 2.5 million BPD

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

The Indian State of Gujurat in 2007 emitted 154 MT of CO2e. Alberta in 2005 emitted 233 MT of CO2e. Gujurat has a population of around 60 million, we have 4.2 million.

Our taxes are among the lowest in Canada even including the Carbon tax. (Including Saskatchewan who also spends more per capita).

I'm a little late to the party, but would the fine people of Gujurat (actually Gujarat) freeze to death if they didn't have cars to transport themselves to and from work, and a furnace to heat their homes? It would be awesome if Alberta could use nuclear power to heat homes and businesses, but for some reason, that's a no go for environmentalists as well. Albertans need to use carbon based fossil fuels until either nuclear energy becomes acceptable to people, or an alternate source is found. You can't wish away the fact that people need to use fossil fuels.

A carbon tax won't make people reduce usage man. It's just a money grab IMO.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm a little late to the party, but would the fine people of Gujurat (actually Gujarat) freeze to death if they didn't have cars to transport themselves to and from work, and a furnace to heat their homes? It would be awesome if Alberta could use nuclear power to heat homes and businesses, but for some reason, that's a no go for environmentalists as well. Albertans need to use carbon based fossil fuels until either nuclear energy becomes acceptable to people, or an alternate source is found. You can't wish away the fact that people need to use fossil fuels.

Yes!

I don't have enough knowledge to speak to the carbon tax, but comparing a carbon footprint of northern nation whose population is extremely far apart to a southern nation with a compact population is wrong.

Lastly, the world needs resources, no matter the view on climate change. I would argue resource based nations will innately have a higher carbon footprint per person then a nation with clean tech. If we throw out the resources, we throw out the clean tech.

What does Norway emit per person? Russia?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

To get a sense of the quality of that report take a look at Table 1. They apparently can't get the basic arithmetic straight let alone be making future revenue forecasts and costs per tonne.

Look at the 450 ppm scenario. World growth from 2014 to 2040 is 91%?

Oil demand 2014: 90.6
Oil demand 2040: 74.1

Growth stated in report: 91%
Actual growth: -19%

I mean, this is basic stuff. I wouldn't trust any of the top-line numbers in this report at all.

I don't exactly understand the chart myself but I'm pretty sure your analysis of it is wrong. None of the four scenario world total numbers add up the way you want them to. I suspect the final % growth number is relative to today's output. But I'm pretty sure all four numbers are not miscalculated by that much and that simply.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't exactly understand the chart myself but I'm pretty sure your analysis of it is wrong. None of the four scenario world total numbers add up the way you want them to. I suspect the final % growth number is relative to today's output. But I'm pretty sure all four numbers are not miscalculated by that much and that simply.

Ok...

Tell me how my analysis is wrong based on the data presented in the Table.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ok...

Tell me how my analysis is wrong based on the data presented in the Table.

Like I said, I don't know other than by your interpretation all four scenarios are off by more than a hundred percent each. I'm almost positive you're looking at it incorrectly. Or, these guys just can't do a simple calculation and therefore green/left/ndp win! Woohoo.

[Robbob]

From my understanding after reading the report, the % gain is the estimated growth in demand. They mention current demand will double, hence 202% under current. With the 450 Scenario they only expect 91% growth in the demand.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We're really going to have an abortion debate in a thread about provincial politics?

How else would you succinctly describe our current government?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by zuluking

How else would you succinctly describe our current government?

NSFW and pretty gross. But succinct.

Spoiler!

You sure?

Spoiler!

Really sure?

Spoiler!

Okay, so I just happened to find Jackass on Netflix.

Spoiler!

Alrighty then.

Spoiler!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Robbob

From my understanding after reading the report, the % gain is the estimated growth in demand. They mention current demand will double, hence 202% under current. With the 450 Scenario they only expect 91% growth in the demand.

How does that square? The table shows what demand is in 2014 and 2040 and its 19% lower than 2014, not 91% higher.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How does that square? The table shows what demand is in 2014 and 2040 and its 19% lower than 2014, not 91% higher.

I looked at those numbers in every way possible and yup, the % change numbers are screwed up. Its such an easy calculation and an obvious error that it blows my mind that not only could someone get that calculation wrong but that editing didn't catch the error. So easy that you almost have to believe it means something else...though more than likely just a straight up error. Odd.

The absolute numbers for each scenario seem to pass the gut check though.

[Frequitude]

Oddly enough the report goes on to reference the right numbers. Its just the table that is wrong I think.

"Demand growth is the largest under the current policy scenario, with global demand increasing by 29%, and non-OECD country demand increasing by 66% in the 26-year period." - Page 4.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How does that square? The table shows what demand is in 2014 and 2040 and its 19% lower than 2014, not 91% higher.

It doesn't, but 202% increase on 90.6 isn't 117.1, so I am thinking there is something else factored in.

[Fuzz]

All this talk and no mention of the bunker fuel percentages? Those don't make a lick of sense.