Alberta Politics Thread

[Tinordi]

It's utterly preposterous for so many different reasons. It's a conspiracy theory with less actual evidence than 911 was an inside job.

[Tinordi]

I will leave it to readers to decide if her theories that have drawn so much attention have any plausibility. #You can find the gist of her theory in her opening statement, though I confess I have struggled to understand it. #When you think of a vast U.S. economic conspiracy to prevent Canada from exporting oil to China one assumes it’s part of a scheme by greedy American capitalists to hog our cheap oil to fuel their industries. # But Krause, who acknowledges that U.S. charitable trusts and environmentalists fighting Northern Gateway also opposed the Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf Coast, says there’s not aware of a commercial interest behind the “plan,” as she calls it. # She says the objectives of some environmentalists to boost U.S. energy security by expanding green energy, and limiting reliance on foreign imports, is the basis for this “plan,” though she also acknowledges that the objectives are also based on environmental principles.

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...?__federated=1

That and the fact that there were hundreds of millions being invested in the oil sands from the US her conspiracy holds no water.

[Resolute 14]

Call it a conspiracy all you want, Tinordi, but the fact remains all of these funds are trying to choke oil investment in only one country.

Hilariously, and hypocritically, most of them are based in California, where the dirtiest oil in North America is extracted without a peep.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So, even if one were to presume that every single dollar donated by a "USA foundation" was done so in a naked attempt to buy influence and subvert Canadian economic interests, it would represent roughly 7% of total public donations over that period and roughly 2% of total revenue for Canadian environmental non-profits.

It is preposterous to draw the conclusion from this that Canadian environmental groups and first nations have been co-opted in some sort of widespread way by US economic interests. In fact, un light of those numbers, I don't even think its a plausible theory.

That's exactly the point. Every dollar IS marked for specific use against Canadian\Albertan interests. It's not like these are just good will donations like my granny who sends $5 CAD a month to David Suzuki.

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...-the-oil-sands

There are very specific mandates attached to this money. That is the exact definition of co-opted in your first post.

“to raise the visibility of the tar sands issue and slow the expansion of tar sands production by stopping new infrastructure development.”

to leverage the growing interest of ranchers and landowners in limiting unbridled oil and gas exploration and production in southern Alberta.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So, even if one were to presume that every single dollar donated by a "USA foundation" was done so in a naked attempt to buy influence and subvert Canadian economic interests, it would represent roughly 7% of total public donations over that period and roughly 2% of total revenue for Canadian environmental non-profits.

It is preposterous to draw the conclusion from this that Canadian environmental groups and first nations have been co-opted in some sort of widespread way by US economic interests. In fact, un light of those numbers, I don't even think its a plausible theory.

Your "numbers" are also totally meaningless. Suzuki et al have dozens of initiatives, whales, dolphins, farmed fish, hydro dams, native claims, gold mining and so on. Whereas foreign donations from the specifically mentioned interest groups have attached mandates to them.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Call it a conspiracy all you want, Tinordi, but the fact remains all of these funds are trying to choke oil investment in only one country.

Hilariously, and hypocritically, most of them are based in California, where the dirtiest oil in North America is extracted without a peep.

It's odd that there's so much focus on canadian oil production when there's so much oil production outside of canada which isn't held accountable for emissions. The placerita oil sands in california produces more carbon than the dirtiest oil in alberta. Emissions in Saudi Arabia, kuwait, iraq, all ignored. Oil shale almost appears to be environmentally friendly.


Stopping oil production in canada is working and the empty spots in the market are filled by other producers. Lots of room is made for oil shale, another producer of ghg's that is basically ignored.

World oil consuption continues to increase but the producer won't be canada.

[CliffFletcher]

This conspiracy theory is a red herring. The real issue is that for a significant proportion of Canadians, environmentalism is a kind of religion. In their eyes, the oil and gas industry is a moral evil. These people are about as nuanced as pro-life campaigners.

The problem is that the media and government have bought into the idealistic fantasy of consensus. They believe (or pretend to believe) that there is some way we can get those people onside in supporting oil and gas development and pipelines, and reform the industry into some sort of morally sanctioned and benign engine of the Canadian economy. They're unwilling to treat the Canadian electorate like adults who can make a decision on economic trade-offs.

Unfortunately, we'll have to let the economic consequences of a hamstrung energy industry sink in before we'll move the dial politically. Even then, I have doubts. So many Canadians are completely ignorant of the economic reality they live in. They think the government spins up hospitals, libraries, and pensions from moonbeams and magical formulas.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This conspiracy theory is a red herring. The real issue is that for a significant proportion of Canadians, environmentalism is a kind of religion. In their eyes, the oil and gas industry is a moral evil. These people are about as nuanced as pro-life campaigners.

The problem is that the media and government have bought into the idealistic fantasy of consensus. They believe (or pretend to believe) that there is some way we can get those people onside in supporting oil and gas development and pipelines, and reform the industry into some sort of morally sanctioned and benign engine of the Canadian economy. They're unwilling to treat the Canadian electorate like adults who can make a decision on economic trade-offs.

Unfortunately, we'll have to let the economic consequences of a hamstrung energy industry sink in before we'll move the dial politically. Even then, I have doubts. So many Canadians are completely ignorant of the economic reality they live in. They think the government spins up hospitals, libraries, and pensions from moonbeams and magical formulas.

I don't think there are pro life campaigners.

There are:

Anti Abortion campaigners
Pro Abortion campaigners

The Pro Choice / Pro Life subscribers want nothing to do with protests or campaigns.

[peter12]

Exactly. I am staunchly pro-life and I have not, and never will engage in the grotesque masquerade that is a pro-life campaign.

I did a lot of conflict resolution in the Lower Mainland, and it is a fact that paid activists drove the agenda at the highest levels and the protestors were mostly unemployed criminal types.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This conspiracy theory is a red herring. The real issue is that for a significant proportion of Canadians, environmentalism is a kind of religion. In their eyes, the oil and gas industry is a moral evil. These people are about as nuanced as pro-life campaigners.

The problem is that the media and government have bought into the idealistic fantasy of consensus. They believe (or pretend to believe) that there is some way we can get those people onside in supporting oil and gas development and pipelines, and reform the industry into some sort of morally sanctioned and benign engine of the Canadian economy. They're unwilling to treat the Canadian electorate like adults who can make a decision on economic trade-offs.

Unfortunately, we'll have to let the economic consequences of a hamstrung energy industry sink in before we'll move the dial politically. Even then, I have doubts. So many Canadians are completely ignorant of the economic reality they live in. They think the government spins up hospitals, libraries, and pensions from moonbeams and magical formulas.

I think you grossly overestimate the number of people who view environmentalism as "religion". The problem, however, is that there are just enough out there - both true environmentalists and the ones who do it because Tides pays them to - to muddy the waters just enough that people - including Trudeau - start to do idiotic things in a futile bid to form that consensus. The Canadian environmentalism front is a great example of a small, but dedicated group taking full advantage of the ignorance of the majority.

Which means, of course, that I fully agree with your final paragraph. Too many people have no bloody clue what drives this country economically. Though with oil in a slump and our trade deficit hitting new records every month, they are inching ever closer to finding out that "just diversify it" is nothing but an empty platitude. And platitudes don't pay bills or put food on the table.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Pro Abortion campaigners

I hate to drive this off the rails, but come on. I have never in my entire life met anyone who could be accurately described as "pro abortion", and I doubt you have either.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I hate to drive this off the rails, but come on. I have never in my entire life met anyone who could be accurately described as "pro abortion", and I doubt you have either.

Ehhh, I think it is becoming increasingly divorced from the reality, and seen as an act of empowerment rather than a necessary evil.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ilyse-hog...000000927.html

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I hate to drive this off the rails, but come on. I have never in my entire life met anyone who could be accurately described as "pro abortion", and I doubt you have either.

yeah, as a matter of fact, I have.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ehhh, I think it is becoming increasingly divorced from the reality, and seen as an act of empowerment rather than a necessary evil.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ilyse-hog...000000927.html

I've seen you say many ridiculous things, but if you think any woman gets an abortion as an "act of empowerment" I strongly question your grasp on reality.

[Flash Walken]

I'm pro abortion?

[puckedoff]

I wasn't pro abortion, until I found this site.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

I wasn't pro abortion, until I found this site.

Really really really really late term abortions.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I've seen you say many ridiculous things, but if you think any woman gets an abortion as an "act of empowerment" I strongly question your grasp on reality.

Did you read the article that I linked?

What I have stated is fact.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-empower-women

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by peter12

Did you read the article that I linked?

What I have stated is fact.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-empower-women

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.

[CaptainCrunch]

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