Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Flames0910]

Google led me to an article suggesting tailings ponds take up somewhere around 43,000 acres (1.1 trillion litres of toxic waste and counting, they also are estimated to be responsible for 10% of the industry's carbon emissions as they leak co2 and methane into the atmosphere).

That plus the 500sq km for oil sands excavations (123,553 acres) mentioned above would put the total footprint of oil sands operations around 166,500 acres. The UCP has been sharing a graphic on social media that 106,000 acres of solar panels would cover half the space of Calgary, when essentially the oil sands cover the entire area of Calgary.

[timun]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

God dammit Rob Ward, what a stupid take.

I feel so vindicated. I called it like I saw it in the YYC politics thread, in a summary of the Ward 11 candidates:

Originally Posted by timun

Rob Ward - "Collaborative, Fiscally Responsible"

• "City Council needs change"
• will "work for YOU, and he wants to ensure YOUR voice is heard and YOUR money is working for YOU"
• "fiscal responsibility": "starts with a relentless approach to evaluating every dollar spent"
• "time to end the divisiveness and cliques at City Hall"

Verdict: cookie-cutter copy of Bertram, DeFraine and Jamieson

For context, I described Vance Bertram as a "fool full of empty rhetoric about taxes and 'fiscal conservatism'," Devin Defraine as a "Jeromy Farkas-esque dip####" and Mike Jamieson as a "Progressive Group for Independent Business/Take Back City Hall-slate dip####". Rob himself actually joined the forum and replied directly to my post.

Turns out I was right!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Google led me to an article suggesting tailings ponds take up somewhere around 43,000 acres (1.1 trillion litres of toxic waste and counting, they also are estimated to be responsible for 10% of the industry's carbon emissions as they leak co2 and methane into the atmosphere).

That plus the 500sq km for oil sands excavations (123,553 acres) mentioned above would put the total footprint of oil sands operations around 166,500 acres. The UCP has been sharing a graphic on social media that 106,000 acres of solar panels would cover half the space of Calgary, when essentially the oil sands cover the entire area of Calgary.

So the comparison here you’d want to make if you were concerned about land use would be the net energy produced / Sqkm. Otherwise it’s just comparing large numbers.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by timun

I feel so vindicated. I called it like I saw it in the YYC politics thread, in a summary of the Ward 11 candidates:



For context, I described Vance Bertram as a "fool full of empty rhetoric about taxes and 'fiscal conservatism'," Devin Defraine as a "Jeromy Farkas-esque dip####" and Mike Jamieson as a "Progressive Group for Independent Business/Take Back City Hall-slate dip####". Rob himself actually joined the forum and replied directly to my post.

Turns out I was right!

Penner is still hot garbage as a counsellor, but credit where credit is due, you seem to have called Ward.

Favourite part of Ward 11’s race was Defraine’s facial expression and holding his kid in a campaign photo like it had literally just sh-t itself.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Google led me to an article suggesting tailings ponds take up somewhere around 43,000 acres (1.1 trillion litres of toxic waste and counting, they also are estimated to be responsible for 10% of the industry's carbon emissions as they leak co2 and methane into the atmosphere).

That plus the 500sq km for oil sands excavations (123,553 acres) mentioned above would put the total footprint of oil sands operations around 166,500 acres. The UCP has been sharing a graphic on social media that 106,000 acres of solar panels would cover half the space of Calgary, when essentially the oil sands cover the entire area of Calgary.

Iirc the oilsands produce enough energy for like 2-3% of the entire earth's transport. The same land disturbance in solar would produce much less energy.

The answer here is almost certainly both.

[Yoho]

Someone get Timun a recognition or participation ribbon so he doesn’t have to keep quoting himself.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Iirc the oilsands produce enough energy for like 2-3% of the entire earth's transport. The same land disturbance in solar would produce much less energy.

The answer here is almost certainly both.

You're right it's not apples to apples.


When I was doing research on the foot print of renewables vs o and g they made the point that intensity and life span were more important factors than acreage.



Wind and solar make land unusable for buildings, and crop land, but it leaves bio diversity and stock farming basically undisturbed. Moreover in 80 years when it is not functional or whenever it would be there is zero impact on buildings or crop land.


However O & G and coal have much more intense impacts. Only something like 3% of the oil sands no longer in use have returned to state of bio diversity comparable to what is "natural" sure lots more has been reclaimed but it is still basically unusable for most plants and animals let alone people. And let's not forget we have to pay for it because we don't hold corporations accountable.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...rgy_in_Alberta

[timun]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Penner is still hot garbage as a counsellor, but credit where credit is due, you seem to have called Ward.

Regarding Penner:

Originally Posted by timun

Kourtney Branagan - "experienced and collaborative leader"

• investment in community spaces, parks, city buildings
• make better decisions "driven by data and innovation"
• will "balance the interests of all who live and word in Ward 11"; promote "active listening, intentional dialogue, and thoughtful engagement"
• former president of the Haysboro Community Assoc.

personal anecdote: heard secondhand from people who used to deal with her at the Federation of Calgary Communities that she's a conniving, busy-body C-you-next-Tuesday; not sure how much stock I put in that

Verdict: platform full of politician soundbite claptrap; will probably do well

<...>

The only ones even worth considering are Branagan, Herschel and Vanderburg, in my opinion.

I think I accurately called that too.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1693292142062628901


Premier shows she can work with carrots and sticks as well.

From the comments.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1693300612195393661

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

Speaking of high electricity prices, I see that Atco has a new Corporate Director
https://www.atco.com/en-ca/about-us/...directors.html

Jason Kenny becoming a board member of ATCO after being so involved in energy policy and price hikes is par for course UCP grift. Continuing the tradition of self dealing.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1693300612195393661

Well #### me, that settles it. If Rearranged Plankton supports her, that is good enough for me.

What a ####ing stupid tweet to post.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1693292142062628901





Freeland hows she can work with carrots and sticks as well.



From the comments.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1693300612195393661

Fixed

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Iirc the oilsands produce enough energy for like 2-3% of the entire earth's transport. The same land disturbance in solar would produce much less energy.

The answer here is almost certainly both.

No one ever talks about the oil sands industry's use of land though. So, its a fine comparison to make in this case.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cappy

No one ever talks about the oil sands industry's use of land though. So, its a fine comparison to make in this case.

That just isn’t true. Land use is a huge issue in every regulatory application where all stakeholders are engaged and the general requested to minimize the impact area.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

That just isn’t true. Land use is a huge issue in every regulatory application where all stakeholders are engaged and the general requested to minimize the impact area.

True, I even remember when the gov't shuttered the whole industry for a half year to figure out the simple fixes needed to stop the predictable scheme of selling clean-up liabilities to shell companies.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Well #### me, that settles it. If Rearranged Plankton supports her, that is good enough for me.

What a ####ing stupid tweet to post.

But nothing to argue the words said as usual. Who cares who posts it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

True, I even remember when the gov't shuttered the whole industry for a half year to figure out the simple fixes needed to stop the predictable scheme of selling clean-up liabilities to shell companies.

Just because government policy is terrible in one industry doesn’t mean you have to present misleading information in a different industry.

The regulatory burden on oil producers is significant and in general higher than other industries. So the type of comparisons being made here don’t really make sense and are misleading.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

It really begs the question then, why our Federal policy makers are so fussed about this tiny 6% of the problem. Which can’t even be measured in global terms. Before you reply, remember, this is the same Minister of the Environment/Industry/Finance, who thinks we can transition from fossil fuels to renewables with no role for nuclear.

Where is Alberta getting hydro and tidal from?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ium%3Dsharebar

Ottawa announces up to $74M for small modular nuclear reactor development in Sask.

Really hope the Feds stop their vehement opposition to nuclear soon.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yoho

But nothing to argue the words said as usual. Who cares who posts it.

It’s pure conjecture. Watch how easy it is to write something that people in an echo chamber can blindly point to as validating their point without presenting any actual facts or data to support what they’re saying:

Danielle Freeland is handling this beautifully. She's undeterred by Smith’s attempts to interfere with rejecting overly ambitious time frames for decarbonization, enforcing provincial control federal jurisdiction over strategic resources, and remaining neutral and open to cooperation with the feds province. I am continuing to be impressed with her development.

Absolutely no facts or evidence were removed from the quote you shared to create this new one but despite that someone who wants it to be true might still try to use it as an a means to validate their beliefs. When people(or bots frankly) post this crap it’s like playing mad libs only rather than hoping for laughs the goal is to fool the sheep into thinking what they believe is rooted in reality when it isn’t.

Also, who posts something should matter in a day and age where troll farms, bots and other forms of AI are known to use social media as a means of manipulation. I mean I’m sure you’d want to be the first to know if you were ever fooled into believing something that wasn’t based in reality. Hypothetically speaking of course.

[Yoho]

“From the comments”

Was listed in the post not “this is gospel”

I agreed with it but you don’t have to.