There is a 1921 Supreme Court case that is pretty clear about provinces not being allowed to set up their own customs checkpoints. However, Alberta can do whatever it wants until Ottawa or a court gets around to deeming it unlawful. Wild Rose country, in fact, already has an established tradition of passing wildly unconstitutional laws. In the 1930s, the Social Credit government of Bill Aberhart tried to nationalize banks, censor the press and have their opponents killed. Ottawa quickly slapped down the crazier measures, but not before they were briefly the law of the land.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Because there's a hypocrisy to the Environmental movement that can't be ignored.
They're pretty much clear cutting in BC.
But man - That's not carbon in the atmosphere man.
How about dumping raw sewage and chemicals into the ocean
But man the oil companies aren't doing that man.
Not even 'oil companies', just ones operating in Alberta. They're happy to let tanker ships run up and down that oh-so-pristine BC coast to transport Alaskan oil.
I know people have given me #### over my thoughts on the whole arena/future of the Flames thing but this is the sort of omnidirectional pressure it comes from. How do you sustain luxuries like two NHL teams when the province's economic keystone is being kicked out from all directions and any talk of 'diversification' is empty lip service? The country is hellbent on reverting us back to a province of ####-kicking farmers, which will make us about as suitable a venue for the NHL as Saskatchewan.
Yes - if those figures are accurate, we would absorb about 20 times what we put out.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Aren't trees Carbon neutral, they grow they absorb carbon, die, decompose and release the Carbon. So its only by increasing acerage of trees do you reduce carbon and it's a one time benefit and not a continuous benefit.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
One action the liberal government could take would be to underwrite the costs to Kinder Morgan due to regulatory or protest based delays.
Essentially put money down that Canada will ensure the pipeline is completed ontime or if late its not due to internal law suits between provinces.
True but something like that will never happen, because once he actually takes a step like that, he not only loses his BC vote, but he also will lose the further left votes in quebec and Ontario that backed him over the NDP in the strategic vote beat Harper movement in the last election.
While it's viewed as ok to support companies in Quebec like Bombardier or the manufacturing and Auto Industry in Quebec.
Publicly putting money into the Oil industry that supports Alberta Oil Sands or pipelines will be political suicide for the Liberals and they'll be fighting a war on multiple sides, Environmentalists, BC leftists, Natives.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Aren't trees Carbon neutral, they grow they absorb carbon, die, decompose and release the Carbon. So its only by increasing acerage of trees do you reduce carbon and it's a one time benefit and not a continuous benefit.
More or less. Mature forests still absorb carbon as trees grow, but eventually they die and the carbon gets released. Or forest fires release a ton at once.
I don't know current numbers, but I know from the 90's to the mid '00s Canada's forests were estimated to be a slight carbon sink. Some years they'd act as a sink and absorb a net ~50-100 million tons and other years they'd release almost that much more then they absorbed. But on the balance they absorbed slightly more than they released, something like 40 million tons a year from 1990-2005. Pretty far off the 14 billion estimate above though.
There's still a dampening effect on the carbon cycle as trees die. The CO2 has already been bound in another form (non-gaseous) so less is released from the soil. It doesn't just "all go back into the atmosphere immediately" as soon as the tree dies. Net ecosystem productivity is usually positive.
Though without coal and natural gas, people would desperately go back to burning wood. Even today burning wood, other vegetation and animal dung is the 4th largest source of primary energy in the world, ahead of nuclear and hydro.
one of the local news webpages interviewed a local mp and asked about the current bc/alberta dispute and the pipeline.
What's frustrating about this - and you can see it in the questions asked by the interviewer - is how many people think this pipeline expansion hasn't been studied, simply because they personally weren't aware of the project until a couple months ago. It's like the Calgary SW BRT. Years of studies and consultation. Years. And then as it draws near a bunch of people who weren't paying attention squawk and complain that they didn't know and how dare the government go ahead with it.
How can you have effective planning in public policy when so few citizens engage with projects until they're about set to launch?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 02-21-2018 at 05:01 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
There's still a dampening effect on the carbon cycle as trees die. The CO2 has already been bound in another form (non-gaseous) so less is released from the soil. It doesn't just "all go back into the atmosphere immediately" as soon as the tree dies. Net ecosystem productivity is usually positive.
In 2015 Canada's managed forests were net emitters of CO2 due mainly to wildfires.
The whole point of climate plans is to reduce the amount of GHG that gets into the atmosphere. It's much easier to control human activity than it is to control nature.
The whole point of climate plans is to reduce the amount of GHG that gets into the atmosphere. It's much easier to control human activity than it is to control nature.
In the sense that it's a slightly lesser degree of 'completely impractical' I guess? Reducing human impact of anything is largely futile when an ever-escalating completely-unchecked population of humans are generating that impact.
What are the carbon emissions of setting 120 billion dollars on fire?
1 million in hundred dollar bills weights about 22 pounds. Wood emits 3800 lbs of CO2 per ton. So 120 billion is about 1200 tons of 100 dollar bills which would emit 4.5 million lbs of CO2.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
