As Keystone ruling nears, Canada short on time for climate plan

Comments (18)
pbgd wrote:

Canada need not bribe the US with anything. If the US doesn’t want that particular pipeline, so be it. There are lots of others under construction. North America is criss-crossed by hundreds of pipelines that were built without anyone having to bribe the US government.

Dec 08, 2013 3:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Joebeduccii wrote:

Awesome pictures! If you liked this, you’ll probably also like my article about the top fifty paradises on earth: http://www.squidoo.com/the-fifty-most-be autiful-places-on-earth

Dec 08, 2013 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Pbgd, how is being responsible about our future a ‘bribe’?

Dec 08, 2013 5:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

More garbage from the eco-wackos. They have all the time in the world for a climate plan. There is no global warming. It is a scam, plain and simple. There is so much money to go after, though, the liberal left is hanging on to the topic for dear life.

The waters are not rising around the world. Temperatures are not going up. This year, in fact, will probably go down in history as one of the colder ones. Not too long from now they will be talking about global cooling again. It is, in fact, simply multi decade cycles of warmer then cooler temps.

Don’t buy into the scam, folks. It will cost you $$$ Trillions.

Dec 08, 2013 6:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Dragos, I suppose you have proof for your assertions?

Meanwhile the scientific community has concluded that there is a 99% chance climate change is occurring and a 95% chance that human activity is the main contributor.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114896/un-finds-95-percent-chance-humans-cause-climate-change

This is one of many articles going over the results, educate yourself, no excuse for living in ignorance in today’s Information Age.

Dec 08, 2013 6:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nose2066 wrote:

This is a weird argument about needing a climate change plan. The pipeline itself is a climate change plan. The oil is moving from Canada into the U.S. right now, but the oil is being transported by railroad. Transporting the oil by rail uses up more fossil fuel in the transportation process itself than if the oil were shipped by pipeline. (For example, a pipeline only needs to move the weight of oil inside the pipe. A railroad needs to move the weight of the metal tank cars besides moving the weight of the oil.)

Substituting a pipeline for the railroad cars would reduce the amount of fossil fuel that needs to be burned in moving the oil. Therefore the pipeline would reduce greenhouse gas emissions (if that is what people are worried about).

Dec 08, 2013 7:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
freidmansowel wrote:

This would make sense if all of humanity contributed more than 7 percent of total co2 emission’s. All this is, is an Obama social welfare tax grab. We will deal with China when they fore-close on your country!

Dec 08, 2013 8:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Redford wrote:

Why offer Obama anything for the privilege of buying oil from Canada. If he doesn’t want it China certainly does.

Dec 08, 2013 9:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Lovetwo wrote:

Mr. Harper must resign.

Dec 08, 2013 10:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

Redford wrote:
Why offer Obama anything for the privilege of buying oil from Canada. If he doesn’t want it, China certainly does.

An excellent point that I myself was going to make.

After reading the article, it’s obvious that the (ever present) Canadian alternative of selling ALL their Canadian oil wares to China, as plan B, was the seemingly obvious choice/alternative.

Ultimately Canadian Oil Resources should be sold to, THOSE WHO ARE LESS SQUEAMISHLY SELF-ENCUMBERED BY PRUDISH ECHO-ENVIRONMENT MISGIVINGS, (USA) (Why not just chain an economic anchor around your neck and jump into the sea, you dumb F$CKS USA).

Ultimately, Canadian Oil Resources will probably be sold to China, or pretty much ANYONE else in the world besides the U.S.

From Canada’s point of view, this would be the obvious, go to, no brainer, business move.

How unfortunate is it that those who make decisions in the U.S., concerning such things, have all become a bunch of PANTY-WASTE GIRLY-MEN.

Dec 09, 2013 2:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

Dragos111 wrote:
More garbage from the eco-wackos. They have all the time in the world for a climate plan. There is no global warming. It is a scam, plain and simple. There is so much money to go after, though, the liberal left is hanging on to the topic for dear life.
The waters are not rising around the world. Temperatures are not going up. This year, in fact, will probably go down in history as one of the colder ones. Not too long from now they will be talking about global cooling again. It is, in fact, simply multi decade cycles of warmer then cooler temps.
Don’t buy into the scam, folks. It will cost you $$$ Trillions.

USAPragmatist2 wrote:
Dragos, I suppose you have proof for your assertions?
Meanwhile the scientific community has concluded that there is a 99% chance climate change is occurring and a 95% chance that human activity is the main contributor.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114896/un-finds-95-percent-chance-humans-cause-climate-change
This is one of many articles going over the results, educate yourself, no excuse for living in ignorance in today’s Information Age.

Great point Dragos111,

USAPragmatist2, Great Counterpoint.

However, Dragos111, your timing might be a little off. It’s bad timing to make the statements you have made when the world is experiencing the peak of the 11 year solar cycle. Chances are that temperatures will be on the high end this year, and next year, and probably even the year after that.

But then again, weather is fickle. NO-ONE can accurately predict what our weather will be.

Very much of your post does however carry significant weight. In other words, most of it is arguably true. Everyone embracing intellectual honesty, reading your post diligently, sentence by sentence, will find trouble within themselves, if truly intellectually honest, in disputing it.

I myself feel that currently there IS global warming. I think it’s mostly the result of the natural cycle of things. And that it has been occurring for some time.

However I do believe that the human activities of burning tons and tons of fossil fuels, as well as, chopping down like half the world’s forests, as well as other stuff, certainly HAS contributed deleteriously to things.

In other words, man’s efforts upon the world stage, certainly has not contributed advantageously towards favorable environmental world status.

USAPragmatist2, wariness towards the (select) scientific community, those of whom, who have exuberantly and, PERHAPS dubiously, committed themselves to the prospects of, and inflamed themselves with loudly projected self-supporting prose, of most probably biased proffered posing’s of, IN THEIR VIEW CONCLUDED, “MANMADE” global warming, might, most reasonably, be attributed to THEIR GROUP, in that it IS THEIR (SELF-SERVING minions of base-efforts-for-self-gain individuals).

In other, more palatable words,

They are dedicated to the furtherance of continued research funding, and will say what they need to, to achieve this goal. Will they not.

For us to question and counter their results and conclusions is the equivalent of a bugle call to defensive common-sense triumph.

Wariness, concerning these “scientific” individuals is definitely and absolutely warranted.

Just another corrupted group to be justifiably wary of.

Just because scientists say something about a thing, doesn’t mean it’s so. Nor does it mean that they are not corrupted by ulterior motives.

In regards to all of that which is contained within the auspices of “scientifically concluded global warming”,

WARINESS IS WARRANTED.

Dec 09, 2013 5:01am EST  --  Report as abuse

Theovulater said ‘Just because scientists say something about a thing, doesn’t mean it’s so. Nor does it mean that they are not corrupted by ulterior motives.’

That is true, and that is also why I, trained as a scientist(BS in Astronomy), look at the data, hypothesizes, and conclusions, not taking them at their word. Combine that with the risk associated and one would be a fool to not support enacting measures to combat human induced climate change.

Dec 09, 2013 6:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

USAPragmatist2 wrote:
Theovulater said ‘Just because scientists say something about a thing, doesn’t mean it’s so. Nor does it mean that they are not corrupted by ulterior motives.’
That is true, and that is also why I, trained as a scientist(BS in Astronomy), look at the data, hypothesizes, and conclusions, not taking them at their word. Combine that with the risk associated and one would be a fool to not support enacting measures to combat human induced climate change.

Yeah, I read your above, and I think to say concerning it, words that you would likely also agree with.

Even if the whole world shut down everything, right now, everything stops, as of today all people disappear. All human processes stop immediately, as of right now.

With your knowledge of things as yours is, you certainly must agree with the proposition that with what I’ve posed above, it would be something like DECADES before the world would even reach equilibrium in regards to the manmade damage inflicted upon it thus far.

And many, many more years before things reverted back to a more “natural” state.

So my question to you USAPragmatist2, is this.

Exactly what “enacting measures to combat human induced climate change” is in your opinion, really going to achieve anything more than SQUAT at this point?

I really feel sad to sound so negatively defeatist, but really, at this stage of world progression, is it not already too late? How can the world at this point be undone to the degree that you espouse, as resulting in anything positive?

Without us squabbling tit-for-tat as to the status of natural-world things, I think we BOTH know that the human imprint upon the natural world is, and has been such, that even, as I’ve stated above, that where it be that all of mankind were snuffed out immediately, it would be decades before what was left would even BEGIN to resemble a natural ecological balance.

I think maybe that I have scared myself by posing’s such a dead end proposition. But if you really think about it, that’s just about the conclusion that you come to.

Dec 09, 2013 6:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

(Reuters) – Canada is running out of time to offer U.S. President Barack Obama a climate change concession that might clinch the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, as the country’s energy industry continues to resist costly curbs on greenhouse gas emissions.

Yeah and I’m sure that the average blue collar worker really gives a sh-t about that. And how many U.S. jobs would be created if the keystone XL oil pipeline was given the go ahead?

We’re talking about good paying livelihood for many of the average unemployed U.S. Joe.

Let’s do this, what’s the problem? Let’s get it done. Let’s put lots of people back to work

Dec 09, 2013 7:29am EST  --  Report as abuse

Theovulator,of course it would take decades, but that is no reason to throw up our hands and not do nothing. The more co2 we pump into the atmosphere the worse the problem becomes. We should have been doing something about it decades ago.

The employment factor for this project would be very minimal, how about we put this people to work by adding a windfall tax to the oil, and other ‘dirty’ energy sources, and use that money developing fusion or other future tech. That would employ A LOT more people in higher paying jobs. Plus when/if successful we could once again lead the world in new technology.

Dec 09, 2013 7:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

USAPragmatist2.
Really, shall I get even more negative?

Currently, the number of countries, on this planet, who are nuclear armed is not a small number.
And that “not a small number” is attempting to be added to, by also “not a small number”.

So let us both think about it together. How many years? Five, ten, fifteen years, or so, from now?

How many years will it be before some rogue idiot lobs a nuke upon another?

And when that happens, who is going to be thinking about global warming, or climate change?

Shall I go on from here? Tons more could be written, but why bother?

Also, the current string of this titled article I think is no longer active.

Dec 09, 2013 8:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
Lovetwo wrote:

“running out of time”.

Harper must resign.

As with All world leaders, God offered reconciliation; A chance to reconcile their crimes against creation/ humanity for the sake of Life Eternal.

Mr. Harper has chosen to counter offer with lies, threats and intimidation, as per his usual and pathological course of action for those who seek Justice; A grave offense to God’s beloved.

According to Universal Law; Sociopaths must follow.

Mr. Tony Abbott too?

Lead; Or follow. Your free choice.

Dec 09, 2013 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse

Don’t forget to look West, East and North not just south on this issue. The Northern Gateway P/L, and the Montreal / St. John P/L’s will go – they are 100% Canadian. The GNWT/Tribes P/L to Tuk is a maybe at best, but it adds a whole new slant on pipelines.

Heard that NGPL has been agreed not announced yet. If so XL had best go now or there’ll be no oil to haul.

Dec 09, 2013 6:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.