Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Commentary

A licence to pollute dressed up in rhetorical petticoats

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:41 PM EDT 31/01/08

Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Stan Hunter from Port Carling, Canada writes: Leadership starts with ourselves. Truth becomes apparent though good research and thoughtful reflection. Change is inevitable. I have no doubt industry will come around but we all have to go through each step..........
    Time is not so much on our side. Articles like this clear things up for me a lot.
    Now how would a Carbon Tax and a national tax shift play out for the benefit of industry as well as the common breathing citizen?
  2. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, Canada writes: Short term gain and long term pain. Conservative is a term turned on its head. Right-wing is a better description for those who would conserve their private profits and lay waste the public world. Greedy is an even better description for those driven to ruin the world's economy in Savings & Loan, Enron, Subprime, Pyramid scams often shielded by giovernments whose rolee should be to protect the people.

    Individuals and corporations can expect to act in the short term and for their own intersts only. Democratic government, on the other hand, are formed to protect the interests of the whole community and in the long term. That these forces conflict is no surprise; that conservatives lean to the right of the conflict is no surprise.

    Wake up people; we're in the same life boat and it's sinking fast!
  3. dubai dubai from New York, United States writes: Before all the rhetoric and pie-in-the-sky measures that Mr. Simpson speaks of, Alberta had a plan to deal with its oil sands emissions -- offset them.

    So the Alberta Gov't and its Industry sent the Canadian Gov't on a 7 year oddessy to negotiate a global system of offsetting under the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism.

    The Canadian Gov't was successful in its efforts and that system is now being used extensively by Europe and Japan -- but not Canada. Why? Because after the system was secured, Alberta decided it didn't want it after all and launched an insidious campaign to sully what it had a hand in creating.

    This little known fact of Canadian history gets to the heart of the Alberta connundrum -- credibility -- they have none. And in the eyes of the world, Alberta's lack of credibility has translated to Canada's lack of credibility.

    The world has a way of dealing with reprobates -- trade measures. When the day comes that the sticks come out -- and they will -- those sticks won't distinguish between provinces. Every Canadian will take a hit for cousins cal, gary, edmont and uncle albert. Better hope these bruised Canadians all get some "Ralph Bucks" to cover the medical bills.
  4. Brent Beach from Victoria, Canada writes: Does Alberta have a politician with the balls of Danny Williams?

    Stelmach's courageous stand on royalty payments (not, it was well below the panel recommendation) put the province even more firmly under the control of the oil companies and the big salaries they pay to Albertans. Push one area and big oil pushes back. Tiny gainson royalties, then nothing on emissions. Now they will crank up the oil spigot then sit back and watch the dollars flow.

    Alberta could have both. It could have world class carbon sequestration and it could have royalties. It just needs a politician with the brains to understand the science and the balls to stare big oil down for a couple of years. They would complain and cut back on development for a year or two but they would be back with the technology.

    Poor Stelmach - no brains, no balls.

    Almost all the other Newfoundlanders have already migrated to Alberta. Danny might yet follow. Lets start a facebook page. Danny - please come and save Alberta!
  5. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Charles Dickens said, in Christmas Carol, "Beware these two, Poverty and Ignorance. But espcially beware Ignorance." Articles like this do not "clear things up." If people are going to have an opinion on something - particularly one that might eventually effect public policy, they could take the initiative to be informed. Otherwise it is all verbal effluent. Western economies are a product of their members, not their political leaders. You ignorantly flatter the ostensible leaders by ranting at them on pollution issues. Car and house owners, consumers and the like pollute. If that seems too complex to bother with, you are not qualified to hold forth an opinion. OIl will be produced, used and some of it will find its way into the atmosphere with whaever results that creates. So get informed and offer solutions instead of criticism. The oil sands and other fixed-location operations in the hydrocarbon business are the only opportunities we have to produce clean energy from carbon. Irresponsible talkers ignorantly resist nuclear energy... again when it is perfectly safe and clean if it is forced to run properly. Oil sands posesses many technical answers to emissions, real opportunities that conventional oil does not have. There are half a billion voters in North America, maybe 100 million can and will (occasionally) participate. When you speak openly you represent about 5 people and influnce another 1000. If you are literate, know how to operate a computer, have media power and can participate in a forum like this one, you touch maybe 10,000 people. Is it not worthwhile to take the time to learn about your subject before you mis-represent or mis-lead them? Simplistic bias iabout leaders is the same bigotry that we condemn today from the 1950's "south" but directed against a more politically acceptable target. It is just as harmful though. Beware Ignorance!
  6. polly in Alberta from Edmonton, Canada writes: Stelmach would be tarred, feathered and run out of the province if he were to impose harsh environmental expenses on the oil patch that cost Albertans their prosperity. Anyone over 40 remembers the last time we crashed, and those younger have learned it at their elders knees.
    Albertans do care deeply about our beautiful province and it's environment.
    The oil companies have been developing greener technologies for years.
    It makes sense to allow a longer time frame to bring the emission caps into place. This allows the projects to be completed (and forget the baloney about nobody wanting our oil) while leaving the oil producers/province enough profit to make it worthwhile to develope truly green tech.
    Not to mention that Canada contributes less than 3% of global emissions. What would be the net benefit to the planet of Canadians beggaring themselves on the alter of AGWM? Oh right...we should lead by example.
  7. robert mackidd from Winnipeg, Canada writes:
    JEFFREY SIMPSON does not even know how to get to Alberta. If its outside of Toronto he is lost.

    For decades Western Canada was the poor second cousin to Central Canada. When things were right there who cared about us. Now we have something going and Central Canada does not like it. Tough, mind your own business and we will mind ours.
  8. KEN CAMPBELL from Canada writes: I am always amazed at how individuals with the capacity to put a few words together assume a certain knowledge of every subject known to man. A few writers can detail facts in an intelligent manner but when they dogmatically preach to their readers they assume a knowledge they simply do not have. Unfortunately there are people who say so and so is clever so he or she must be right. A good writer should not introduce matters beyond his ken when utilizing the power of the press ,
  9. Peter Glen from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mr. Mackidd, Jeffrey's article is a call to action, a show of support for what is possible. Positive change is possible, but this requires leadership that is accountable to the people. This article is by no means a call to halt production. It is a call to re-examine the path that has been chosen now, while a change in course to a more sustainable growth and environmentally responsible route is possible.

    The environmental impact of these choices will not be contained to central Canada, so I will mind my own business. It's called Global Warming for a reason.

    And remember - one day, there will be no more oil left to recover. What then?
  10. Allan McElroy from Winnipeg, Canada writes: This foolishness re the oil sands is tiresome. The biggest source of greenhouse gasses in Canada remains vehicle exhaust pipes. We pay a buck a litre. Jump that to two bucks, as the Europeans have, and watch the emissions go down.
  11. Glen Argan from Edmonton, Canada writes: I agree with Jeffrey Simpson that Stelmach's climate change policy is the most weak-kneed in the industrial world. Stelmach goes around braying that Alberta will not allow development unless the environment is protected. This is the biggest bunch of malarkey I have ever heard. With the permission of his government, industry is using up the water supplies it is not defouling, it is preparing to pour C02 into the atmosphere at a rate higher than any other jurisdiction and it is turning the northern boreal forest into a wasteland. Stelmach cares not a whit about the environment his grandchildren will inherit from his irresponsible inaction. Bring on the election.
  12. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: First-ever Report Card Gives Oil Sands Mines a Failing Grade

    Key Findings of the Report Card

    - While the majority of oil sands operations have comprehensive environmental policies in place, only two companies provided evidence of having an independently-accredited environmental management system such as ISO 14,001.
    - With the exception of the existing Albian Muskeg River Mine, no operation has voluntary targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
    - No project or company has publicly-reported targets to reduce water usage from the Athabasca River.
    - Despite more than 40 years of oil sands development, not a single hectare of land has been certified as reclaimed under Government of Alberta guidelines.

    http://www.oilsandswatch.org/
  13. polly in Alberta from Edmonton, Canada writes: "- Despite more than 40 years of oil sands development, not a single hectare of land has been certified as reclaimed under Government of Alberta guidelines."

    I'm very sceptical of that statement and the organization that issued it. I've been to Fort Mac many times, and I've seen the reclaimed areas; grass, trees and wood buffalo.
  14. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: So Polly, have you read the report or are you just doing a knee-jerk response? Skepticism is good as long as it is well informed otherwise it just encourages irrational argument (too frequent here).

    You download the report from:

    http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/OS-Undermining-Final.pdf
  15. Another Canadian from Canada from calgary,ab, Canada writes: Yes, the Alberta Plan falls short, but at least there is a plan, which is more than you can say for all the other Provinces. You have to start somewhere, this can't be done over night. One has to remember what Stelmach is facing in Alberta. It will take decades and a ton of money to clean up the mess Ralph left behind. If he moves too quickly, he will get voted out of office. He has taken a stand against Big Oil with the royalty porgram(once again, not perfect but a step in the right direction) and has done more for the people of Alberta in a short year than Ralph did in his entire time on office. Ralph was nothing more than puppet of Big Business. Ed is really a man of the people.
  16. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Cue the Alberta coocks. NOtice how not a single poster tried to refute Jeffery Simpon's arguments. It was all personal attacks.

    The most telling part of the article is this:
    **
    Alberta has 12 per cent of Canada's population and about a third of its emissions. The Stelmach government has now confirmed that Alberta's emissions will keep rising for many years, which means arithmetically that as other provinces pull down their emissions, Alberta's share of national emissions will rise in absolute and per capita terms.
    **
    What gives the people of Alberta the right to pollute the rest of the country. 12% of the pop. and 33% of the green house emissions. Please try to justify that.
  17. I have a job now I live in Alberta from calgary,ab, Canada writes: When I lived in Ontario, I, like many others, lost my job because the Ontario government (didn't matter which party was in power) did nothing to protect manufacturing jobs. They didn't care that those displaced couldn't feed our families. Is this what Canadians want to see happen in Alberta, that is what will happen if the Alberta government acts too quickly. Yes protect the environment, but do it in an orderly manner. It takes time and must be done in a way that doesn't put people out of work.
  18. Oldman Johnson from Calgary, Canada writes: Luke from TO. Yes, we produce 33% of the emissions. To fuel the vehicles in Ontario. Just tell us you don't want our gasoline anymore, and we'll stop production, I promise!!
  19. a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: oldman johnson from calgary promises to stop production if ontario doesn't want alberta's gasoline.
    oldman johnson has a bit of a problem, which should be obvious to anyone reading his post. but just in case, maybe oldman johnson could stop all the pollution.
    oh, i get it. oldman johnson will stop all that pollution by not producing gas if ontario doesn't want it.
    so it must be ontario's fault.
    oldman johnson thinks he's stephen harper.
  20. Charles Grant from Toronto, Canada writes: Here is how it must go:

    We regulate the oil sands, limiting their expansion with a hard cap on emissions.

    This (and other global regulations) raises the price of oil, which provides incentives for:

    The greater vehicle efficiency standards Ontario won't enact...

    The massive public transit plans tabled by B.C. and Ontario

    The high technology alternatives to oil - renewable energy, electric vehicles, trains, building efficiency. Canada can be a leader here!

    = A cleaner, more efficient, economically viable Canada
  21. Doug - from Canada writes: Something to not that is not brought up at all. Not all the oil in the middle east is light crude. Some of it is heavy which will need steam injection just like the tar sands. of course its been avoided as why not just get the easy stuff. But over time more and more dirty oil will have to be developed around the world. Calgary is known as being the world leader in that type of Engineering. I've spent about 2 of the last 7 years on steam injection projects in the ME.
    -
    Another thing, steam injection didn't start in Alberta. The oldest steam injection field in barkerfield in California. not sure what % it is of CA production but it is a major field.
  22. Doug - from Canada writes: Looked it up - 2/3 of the California oil is from steam injection so just as dirty as Alberta tars sands oil.
  23. Jean Luft from Canada writes: Somebody should tell the idiot Jeffrey Simpson that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top