Why has Norway built, and continues to build, a healthy future for its citizens; whereas Canada is stupidly living in the past!

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Why has Norway built, and continues to build, a healthy future for its citizens; whereas Canada is stupidly living in the past!

Norway has built a trillion dollar fund for the future of its citizens from their oil and gas, and now wisely knows that it's time, for both environmental and economic reasons, to move on, whereas Canada has dick for a fund, and is persuing an unhealthy and deadend industry. How stupid can Canadian governments be!

 

World’s Biggest Wealth Fund Wants Out of Oil and Gas

The $1 trillion fund that Norway has amassed pumping oil and gas over the past two decades wants out of petroleum stocks.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-16/norway-s-1-trillion-w...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

For Canada to do the same would require pipelines, tanker ships, or both.

You in?

cco

Nationalizing the sector would help, for starters.

NorthReport

That's what PET wanted to do. He did create a government run Petro Canada. Too bad Justin does not have substance like his Dad.

But it's now too late for all that. Norway realizes this and is moving on. Oil and gas have perhaps 20 years more shelf life, then that's it. How stupid can Canadians be! 

Justin will probably get re-elected as he has a pretty face, but he is much more interested in hob-nobing with the one percenters, than dealing with the drudgery of helping the other 99% of Canadians secure a good future. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If Canada were to nationalize oil production, so that the sales of oil to the rest of the world filled the public coffer like in Norway, what would be the totally safe way that this oil would make it to market? 

Martin N.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If Canada were to nationalize oil production, so that the sales of oil to the rest of the world filled the public coffer like in Norway, what would be the totally safe way that this oil would make it to market? 

Environmentally friendly hovercraft powered by the laughter of children.

Martin N.

The simple answer is that Norway is a sovereign nation that works toward progressive solutions ( such as paying relatively high taxes while saving its energy bounties) while Canada is a collection of non-sovereign entities populated by narcissistic, deluded ignoramuses who are more interested in playing spiteful sillybuggers than in working toward progressive solutions.

Martin N.

cco wrote:
Nationalizing the sector would help, for starters.

The irrational dream lives on in the hearts of ageing Marxists yet. How will this nationalizing function? Canada does not have the funds to buyout all the foreign investments, never mind the entire sector. If you plan on simply taking the sector without agreement, Canada doesn't have enough beds for the profs to hide under when the tanks roll across the border.

cco

The US didn't invade Mexico when Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized Pemex. If you think Trump's got the political capital and spare soldiers to invade Canada in the midst of the forthcoming war with North Korea, over Canada taking control of its own natural resources, then why are we even bothering to have political debates? Let's just call Washington and get a list of what policies Trump will allow without invading. It's nice to know the parameters of the field.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

For Canada to do the same would require pipelines, tanker ships, or both.

You in?

We already have both. Alberta could build its own refineries and nationalize them just like Quebec nationalized Hydro Quebec.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
We already have both. Alberta could build its own refineries and nationalize them just like Quebec nationalized Hydro Quebec.

And then ship gasoline by rail, which is OK since gasoline isn't flammable.  Or, by pipeline.  Again, not flammable.

I guess I'm just saying you can't make it safer by making it more explosive.

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

The simple answer is that Norway is a sovereign nation that works toward progressive solutions ( such as paying relatively high taxes while saving its energy bounties) while Canada is a collection of non-sovereign entities populated by narcissistic, deluded ignoramuses who are more interested in playing spiteful sillybuggers than in working toward progressive solutions.

In dealing with natural resources, Norway's unitary political system seems far superior to Canada's federal system. In hindsight it would have been better if Canada's constitution had placed royalties from resources under federal jurisdiction. If that had happened there would likely have been more cooperation across Canada in finding progressive solutions.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

For Canada to do the same would require pipelines, tanker ships, or both.

You in?

We already have both. Alberta could build its own refineries and nationalize them just like Quebec nationalized Hydro Quebec.

Successive Alberta governments have concluded that it doesn't make economic sense (and cents) to build government owned refineries. 

cco

Yes, clearly it makes far more sense to pipe the oil to Texas, have it refined there for Exxon's profit, then sold back to Albertans.

NorthReport

Pierre Trudeau ran into a lot of opposition when he tried to make Canada more independent of the USA Too bad he didn’t succeed more Unfortunately succeeding Canada’s governments haven’t have much of a vision or the courage to challenge our ‘nothing matters but the next quarterly financial statement mentality’ of our business community. Too bad

Pogo Pogo's picture

The sad part of value added processes is that as a general rule the longer you keep items unprocessed the better, both timewise and geographically. If Canada is going to increase its processing capacity it would be for Canadian consumption (perversely making oil consumption that much more easy for Canadians).

JKR

cco wrote:

Yes, clearly it makes far more sense to pipe the oil to Texas, have it refined there for Exxon's profit, then sold back to Albertans.

Isn't most of the oil used in Alberta refined in Alberta?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yes, clearly it makes far more sense to pipe the oil to Texas, have it refined there for Exxon's profit, then sold back to Albertans.

That's as illogical as a wheat farmer buying bread!  He grows wheat, ships it somewhere so that someone else can mill it (for lucre) and someone else can bake it (for lucre) and then they sell it back to the farmer!

Wouldn't this be called "outsourcing"?

And if piping that crude to Texas is what they do, is your theory that they're doing it to waste money/support Exxon (as opposed to, say, it being more cost effective in some way)?

cco

The appropriate analogy would be if the (former) Canadian Wheat Board decided to ship all its wheat to Arizona to be baked, because Canadians protested the establishment of domestic bakeries on the grounds that those supported bread culture, while continuing to buy and consume bread at rapacious rates.

This, in a nutshell, is what bothers me about much of the current Canadian environmental movement: whack-a-moleism. Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

I basically agree.  With the smugness of a voluntary non-driver, mind you.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

I basically agree.  With the smugness of a voluntary non-driver, mind you.

..bullshit to both of you. the alta ndp gov could have tried to leverage a deal for dilbit refineries. this could have been part of the fed ndp platform as well instead the ndp feds prioritized pipelines only. manitoba ndp signed on to that as well when in power with the other provinces. no one was calling for refineries because big oil didn't want that.

..also it isn't only enviromental movements calling for no pipelines, it's indigenous folk, it's que & bc citizens with many others across the country. you scapegoat because it's easier than facing the enormous work that needs to be done to change the political/financial systems. stopping pipelines is what can be done now while building alternatives and forcing political change. this is on all activists..all folks living in this country.

NorthReport

epaulo

You constantly use the First Nations card inferring that all First Nations are opposed whereas there are differences of opinion there just like in other parts of society.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i also use the populations of que and bc, that does not mean all of them either. having said that it's indigenous folk on the front line and playing a leadship role in struggles like no pipelines and site c.

JKR

cco wrote:

The appropriate analogy would be if the (former) Canadian Wheat Board decided to ship all its wheat to Arizona to be baked, because Canadians protested the establishment of domestic bakeries on the grounds that those supported bread culture, while continuing to buy and consume bread at rapacious rates.

This, in a nutshell, is what bothers me about much of the current Canadian environmental movement: whack-a-moleism. Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

Has the environmental movement ever prevented the building of an oil refinery in Alberta?

brookmere

JKR wrote:
In hindsight it would have been better if Canada's constitution had placed royalties from resources under federal jurisdiction.

In fact when Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the Federal government retained ownership of the natural resources. They were turned over to these provinces circa 1930 for free I believe, perhaps as a form of aid as both provinces were in dire financial straits.

When PET patriated the Constitution he added a clause affirming provincial control of natural resources to get the provinces to agree. This horse left the barn long ago and it's pointless to advocate massive goverment investment today in a resource that's on its way out.

voice of the damned

epaulo wrote:

..also it isn't only enviromental movements calling for no pipelines, it's indigenous folk, it's que & bc citizens with many others across the country.

Yes, but do the people in Quebec and BC, along with the indigenous folk, care about pipelines that aren't going through their region? In other words, if Energy East, for example, were irrevocably declared dead, would all the anti-pipeline people in Ontario still work to stop pipelines in BC?

 

NorthReport

Well said

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
In hindsight it would have been better if Canada's constitution had placed royalties from resources under federal jurisdiction.

In fact when Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the Federal government retained ownership of the natural resources. They were turned over to these provinces circa 1930 for free I believe, perhaps as a form of aid as both provinces were in dire financial straits.

When PET patriated the Constitution he added a clause affirming provincial control of natural resources to get the provinces to agree. This horse left the barn long ago and it's pointless to advocate massive goverment investment today in a resource that's on its way out.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo wrote:

..also it isn't only enviromental movements calling for no pipelines, it's indigenous folk, it's que & bc citizens with many others across the country.

Yes, but do the people in Quebec and BC, along with the indigenous folk, care about pipelines that aren't going through their region? In other words, if Energy East, for example, were irrevocably declared dead, would all the anti-pipeline people in Ontario still work to stop pipelines in BC?

..yes i believe they care. there is an understanding by many that if we are to save ourselves globally we need to radically change how decisions are made. this means changing our political and economic systems. the leap  comes to mind as one such entity.

..in order to be able to carry this out most of our struggles need to come together to support each other or we get picked off one at a time. and this can be done under the banner of say environmental justice. for the leap, and i've adopted this position myself, it places indigenous issues front row center suggesting there can be no way forward until this is addressed in a meaning full way..nation to nation. in an undrip way.

..the treaty alliance is another example of people working together with the target being no tarsands expansion. here we find not only province to province interaction but cross border.

..and finally here in wpg folks see this big picture so to speak. we committed to ending energy east, we are now fighting line 3 and we supported dakota access resistance financially, with supplies and bodies.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Well said

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
In hindsight it would have been better if Canada's constitution had placed royalties from resources under federal jurisdiction.

In fact when Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the Federal government retained ownership of the natural resources. They were turned over to these provinces circa 1930 for free I believe, perhaps as a form of aid as both provinces were in dire financial straits.

When PET patriated the Constitution he added a clause affirming provincial control of natural resources to get the provinces to agree. This horse left the barn long ago and it's pointless to advocate massive goverment investment today in a resource that's on its way out.

I agree. Even the aircraft industry is developing electric passenger planes. The price of oil is likely headed for a long term decline so governments are not going to invest in a losing proposition.

Looking back, it seems that Canada and Alberta will have little lasting benefit from the huge amount of money made from oil during the last forty years. Most of the money from the oil boom went to Alberta to have no provincial sales tax, the lowest corporate taxes, and the highest costing provincial programs. None of the huge windfall seems to have been invested for the future as has been done in Norway. I think our federal system is a majour reason why Canada and Alberta failed to progressively benefit from the huge windfall from the oil sands.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The Canadian model is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

WWWTT

epaulo13 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

I basically agree.  With the smugness of a voluntary non-driver, mind you.

..bullshit to both of you. the alta ndp gov could have tried to leverage a deal for dilbit refineries. this could have been part of the fed ndp platform as well instead the ndp feds prioritized pipelines only. manitoba ndp signed on to that as well when in power with the other provinces. no one was calling for refineries because big oil didn't want that.

..also it isn't only enviromental movements calling for no pipelines, it's indigenous folk, it's que & bc citizens with many others across the country. you scapegoat because it's easier than facing the enormous work that needs to be done to change the political/financial systems. stopping pipelines is what can be done now while building alternatives and forcing political change. this is on all activists..all folks living in this country.

NOPE! I personally know of an insider close to Mulcair that was pro pipelines east because of the refineries in eastern Canada would be using the resources from Alberta and further developing expanding different productions. Mulcair at a private speech at a union meeting at the OFL building on Gervais drive Toronto even stated this! This was and still is a tricky fine line issue for the NDP because there is a lot of labour and wealth that can be generated within Canada by developing our resources within Canada. This goes for any raw material Canada produces. And this falls under developing infrastructure.

WWWTT

progressive17 wrote:

The Canadian model is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

Agreed. Being the next door neighbor of the USA doesn't help.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

WWWTT wrote:

NOPE! I personally know of an insider close to Mulcair that was pro pipelines east because of the refineries in eastern Canada would be using the resources from Alberta and further developing expanding different productions. Mulcair at a private speech at a union meeting at the OFL building on Gervais drive Toronto even stated this! This was and still is a tricky fine line issue for the NDP because there is a lot of labour and wealth that can be generated within Canada by developing our resources within Canada. This goes for any raw material Canada produces. And this falls under developing infrastructure.

..i have a different understanding. all of the refineries in the east are built to process a lighter oil and not the heavy tarsand.  more over the plan from alberta big oil was always to export without refining here.

..the other issue is that because of the nature of dilbit it needs to be refined at source. so pipelines were a no go refinery in the east or not. same with the talk about building one on the west coast.

Pondering

 This was and still is a tricky fine line issue for the NDP because there is a lot of labour and wealth that can be generated within Canada by developing our resources within Canada. This goes for any raw material Canada produces. And this falls under developing infrastructure.

Then they are living in the past. The moment Mulcair promoted EE before it even had a name I knew he was making a mistake. It's not unions the NDP has to please it's voters most of whom don't belong to unions.

NorthReport

Actually it is both union and non-union workers

Pondering

JKR wrote:
I think our federal system is a majour reason why Canada and Alberta failed to progressively benefit from the huge windfall from the oil sands.

No that is 100% on Alberta. To nationalize we would have had to force it down their throats. A few years ago Fort McMurray tried to switch to a 4 day school week to save money on school-busing. Parents had a fit because most work 5 days a week. Alberta is anti-government. It's a wonder they accepted medicare long enough to figure out it's a good thing.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote: 

It's not unions the NDP has to please it's voters most of whom don't belong to unions.

I don't know if we'd really want this to be the operational model for the NDP from here on in. "Who cares what the unions want! Just go with whatever the voters say!"

It's true that most voters don't belong to unions. Most voters aren't lgbqt either, but the NDP does currently have a de facto policy of not compromising on lgbqt issues, which I don't think should be curtailed in the event of discovering that "the voters" disagree with the party on some particular equality issue.

 

NorthReport

votd well said.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

Why do you claim that no one is addressing consumption? What do you think electric vehicles are about? Hydro Quebec among others is developing them. During transition of course we will continue using oil. It makes no sense to build massive new infrastructure for something that we are transitioning away from.

Quebec recieves very little oil from the Saudis and it is unlikely bitumen would replace it because our refinieres don't handle bitumen. Alberta oil will never displace Saudi oil anywhere on the planet because it is way cheaper to produce. The pipeline is for export not for Quebec. The notion that Saudi oil will not be used if Alberta oil is used is simply false. If we didn't buy it someone else would.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..steelworkers, bcgeu and many other bc unions oppose the kinder morgan. it's mostly the construction unions that are directly related to the jobs that it would produce that want it. although in the communities many union members of all stripes are alined with the no camp. kitimat comes to mind when i speak of this where they had a referendum on northern gateway. the vote went against the pipeline.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
I think our federal system is a majour reason why Canada and Alberta failed to progressively benefit from the huge windfall from the oil sands.

No that is 100% on Alberta. To nationalize we would have had to force it down their throats. A few years ago Fort McMurray tried to switch to a 4 day school week to save money on school-busing. Parents had a fit because most work 5 days a week. Alberta is anti-government. It's a wonder they accepted medicare long enough to figure out it's a good thing.

I'm not clear how supporting a five-day school week(whatever the merits of that idea) means you are anti-government. Wouldn't the anti-government position be "Yeah, let's cut down on government spending by reducing transportation costs and school hours"?

And, apart from that, I wouldn't make generalizations about what Albertans have always been like as far as government goes. Alberta nationalized a bank in the 30s(still public), and an airline in the 70s(no longer public). And it was the second province(after Quebec) to create a separtate Ministry Of Culture, with per capita funding of the arts under Lougheed being the second highest in Canada(again, after Quebec).

But yes, widespread nationalization of the oil sands would almost certainly have been unpopular in Alberta.

http://tinyurl.com/yc7xv27c

 

WWWTT

epaulo13 wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

NOPE! I personally know of an insider close to Mulcair that was pro pipelines east because of the refineries in eastern Canada would be using the resources from Alberta and further developing expanding different productions. Mulcair at a private speech at a union meeting at the OFL building on Gervais drive Toronto even stated this! This was and still is a tricky fine line issue for the NDP because there is a lot of labour and wealth that can be generated within Canada by developing our resources within Canada. This goes for any raw material Canada produces. And this falls under developing infrastructure.

..i have a different understanding. all of the refineries in the east are built to process a lighter oil and not the heavy tarsand.  more over the plan from alberta big oil was always to export without refining here.

..the other issue is that because of the nature of dilbit it needs to be refined at source. so pipelines were a no go refinery in the east or not. same with the talk about building one on the west coast.

Yes I believe that the bitumen had/has some impact that would require further processing   or different requirements in piping out. This was being addressed through retrofiting current refineries in eastern Canada. There was also word that a refinery producing unleaded gasoline for cars and trucks was also going to be built as part of this. This was going to be a huge infrastructure project requiring tens if not hundreds of billions over many years investment. Giving Canada huge energy independence! 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

This was going to be a huge infrastructure project requiring tens if not hundreds of billions over many years investment. Giving Canada huge energy independence!

..yet this plan never was never made public. why is that do you think?

WWWTT

epaulo13 wrote:

..steelworkers, bcgeu and many other bc unions oppose the kinder morgan. it's mostly the construction unions that are directly related to the jobs that it would produce that want it. although in the communities many union members of all stripes are alined with the no camp. kitimat comes to mind when i speak of this where they had a referendum on northern gateway. the vote went against the pipeline.

Yes the unions that really want pipelines is the UA affiliated ones. Plumbers Steamfitters and Pipe Welders. And more specificaly it's the steamfitters and pipe welders that want it. I'm a plumber/gas pipe fitter and don't really care for it anymore. Obviously electric renewables are going to kill the petro industry in 40 years. 

I'm also a builder/developer and one of my houses is approved for the Ontario Microfit project. And the next house I build will have a 10kw solar panel generation system installed on the roof, or the appropriate size to match use(but 2017 is the last year for microfit, so not sure what the program replacing microfit will look like yet) and I'll also have an electric vehicle plugs installed in the garage.

But don't ever expect to board an electric plane direct flight from Toronto to Beijing in anyone's lifetime.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Yes, clearly it makes far more sense to pipe the oil to Texas, have it refined there for Exxon's profit, then sold back to Albertans.

That's as illogical as a wheat farmer buying bread!  He grows wheat, ships it somewhere so that someone else can mill it (for lucre) and someone else can bake it (for lucre) and then they sell it back to the farmer!

Wouldn't this be called "outsourcing"?

And if piping that crude to Texas is what they do, is your theory that they're doing it to waste money/support Exxon (as opposed to, say, it being more cost effective in some way)?

It's more cost effective for Exxon because Exxon already has available refinieres. They have no motivation to build refineries in Alberta. Alberta would make a larger profit if it refined oil in place and have a lot less trouble exporting it.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
And then ship gasoline by rail, which is OK since gasoline isn't flammable.  Or, by pipeline.  Again, not flammable.

I guess I'm just saying you can't make it safer by making it more explosive.

How do you think fuel gets to gas stations? No matter where it's refined it still gets transported. I'm fairly certain that once oil is fully refined there is a lot less of it. Gasoline doesn't sink the way bitumen does but in any case I am not speaking from an environmental perspective.

I'm saying that Alberta has solutions available but prefers to leave everything in the hands of oil companies because free enterprise is best in their collective view. So instead, they want the federal government to bully other provinces into accepting the pipelines.

What Alberta still doesn't seem able to understand is that regardless of law their is a limit to how far the feds will go to force a pipeline through against the will of the people. They had to give up on EE because without either Quebec or Ontario it is impossible to win an election. BC has far fewer voters but they too can only be pushed so far.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the oil companies are just going through the motions to keep stock prices up as long as possible.

WWWTT

epaulo13 wrote:

This was going to be a huge infrastructure project requiring tens if not hundreds of billions over many years investment. Giving Canada huge energy independence!

..yet this plan never was never made public. why is that do you think?

Too ambitous of a plan. Corporate ownership of Canada is more concerned with immediate profits. Not the well being of Canadians

WWWTT

Here's another tid bit of info/facts to throw into the mix.

Texas is a warmer climate. From my understanding, this makes refining fuels more cost effective/cheaper. Also it's geographic location. On an ocean coast for shipping and physically closer to more markets make cheaper transportation. So in a way, there is less carbon emited in production in Texas gulf coast refineries.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

WWWTT wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

This was going to be a huge infrastructure project requiring tens if not hundreds of billions over many years investment. Giving Canada huge energy independence!

..yet this plan never was never made public. why is that do you think?

Too ambitous of a plan. Corporate ownership of Canada is more concerned with immediate profits. Not the well being of Canadians

..that whole plan doesn't sound like mulcair at all. but lets say yes for a second and just a second. in the last fed election the plan was never broached at all yet at the end of it, in desperation, he came out against the pipelines.

cco

Pondering wrote:

Why do you claim that no one is addressing consumption? What do you think electric vehicles are about? Hydro Quebec among others is developing them. During transition of course we will continue using oil. It makes no sense to build massive new infrastructure for something that we are transitioning away from.

Electric cars are good. There are currently about 8,000 of them on Québec roads. That's admirable for those who drive them, but it's chipping away microscopically at the scale of the problem.

If we're really transitioning away from fossil fuels, instead of symbolically, our strategy might include:

Making it easier for people not to drive at all. That means massive new infrastructure for transit (maybe 25 new metro lines over the next 10 years) and also affordable housing on the island (so people are incentivized to live in high-density neighbourhoods instead of buying the only place they can afford in Vaudreuil).

A full commitment to eliminate non-renewables from the electrical grid. Goodbye coal and gas, hello hydro (including, perhaps, Site C), solar, wind, tidal, and in some places, nuclear.

Electrifying Canada's freight railways and incentivizing their use over trucking.

Support for less carbon-intensive diets (test-tube meat, a transition away from farming). Good luck selling that to the ranchers.

Pondering wrote:

Quebec recieves very little oil from the Saudis and it is unlikely bitumen would replace it because our refinieres don't handle bitumen. Alberta oil will never displace Saudi oil anywhere on the planet because it is way cheaper to produce. The pipeline is for export not for Quebec. The notion that Saudi oil will not be used if Alberta oil is used is simply false. If we didn't buy it someone else would.

OPEC supplies a third of Canada's oil imports, with the main supplier countries being Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Nigeria. The #1 supplier of imported oil, much to my surprise, is the United States, at 54%. I'm not sure how much sense it makes for both the US and Canada to be each other's largest oil supplier.

"If we don't buy from them/sell to them, somebody else will" is a specious argument that was also used when it came to selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Somebody will buy from ISIS, too, and yet Canada's not keen to be first in line. Canada shouldn't condition good behaviour on every other country on the planet doing the same thing. And as far as Saudi oil being cheaper forever (I saw someone upthread claim the price of oil would continue to decline throughout our lifetimes), I imagine that whole argument will go out the window the minute war breaks out between Saudi Arabia and Iran. With the Persian Gulf a war zone, Canada at odds with Russia, and Donald Trump and the "America Firsters" ruling in Washington, there just might come a time when it's useful for Canada to have energy sovereignty and self-reliance.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Pondering wrote:

Why do you claim that no one is addressing consumption? What do you think electric vehicles are about? Hydro Quebec among others is developing them. During transition of course we will continue using oil. It makes no sense to build massive new infrastructure for something that we are transitioning away from. 

There is no magic free energy to move to.  Yes there are preferred choices.  But the biggest problem is not oil pipelines, but the logistics pipelines.  How many people have a toaster and a toaster oven? How many other examples of duplication are there in our households. How did this stuff get made? Where did it get made and how did it get into our homes? Moving to an electric car will be a big help (how is the cement produced that build the dam or the steel that built the power lines?), but we are deceiving ourselves if we think it anything more than a bandaid.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..exactly pogo. everything must change extraction, production, transportation and usage. not a simple task that can be achieved but imposible using the current political and economic systems. 

..i say that the transition has already started though. agree with it or not it's going forward and this must be supported. 

Pages