Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions now exceed ON and QC combined!

[art-in-the-making]

Ontario and Quebec combined have 21 million people living in an area 2.5 million sq. km. Alberta has 3.6 million people living in an area of 660,000 sq. km.

I only saw the story in french. Maybe someone has something similar in English

http://www.lapresse.ca/environnement/dossiers/changements-climatiques/201404/16/01-4758112-quebec-se...

for those who don't read french, Canada's complete inventory of greenhouse gases is now available, up to date as of 2012.

here: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/81...

An amazingly thorough document. Breaking it down multiple different ways - by province, by gas, by facility. It also gives a fascinating and super detailed look at Canadian industry, agriculture, resource extraction, and numerous other aspects of societal behavior...

[art-in-the-making]

4th horse - the one-hr work week is a separate discussion but since I brought it up, what I'm getting at is that most people work in fields that are not remotely necessary. i.e. - creating new fashions and designs for stuff that has already been designed and working fine for the past 100 years, or wasn't ever needed in the first place, and so on.  I'm not saying we go Amish but there is are many other alternatives.

I suspect the problem is that *someone* is worried about what would happen if 99% of people only had to work 1 day a week. What would happen? Too scary for many to contemplate, I'm sure.

But, another side of the coin is - redesigning handbags and re-inventing toothpaste and soap are simply the most profitable and easiest ways of force-feeding people busy-work. If we want to have 100% employment, there could be other, more productive options... like I don't know maybe building a colony on the moon or installing high speed rail all over the place or beginning a huge project to clean the oceans? ...to be discussed...

Pierre, yes the problem with what Syncrude and the Koch oil lobby says is definitely credibility, as you say, and they are sorely lacking in that regard.

[pierrelebel]

"the problem with what Syncrude and the Koch oil lobby says is definitely credibility,"

A lot of people in the public eye have a credibility problem.  Take Premier Wynne in Ontario for example, or Prime Minister Harper.  Many feel there is a credibility gap in their statements.

However, having a credibility problem with some does not mean, suggest or imply that everything they say is wrong.  It simply means that some people have decided not to believe their statements.

I feel the same way about the Canadian oil sands.  Having read and listened with an open mind to both sides of the argument, I find more credibility for the statements seen on Syncrude website than those from anti-oil conservationist organizations.

Of course others will reach a different opinion.  And that's OK.  We still live in a free society where we can research a subject as much as we wish and reach the conclusion that make sense to every one of us.  We do not need to agree with one another but we should respect everyone's opinion.

[pjcdn2005]

Interesting topic and very well stated Pierre.

[art-in-the-making]

Fortunately (or unfortunately as the case may be!) I am not one to believe the pr hype that a company or government writes about itself and puts out there for public consumption. Also, I am very skeptical about the value of this type of material as a source of reliable information.

When it comes to the tar sands, the telling fact, IMO is that there are few if any pro-tar sands advocates out there besides industry funded and the gov'ts of Canada AB and SK.

But Pierre if I could recommend a far more reliable source of information than "Syncrude", it would be the Pembina Institute. You'll see them referred to by every name in the book, from pinkos to greenies to lefties, but they are pretty rigorous in their work and take a realistic approach to the tar sands.

Of course there are hundreds if not thousands of anti-oil and anti tar sands groups. None have a vested interest in scamming the public, unless you believe that someone like Neil Young or Greenpeace or the IPCC is in it because they think they're going to make a killing on carbon credits or windmills or some dumb thing.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

[art-in-the-making]

"Canada is being outplayed"

Think about this: Over 80% of global oil reserves are controlled by state-owned oil companies.

Combine this with the fact that the vast majority of corporate ownership in Canada's oil patch is foreign controlled - this leaves Canada in the vulnerable and unique position of controlling SQUAT. (sorry for the all-caps)

I would be curious to know what percentage of our oil we actually control. A sliver at best - why? Simple, our governments have been out-negotiated by the oil companies.

Meanwhile, Norway has piled up a $600 billion mountain of cash and Alberta can't even balance a budget.

This series of several articles in The Tyee compares Canada's and Norway's approaches to dealing with oil resources. Clearly we are giving away the farm. Have a read - it's unbelievable really.

[art-in-the-making]

correction - as of Jan 2014 Norway's cash pile is now $800 billion, about the size of Canada's debt.

[pierrelebel]

Think about it: Norway is one of the richest country in the world, despite its small population.  Also, Norway is the fifth-largest oil exporter and third-largest gas exporter in the world,

So - more oil and gas production has resulted in one of the highest standard of living for its citizens.

Yet you want Canada to reduce its oil production? You want Canada to limit the construction of pipelines allowing for exports of more oil and gas?

You can't have it both ways: show Norway as a model yet refuse to follow their lead in increasing oil production!

[art-in-the-making]

Pierre, it's not more production that's got Norway's books balanced - it's production without selling out the farm.

What is the first point I mentioned in how I would handles the tar sands?

"Rationalizing royalties"

Norway controls over 60% of its oil. That is why they benefit from exploiting their resource. That is why Norway's balance sheet is $1.2 Trillion ahead of Canada's.

Canada's resources are criminally mismanaged by Conservative + corporate lap dogs. Read the material and tell me otherwise.

[art-in-the-making]

By the way, it has been noted that Norway actually contravened its original policy of slow steady development in the late 80s when they had a recession and were scared into speeding up production.

Analysis after the fact shows that - had Norway continued its slow steady approach to the letter, their nest egg would be close to double what it is now, as they would have been able to sell a lot more oil at higher prices.

One of the best articles is an in-depth interview with Rolf Wiborg, a Norwegian oil exec who got his engineering  degree and training and the U of A. He has a unique understanding of both the Canadian and Norwegian experiences.

[pierrelebel]

"Canada's resources are criminally mismanaged....."

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be OK with you to substantially increase production of the oil sands and other oil production in Canada as long as the government retains a larger share for Canadians, following the Norway's model?

That line of thinking goes against what most environment supporters want (reduction of oil production/transportation/consumption)  and against what big oil companies want (more profits): you are in "no man's land"!

[art-in-the-making]

Where did I say I want to increase production?

Lessen it if anything. As I said earlier, any oil left in the ground just becomes more valuable in the future.

Do more of the refining and upgrading in Canada. Keep more of the profit on the overall operation, whether by increased royalties or Canadian equity.

Put more Canadian developed technology into cleaner exploitation of the resource.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

That would be all too logical art. Canada has never acted like it was #1. We make agreements we eventually lose on, we sell off our resources, we allow others to walk all over us and for what?...........the fast buck....instead of the smart buck. We have a hand full of aces and we never play them.

[art-in-the-making]

It is the ones sitting at the top who run us into the ground. Like the former CEO / president (whichever guy it was) who presided over the sell-out of Alcan - last I heard he was living in London playing at being a photographer after pocketing millions from the sellout.

Our wealthy merchant class just don't have what it takes to lead properly. Canada's vast wealth gives these losers the way to run their businesses like functional incompetents. They follow the proven formula and guarantee their own personal wealth while ensuring that nothing ever gets done in this country.

The bottom line is that the way of Canadian business is to avoid risk at all cost, because they would rather sell out and live off the fat of the land than take a bolder winning action that would have a 1/1000 chance of failure. 

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

These wealthy elite people for the most part, they live in a different world and I'm serious, they really do. They are no different than the drug addict or the alcoholic, they have their own addiction and theirs is money and association........associating with their own kind. Their "kind" are the collectors of wealth, success and laurel wreaths of victory and they seek all this at any cost, especially if the cost is to others.

I have nothing against the wealthy, even the elite, as long as they have integrity and a conscience, but most often few of them do and others, well they are easily compromised. I have honestly never been able to wrap my head around why they can not achieve what they want and at the same time still protect people and the environment? The technology is there and if where it does not exist, it can be invented, however it seems to these people that money is their god and it's equally as false.

[valve37]

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.."
--Al Gore, Vice President

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

You got grandchildren valve? Want to leave them something really important? Leave them clean air, clean water, a healthy environment to exist in. Of all things, those are the most important.

[rose-dee]

---

@art-in-the-making wrote:

I am not one to believe the pr hype that a company or government writes about itself and puts out there for public consumption. Also, I am very skeptical about the value of this type of material as a source of reliable information.

---

And I think we should all be skeptical, or at least be willing to do some serious fact-checking before swallowing the pap we are being fed by corporations whose ultimate goal in such publicity is, after all, to keep the money tap flowing. 

I know something of this "public front" that corporations put out.  In the 1980's I'm embarrassed to admit that I was hired by a major Vancouver commercial law firm to write prospectuses to be submitted to the fledgling VSE by mostly spurious mining companies in their frenetic race to sell shares.  Many of these companies were no more than an address and a prayer.  Many were engaged in patently illegal or at best non-permissible activities.  All of them submitted their own "raw material" and data to be transformed into a prospectus that would be the foundation of their public share offering, and which would be relied upon by ordinary investors in making decisions on where to put their money.  None of the submitted material that I can recall was independently verified or reviewed, and all of it ended up being stitched together into a prospectus in the proper form, which would bolster the glossy, professional-looking and highly attractive brochures and ad campaigns.  Those of you who are old enough will remember what happened to that particular "resource" boom.  Since that time I've taken almost all corporate self-proclamations with a very large grain of salt. 

These ads, these paternalistic and comforting reassurances, the glowing websites, are nothing but weapons of mass distraction (if you'll forgive the term), taking the public's attention away from the very troubling and real underlying issues.  In my opinion these publications and articles should be viewed in the cold and clear light of their underlying motivation.  What is that motivation?  To get as much resource out of the ground as quickly as possible in order to make a select few at the top of the pyramid (and those who may be politically beholden to them) as wealthy and influential as possible.  Yes, the money dribbles down the sides of the edifice to us ordinary folk, but we (or our descendants) will all pay the cost in the end.

Then ask this: what is the motivation of the counter-voices, those who argue against untrammelled pillaging and despoiling of the landscape?  Could it be to save a little something of the planet for later, and/or do the work as thoughtfully and cleanly as possible, with as little damage to human health and the well-being of other living things, as possible?  My goodness, what a nefarious ulterior motive!

Pierre pointed out the 90-year predicted life of the oil sands as a model of sustainability.  I have to wonder what definition of sustainability was implied by that statement.  My idea of sustainability is something which can be developed and used by man for an indefinite future timeline without at the same time destroying the surrounding environment: sustainable agriculture, managed forestry, sustainable fisheries, etc. 

Unfortunately finite resources, unlike living resources, don't fit well into this model.  In fact, where such resources as oil and minerals is concerned, the term "sustainable development" has come to mean simply exploitation without destroying the surrounding ecology -- in various shades along the spectrum of that meaning.  The more money is being made (and the faster), the more acceptable seems to be the level of collateral damage.

Sadly, mankind of the post-Industrial Revolution era hasn't proven itself very good at intelligent management of such finite and precious resources.  Pillage and accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few continue to be the modus operandi of resource businesses.  We scrape, devour and suck up everything that's easily available as fast as the prevailing technology allows, and then we move on to the less easily available, or the more far-flung places that haven't yet been scoured.  What's the talk of going to Mars to terra-form if it isn't the hope of finding fresh pickings to exploit?  There is a qualitative difference between exploitation and intelligent management, and we still, in the 21st century, haven't got past the former. 

An outsider might think we were suffering from some kind of collective insanity whose main symptoms were personal greed of a few elite, extravagant squandering of limited resources, and a total absence of thought for future generations.  How often do oil companies and their ilk talk about 200, 500, 1,000 years in the future?  Do they expect there will be no human beings left by then who may perhaps have some use for the resources? 

I sometimes wonder whether there is hope for generations of people well beyond 90 or 100 years hence.  With every passing year, we who are here now -- and by that I include the entire industrialized world -- are using up more and more of what may be desperately needed in that future, not to mention the damage we're doing to the living planet that sustains us.  We certainly haven't reduced our overall consumption or cut back our wants and expectations; if anything, those wants and expectations have increased in the past 40 or 50 years.

Man seems to be programmed not to act until a crisis is imminent.  What we're doing in this new century is pushing that crisis point onto our great-grandchildren's doorstep to deal with.  The faster we pull finite resources out of the ground and the more ruin we create by doing it, the bigger the eventual bill will be that someone must pay.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

I guess valve didn't want to reply.