Kenney's Win, Trudeau's Gain?

iPolitics weighed in on this issue the other day

It's a good article, as articles in iPolitics usually are. 

Of course, Jim Prentice had it right when he made that off-hand comment about Albertans "looking in the mirror" to see why the province was in trouble. And Albertans tossed him too. 

The author's comment about it being a long hot summer in BC is correct. If it's another devastating fire season out here and we go through another month or two of choking smoke everywhere, and we see Alberta trashing the carbon tax and (more importantly) any other strategies of dealing with climate change, there are gonna be a LOT more BC residents pretty angry. We have spent the past 2 summers with valuables packed up, ready to evacuate with an hour's notice. This is one of the realities of climate change in this part of Canada. 

Idiots like Scheer, Kenney, Moe and Ford might resonate with the "drill, baby, drill" crowd, but out here we see it as political opportunism and a total disregard for the environment. And if that makes me an environmental extremist, bring it on. I was pretty unhappy with Notley and her full-steam-ahead approach to pipelines and tar sands development, but at least there were baby steps in the form of a carbon tax and closing coal-fired power stations. Now that those are gone, there is NO reason to hold your nose and look the other way while another pipeline is built and more tar sands are developed to ship even more oil out of the country.

No Oil on These Troubled Waters

This "discussion" about oil pipelines, oil prices and Alberta's place in Confederation is really shifting into high gear.  

The issue, as everyone in Canada surely knows, is that Alberta hasn't been able to get its oil to markets, at least to "other" markets, specifically to places other than to the USA, and, as a consequence, there is a backlog of oil that can't get shipped and there is a price discount because there is an oil glut and the matter of the difficulty of refining the tarry stuff that the tar (aka: oil) sands produces.....  It's a significant issue in Alberta and lots is being said about it.  So.

First, let's take a quick look at some assertions about how important Alberta oil is to the Canadian economy.

I've been told, by a few people who should know, and by some politicians who ought to know, that the energy sector is 20% of Canada's GDP.  

All I could find was this:  The total value of the energy sector is 10% of Canada's GDP.   That includes everything - gas stations, electricity, oil and gas, everything related to energy.  Oil and gas contribute about 4% of Canada's GDP and the oil sands is a mere 2% of GDP.

So my question is why do some people seemingly overstate the value of the oil sands sector, in particular, to the Canadian economy?  It's important to Alberta and Saskatchewan, absolutely, and it does contribute to Canada's overall economy, but it's a long ways from being the only game in town.  And as for jobs, the energy sector as a whole generates 2.6% of direct employment to the Canadian economy.

If you want to see how this compares with the auto industry, you can get some information here.

According to the Parkland Institute, the Big Five in the Oil Sands (eg: Suncor, Cenovus, CNRL) had net profit rates above 13.5% in 2017 (Cenovus was closer to 19%).  Which raises the question: Why do taxpayers subsidize the oil and gas industry to the tune of billions each year?  

Canada contributes about $3.3B to the oil and gas sector in various types of subsidies each year.  The article also considers what other uses such money could be put to.  World-wide, subsidies amounted to about $375B in 2015.  On December 17th, 2018, the Federal Government announced another $1.6B in aid (subsidies) to the oil sector.  One would hope this won't be just more money poured into a black hole as was done with the auto sector back in 2008.

So why, given their obvious profitability and the subsidies courtesy the Canadian taxpayer, why are we still paying any attention to cries for help in propping up these businesses?

And given the urgency of dealing with climate change, why are energy companies allowed to expand oil sands production?  The Parkland Institute's article considers that matter as well.

Jim Crow by the Back Door

The New Jim Crow - Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

by Michelle Alexander

Many statistics would seem to bear out the author's contention that the War on Drugs (itself, a failed policy) has served to "keep blacks in their place", essentially in the same way that slavery, and later, the Jim Crow laws, served to do.

As the NAACP's website shows:

• Between 1980 and 2015, the number of people incarcerated in America increased from roughly 500,000 to over 2.2 million.
• Today, the United States makes up about 5% of the world’s population and has 21% of the world’s prisoners.
• 1 in every 37 adults in the United States, or 2.7% of the adult population, is under some form of correctional supervision.
• In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population.
• African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites.

As the author points out, a very large proportion of those people in prison ended up there as a result of a conviction for minor drug offenses - possession of marijuana, for example.  And most of them caught up in this have been blacks, despite the fact that drug use is at least as prevalent among white people.  The way the War on Drugs has been enforced has disproportionately targeted blacks, especially young, black, males.

This has had a major impact on black communities across America.  Reduced access to education, housing, jobs and even the right to vote. 

The New York Times posted this review....

As they say: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Who You Gonna Believe?

When it comes to most matters, especially anything to do with science, it would appear that there's at least one person you can't rely on:



Keep in mind, this report was issued by the American government's own people.

Some have expressed this lack of confidence more directly, as reported in this article from the Huffington Post.  This fake Time cover does seem to go well with the article, though.

Unquestioning supporters are unmoved, apparently.  As the sign in the picture puts it: "Make the Earth Flat Again".  Good luck with that.

Mass Shooting in _______, USA, Kills _____.

In recognition of the regular occurrence of such events south of the 49th, The Beaverton has made available a fillable form, as a public service ....

Mass Shooting in USA Kills....

The Three Stooges Meet Dumb & Dumber

In a recent edition, Maclean's paraded what it chose to call "The Resistance" on its front cover.  Very quickly, some wag changed the image to something else.

Personally, I like a different version that appeared shortly after.  Let's call spades, spades, after all.  

This is the bunch, at least here in Canada, that is spearheading the fight against dealing with climate change.  Taking the Federal Government to court to challenge the imposed carbon tax.  Let's face it.  These boys aren't "The Resistance", they're The Obstructionists.

There are so many reports coming out, so much research that's been done over the past couple of decades, it's just astonishing that anyone, especially anyone who aspires to political leadership, could take such positions in this day and age.

What we've been learning recently is that forecasts about the future effects of climate change have been, if anything, far too conservative, if I can use that word.  

Of course, the cynics/realists among us will know that these boys aren't taking their positions because of any great principles, but rather because they believe they can profit from political opportunism.  It's all about gaining power.

Face it, boys.  That's not leadership.

Better Late Than Never

I should have made this decision months ago.  Perhaps years ago.  I can only attribute my inaction to my Irish heritage which stereotypically enjoys a good argument.

What I refer to is the endless arguments with people on social media (anti-social, more like it) about a range of topics, but principally climate change.

Some call these people "climate change skeptics". I wouldn't be that kind.  Being skeptical is useful.  All good people of science are skeptical, accepting the conclusions of others only after examining the evidence, perhaps after trying to replicate experiments themselves.

My choice of term would be "climate change denier".  These people are in complete denial about almost everything that's happening in the environment, specifically as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Their arguments cover the gamut, from "it isn't happening", to "humans aren't causing it", to "the climate is always changing, this is nothing new", to "volcanoes give off more gases than humans do", to "Canada is carbon neutral"....but you get the idea, and I'm sure you've heard all of them, many times.

If you want to look at a more complete list of all the excuses climate change deniers make as they pretend nothing is happening, you can look here:  Most Used Climate Myths

Consequently, this is where we are now, decades after the problem was first observed and the first warning signs were apparent to those who were looking:

One point that's been made quite often recently is that it is nearly impossible to change people's point of view, especially when the new information challenges their world view.

So, as I alluded to earlier, I've made a decision.  I'm not going to bother engaging with such people.  People who haven't bothered to even become acquainted with the available information.  After all, it's not like convincing these people will actually change anything, right?  Efforts would be better expended lobbying politicians and businesses to make the changes that are necessary to our survival.

As for social media discussions, my tactic will be to simply block such people.  It's a waste of time arguing with them, they are impervious to facts and information, so I can't see the point in engaging with them and giving them the platform to repeat the same nonsense.  It's the 21st Century, after all. 

Should have done it months ago.