# It's NOT The Oilsands, Stupid



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Those who are quick to point the finger at Alberta's oilsands as Canada's pollution problem are likely driving a vehicle that is a worse problem. Three times worse in fact:

*Oilsands not biggest bane in gas emissions, conference board says *



> CALGARY — Alberta’s oilsands shouldn’t be singled out as the reason for the country’s poor record on greenhouse gas emissions, the Conference Board of Canada said in a report Tuesday.
> 
> *The Ottawa-based private-sector think-tank said road transportation accounted for 18 per cent of total Canadian greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007.
> 
> ...


Emphasis mine.

Oilsands not biggest bane in gas emissions


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was under the impression that the oil sands production is supposed to increase by quite a bit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Even at double the capacity, the oilsands would barely come to the half way point of vehicle emissions. 

Environmentalists are just so far off the mark it isn't funny. We can reduce carbon far more quickly in many other areas, yet all they want to do is demonstrate against the oilsands, a mere 5% of our output and don't forget Canada outputs less than 2% of the world's output in total.

Fools, calling it dirty oil.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hmmm. I didn't realize the oilsands were so clean.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The problem with the oil sands has little to nothing to do with Greenhouse gases. GHGs are basically an elaborate smoke screen. The intent is two-fold to allow various governments to further gouge the populace via carbon taxes and to enrich Carbon Credit scammers like Al Gore.

OTH the ground water pollution caused by the various oil sand operators is on a par with the Sydney sludge ponds and should be vigorously attacked.

For the record I do not favour shutting down the oil sand operations but I do think they should be forced to clean up after themselves as a price of doing business.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Sounds like spin to me. One oil project produces 5% of the nations green house gases? That's pretty frickin horrible if you ask me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Sounds like spin to me. One oil project produces 5% of the nations green house gases? That's pretty frickin horrible if you ask me.


If Canada produces less than 2% of total world wide greenhouse gases and the oilsands produce only 5% of that 2%, the resulting fraction is so small (under 0.1%) that it can hardly be described as "frickin horrible". 


And if you find it so terrible, perhaps you should turn in your vehicle and ride your bike full time to reduce your share of the 18% your vehicle is part of in Canada.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

ehMax said:


> Sounds like spin to me. One oil project produces 5% of the nations green house gases? That's pretty frickin horrible if you ask me.


To shamelessly quote myself from the _frikken horrible_ thread itself...http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/47422-official-authoritative-ghg-thread-59.html#post901422



> Everybody's favorite beating bush, the oil sands is an interesting example and has a bit of a twist. The reclamation is the exploitation. The oil sands project is the world's largest environmental reclamation project - right from the start. Mother Nature (That Biotch) placed all those hydrocarbons on and near the surface and they are in various states of dangerous and very polluting biodegradation. They have been leaking unchecked for centuries into surrounding soils, the air and groundwater in all directions. Massive fires have occurred due to lightning strikes and other causes (yes, some man made) further increasing the hazard.
> 
> Thankfully Big Oil has the funds and has developed the technology required to take on this Mother of all reclamation projects. I shake my head in wonder at those that would like to see the oil sands reclamation shut down.


I don't see what's so frikken horrible about getting Big Oil to spend/risk the money to clean up Mother Nature's environmental nightmare. 

The oil sands are actually a type of oil reserve...with several individual projects and Operators.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Maybe now that the worlds greatest polluter (china) is a new and major player in the oil sands we can expect an improvement.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> If Canada produces less than 2% of total world wide greenhouse gases and the oilsands produce only 5% of that 2%, the resulting fraction is so small (under 0.1%) that it can hardly be described as "frickin horrible".
> 
> And if you find it so terrible, perhaps you should turn in your vehicle and ride your bike full time to reduce your share of the 18% your vehicle is part of in Canada.


One single oil project... .1% of the entire world's green house gas emissions. Wow, that sure sounds better.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Well, the Oil Sands are no saints, if we're pointing fingers.

The problem with pointing fingers, of course, is they alway point back.

The thing is, if you're living and breathing, you are the problem.

The best way to "save the planet", assuming that "saving it" is akin to "no more greenhouse gases", is for you to not exist at all.

If you are not willing to kill yourself (and you definitely should not be) then you have to face the fact that, no matter who you are, every day on the planet with you on it, means you are directly adding greenhouse gases, pollution, and probably a host of other ills no-one really wants to tally.

A more realistic approach is to admit that you are the problem, that the solution is not really a solution at all but more along the lines of management ... the planet doesn't care whether it's populated by mammals or lifeless boulders. The planet survives.

This is, and never has been, about "the planet". It's about us and our need or desire to continue to slowly kill the environment we prefer. The more slowly we kill it, the more we can stretch our inevitable day of reckoning further into the future. That that day of reckoning will come is not in dispute. When? That's in dispute.

The Oil Sands are nowhere near blameless, but Canadians have to realize that we take the hit and others burn the gas and oil. We get paid well for that, but none the less if it were just us, the impact wouldn't be that great. Someone in Las Vegas has to accept part of the blame too.

You can't actually exist in our society ... unless you warm yourself with body heat alone, don't have a job, and never have children ... without taking a tiny bite out of the environment every single day you live and breathe.

If you're pointing fingers, well, somehow you knew who to point at. Where did this epipahny come from? The newspaper? The newspaper is an environmental nightmare. Google News? We don't even know if reading online burns more or less than reading newsprint (too complex an equation to nail down). Someone at work over the water cooler? What, you think the water cools itself?

Eastern Canada imports 3x as much oil, every single day, than the total output of the Oil Sands. That oil gets to that part of our great nation with bunker fuel and tankers. Those tankers burn the pollution equivalent of hundreds of 18-wheelers per mile.

If you really want to help, understand this: you are the problem. Not the Oil Sands. You. Everything you do. You.

Everything I do. Me.

Creating this post cost the planet some greenhouse gases. Reading it costs the planet some greenhouse gases. Storing it so it can be read next week costs this planet some greenhouse gases.

Use less, teach your children to use less, and you can lessen your impact. Emphasis on "lessen". There is no way you can eliminate your impact ... even moving back to the stone age merely reduces, but none the less adds, to greenhouse gas emissions.

We are a scourge on the planet. If Greenhouse Gas emissions and Pollution are evil, we are inevitably contributing to evil.

Contribute less, while keeping your fingers firmly pointed at yourself. It's all you can do.

If anyone, and I mean anyone, thinks Canada can somehow get on the "good side" of the ledger, they are wildly mistaken. We are a growing nation, eager to make our mark in the world. Every immigrant we accept leaves a world of relative poverty, but none the less that world they left had a smaller impact on the planet.

Leave them wherever they came from, and they contribute tens of times less to the inevitable day of reckoning. Accept them here, and each one "acts like a Canadian" and uses tens or hundreds of times more resources than those he left behind.

Oil Sands? Immigration? There is not a single aspect of our daily lives that does not impact the planet. I personally believe that a good life, wherever possible, is something we should extend to any and all we can manage.

Yet, that kills the planet in a way that leaving immigrants to poverty or whatever is destined to befall them in their native land does not; it may well be that dozens or hundreds of people could ultimately enjoy life if we stopped immigration altogether, if we're really on the brink of disaster.

Everything you do. Everything I do. Every political decision we make. Every good work, every improvement in the human condition, has a price.

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. In that order. Modern "green" business suggests recycling is wonderful. Recycling is ****. Not buying in the first place is leagues better.

But, we can't have it all. We can't change the world, make it a better place, without destroying it in the process. Look at your own life, and make changes there where you can. The Oil Sands, and every other obvious target, will take care of themselves, because we will demand they do.

But who demands that our own lifestyles change? The answer is only we can demand that, and if we don't, zapping the Oil Sands into non-existence won't matter one way or the other. My impact, times my community, is much bigger.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

This "zero pollution and waste" stuff is pure wishful thinking.

A single RAM stick costs more to produce, greenhouse gas-wise, than a laptop uses if powered for three years nonstop. How long does the average consumer keep his laptop?

Somewhere near 80% of a modern electronic device's energy and greenhouse footprint is in production alone. Then it is replaced in three years. The actual energy it consumes in use is meaningless, relatively ... you would have to use your smartphone for 20 years to equal it's production cost in energy terms. Yet consumers are sold products based on it's stinginess with the remaining energy consumption.

How many consumers are on their third cellphone? How many would replace the phone a fourth time if they knew they had already burned the equivalent of 60 years worth of greenhouse gas emissions in terms of what the phone uses in energy?

Fancy high technology solutions are just means to sell more product; it should be obvious that not making the product in the first place is an environmental win.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Environmentalists are just so far off the mark it isn't funny.


Really?

Well let's see -- using your figures it is certainly true that all the cars in Canada, put together, produce more carbon than the oilsands. No dispute there.

But if Canada wants to reduce carbon emissions -- and it does -- in a reasonable time frame, we have at least two options:

1. Force the oilsands operation to adhere to environmental standards (would cut five percent of our GHG)

2. Immediately force 1/3rd of all Canadians to give up all form of motorised transport. (would cut ~five percent of our GHG)

Hmmm. Question: Which one do you think is likely to happen first?

Answer: by your reasoning, neither one will ever happen (you're clearly against bringing the oilsands' emissions down, but you're also against having the government take our cars/scooters/motorbikes/trucks/RVs away -- particularly your own, I'm guessing). So our GHG emissions would remain where they are, or grow.



> We can reduce carbon far more quickly in many other areas


This part left fascinatingly vague. Care to be more specific (with verifiable reduction figures, please)?



> Fools, calling it dirty oil.


Actually I think it's abundantly clear that the oilsands, whether you like them or not, ARE dirtier than just pulling it out of the ground with little effort the way the Saudis do.

So calling it "dirty oil" is, actually, _entirely accurate_. Its impure oil, contaminated by rock/sand. Ergo, "oil sands." Takes more effort/energy/polluting to make it into pure oil than, you know, crude oil does. Ipso facto and all that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Really?
> 
> Well let's see -- using your figures it is certainly true that all the cars in Canada, put together, produce more carbon than the oilsands. No dispute there.
> 
> ...


To say that is totally unrealistic. To obtain that figure, one would have to entirely shut down the oilsands and to use your words, it's not "likely to happen" in an oil based economy. 



chas_m said:


> 2. Immediately force 1/3rd of all Canadians to give up all form of motorised transport. (would cut ~five percent of our GHG)


If government stepped in and forced vehicle manufacturers to higher emission standards al la California, that five percent you talk about is entirely possible. And with hybrids and electric vehicles in the wings, that five percent figure may be much higher.



chas_m said:


> Hmmm. Question: Which one do you think is likely to happen first?


The latter.



chas_m said:


> Answer: by your reasoning, neither one will ever happen (you're clearly against bringing the oilsands' emissions down, but you're also against having the government take our cars/scooters/motorbikes/trucks/RVs away -- particularly your own, I'm guessing). So our GHG emissions would remain where they are, or grow.


That sir is a very big stretch and you've obviously not been paying attention to what i have written time after time here.

I reduced my carbon footprint by closing my city office and have run my business out of my home for the past five years. Driving my small Suzuki less than 6,000 km a year now compared to 30,000 km in a full size sedan before the switch. I also sold our large van and got a second small car for my wife who used to drive 30 km per day to work and now drives 3 km doing a different job. That's outside spending over $40,000 upgrading our home with extra insulation, energy efficient windows, energy rated appliances and a miserly new furnace. The list is much longer but I won't bore you with more specifics. (You likely get the idea by now.)



chas_m said:


> This part left fascinatingly vague. Care to be more specific (with verifiable reduction figures, please)?


See my actions and suggestions above, although I must admit that asking for something in the future to be "verifiable" is impossible. I think they represent an honest attempt to reduce carbon output.



chas_m said:


> Actually I think it's abundantly clear that the oilsands, whether you like them or not, ARE dirtier than just pulling it out of the ground with little effort the way the Saudis do.
> 
> So calling it "dirty oil" is, actually, _entirely accurate_. Its impure oil, contaminated by rock/sand. Ergo, "oil sands." Takes more effort/energy/polluting to make it into pure oil than, you know, crude oil does. Ipso facto and all that.


I lived and worked in Fort McMurray for eight years and have a better understanding than most via direct exposure and experience writing about the oilsands. There are many things people who scream loudest about the operations simply are ignorant about.

KC4 who posts here regularly and who was in the oil business for many years has posted recently just how much cleaner new technology has made the oilsands in the past decade. That technology is advancing and being applied to continued reductions in carbon output as the projects grow in the future.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

awww. it's only a widdle bittie oil sand pwaaject. It wont hurt no one. They pwaamise to cween everyfing up when they done. Honest.

Guuuulible...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> One single oil project... .1% of the entire world's green house gas emissions. Wow, that sure sounds better.


It certainly does. You've obviously overlooked the fact it is the single largest oil project on the planet with more reserves than the middle east combined.

That makes 0.1% very tiny indeed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> awww. it's only a widdle bittie oil sand pwaaject. It wont hurt no one. They pwaamise to cween everyfing up when they done. Honest.
> 
> Guuuulible...


Still got nothin' and still usin' it I see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sinc, if you didn't get the dumbed down so you can see it sarcasm, then I can't help you.

If you want to believe that the oil sands project is minimal, and will be cleaned up after they're done, then go... right ahead.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Sinc, if you didn't get the dumbed down so you can see it sarcasm, then I can't help you.
> 
> If you want to believe that the oil sands project is minimal, and will be cleaned up after they're done, then go... right ahead.


I lived there for eight years and now when I return to visit my grandson, I can clearly see land that has been reclaimed by nature, alive with flora and fauna that used to be a gaping pit when I was residing there in the 1980s.

I can speak from real time experience and recent visits. Can you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

is this another story how you have 90 years experience in the news business so no one's opinion matters?

Right Sinc. If you're gullible enough to believe that, as I said, be my guest.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: It's hopeless. He sees all...know all....

but does not tell all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> is this another story how you have 90 years experience in the news business so no one's opinion matters?
> 
> Right Sinc. If you're gullible enough to believe that, as I said, be my guest.


Geez, some days gt.

I simply stated I can see what has happened with my own eyes on frequent visits.

That is called first hand experience.

Your 90 years experience line gets tiresome.

If you cannot accept the fact that I am in a better physical position to judge land reclamation to date than you, carry on.

Your chirping with nothing is entertaining to some.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah. Another bright light that doesn't seem to go out his front door.

You pair are hilarious. What???? Oil sands causes environmental damage???? WHAAAAAA???

Nooo, I never heard thiiiiis.

the google soldiers are once again, drawing their swords. Well MY link says blah blah!!!!

Sometimes macfury, your "hey Sinc!!!!" posts reminds of this picture:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sinc, you assume an awful lot. It may surprise you that I have a lot of close family in Alberta, and I travel, a lot, all over Alberta, quite often,north, and south. So far north, in fact where I have experienced the coldest temperatures of my life. and have seen things first hand, and have family who work there. 

But I'm not going to start yelling that because I saw something one day that wipes out what every credible source has said.

So go ahead. Believe what you want. Yell all about how much experience you have, and how it makes any credible professional opinions invalid. 

And no, I will not google them to prove it. Sorry. If you think that is "has something", go google it yourself.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

My understanding of the Oil Sands is that with it and our other resources we have the second largest known oil reserve on the planet. So, lets say for argument that we shut it right down. I give about 40 nanoseconds for some other country to start making noises about the "Strategic necessity" of taking over the "Apparently Terrorist Inspired" country of Canada.

Newer projects are cleaner than old ones. That helps.

Replacing gas and oil necessity with other forms of energy may help (not a big fan of turning food crops into ethanol).

Yes, huge resources should be put into cleaning the local mess associated with the production. Hmm , maybe Los Vegas could contribute their share?

As demand increases, you are going to get other "marginal" sources coming on stream eg refitting old wells etc. We will have to see what the remediation effects are on ground water in those areas. I can see multiple aquifers all over the world being rendered poisonous through massive end of life field reclamation.

Yup, its large. But the amount of oil is huge. The damage is visible becasue it is surface damage, Subsurface damage could be much worse. On a minor scale thing of the effects of a perk dump as it seaps from well to well covering areas hundreds of square miles.

The end solution is to make oil obsolete.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Sinc, you assume an awful lot. It may surprise you that I have a lot of close family in Alberta, and I travel, a lot, all over Alberta, quite often,north, and south. So far north, in fact where I have experienced the coldest temperatures of my life. and have seen things first hand, and have family who work there.
> 
> But I'm not going to start yelling that because I saw something one day that wipes out what every credible source has said.
> 
> ...


So enlighten me then gt.

When exactly was the last time you were in Fort McMurray and travelled out to the Suncor or Syncrude site?

And were you allowed access to the site with credentials or accompanied by an employee to guide you?

And do you know where the open pits that have been filled used to be, and see them now that nature has taken over again?


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Since we will be extracting oil from the sand for some time, a bigger concern is that cleaner burning natural gas is used to heat the sand to extract the dirty crude oil from said sand. Heat is needed, and that is how it is being done. Proposals on table to build nuclear to provide the heat instead, but how long to get that going, one asks?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> So enlighten me then gt.
> 
> When exactly was the last time you were in Fort McMurray and travelled out to the Suncor or Syncrude site?
> 
> ...


I knew this was coming, which is why I don't get into a pissing match about personal experiences, in particular with you Sinc. 

Fort McMurray is a frequent location as others for bands to go, and stay. You would be surprised, how many other people other than yourself, have been there. And have family, who actually work there, with plenty, of access.

I don't give two craps about your daddy is better'n my daddy nonsense Sinc. It simply doesn't erase the environmental damage and concern for the area. I'm sorry, but someone who doesn't step oputside his front door would believe that.

Believe what you want, yell all you want.

Perhaps you want to start a thread about the evils of smoking, over rated. Discuss...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

groovetube said:


> I knew this was coming, which is why I don't get into a pissing match about personal experiences, in particular with you Sinc.
> 
> Fort McMurray is a frequent location as others for bands to go, and stay. You would be surprised, how many other people other than yourself, have been there. And have family, who actually work there, with plenty, of access.
> 
> ...


gt, watch the insulting language please.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> But I'm not going to start yelling that because I saw something one day that wipes out what every credible source has said.


On the contrary. This would add some credibility to your disagreements with SINC that add no substance.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sorry ehmax, cleaned up. Just unbelievable the beliefs, and now it's purely a 'my daddy's bigger'n yer daddy', so I'll step out and let it continue without me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> On the contrary. This would add some credibility to your disagreements with SINC that add no substance.


I'm sorry macfury, but my personal experience, as I have already said, isn't going to prove anything. Anymore than I expect Sinc's guided tour of 'success', the allowed sites to view, would.

You'll have to find out for yourself.

Have fun!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Then there is this and countless other articles easily googled for your viewing pleasure:

Oilsands pollution exceeds official estimates: study - thestar.com

The argument that first hand viewing of the site showing nature's return doesn't really have much credibility.

For example, Love Canal in Niagara Falls NY. looks lovely now. I've been there a few times. How would you know that so much waste still exists under the soil, other than the fact there's a fence. Would I want my family to live there or even near there? I don't think so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry macfury, but my personal experience, as I have already said, isn't going to prove anything.


I guess I expected that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I knew this was coming, which is why I don't get into a pissing match about personal experiences, in particular with you Sinc.
> 
> Fort McMurray is a frequent location as others for bands to go, and stay. You would be surprised, how many other people other than yourself, have been there. And have family, who actually work there, with plenty, of access.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. That answers my questions nicely.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Then there is this and countless other articles easily googled for your viewing pleasure:
> 
> Oilsands pollution exceeds official estimates: study - thestar.com
> 
> ...


now mr. jimmy you must know a company tour and a first hand look at some property is all the information one could possibly want for an environmental impact assessment? That trumps everything.

You betcha.

There's no point debating that one mr jimmy. Parts of Alberta should be renamed the "show me" province.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> now mr. jimmy you must know a company tour and a first hand look at some property is all the information one could possibly want for an environmental impact assessment? That trumps everything.


My tour was given by a senior supervisor I know and he asked me what I wanted to see. I told him, he showed me. You can invent all the conspiracy theories you want, but that's the truth. I was allowed anywhere I wanted to go and since I was familiar with the 1980s evacuations, I knew exactly what I was looking for and found it in good condition.

I don't know why I bother clarifying these things, but I would hate for others to think some of the views being expressed here are correct.

They are under intense government scrutiny to restore the land to the way they found it. Minus the tar that used to seep into the Athabasca river, of course.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

With the thread's title I thought we were going to call them the TAR SANDS again and avoid the spin. 

Sorry I had to find out it just another thread of my information is better than your information.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... A diesel generator produces air pollution, a turbine generator using waterflow from a stream doesn't. ..."

Depends on what you mean by "doesn't". When up and operational a Hydro Project is relatively clean energy. But, I don't know of many functional hydrogeneration projects coming "from a stream". Broadly speaking they are typically amongst the largest engineering and construction projects in the world. The greenhouse gas footprint of creating a hydro Power Generation station is very, very large.

And, because of what we do with the power it generates, it's operation has a huge impact on greenhouse gases and emissions, even if it's own operating footprint can be said to be zero.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

gordguide said:


> Broadly speaking they are typically amongst the largest engineering and construction projects in the world. The greenhouse gas footprint of creating a hydro Power Generation station is very, very large.


But it is temporary, unlike ongoing oil refining. Oil supporters are quick to point out the environmental costs of manufacturing "green" solutions but quickly shy away from comparing that to the ongoing environmental costs of traditional fuel production which is constant.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Why the U.S. needs all the tar sands oil it can get*



> American oil demand may be diminishing as more and more drivers take the exit lane, but available supply is shrinking even faster. Domestic production, formerly 10 million barrels per day, is already down by half. The longer the U.S. economy has run on oil, the more dependent it has become on energy imports. Only finding those imports is becoming more challenging all the time.
> 
> Sources of oil from Mexico are already collapsing, and in a few years’ time that country will cease exporting it at all. The flow of oil at its once-huge Cantarell field, representing almost half the country’s oil production, will soon slow to a fifth of its former peak rate.


(Globe and Mail)


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

hayesk said:


> But it is temporary, unlike ongoing oil refining. Oil supporters are quick to point out the environmental costs of manufacturing "green" solutions but quickly shy away from comparing that to the ongoing environmental costs of traditional fuel production which is constant.


No - the effects of Hydro are not temporary. Among the effects are continuing mercury contamination of the water rending the fish unfit for consumption. This results for the exposure of the bedrock in the Shield.

For energy, there is very little that comes with "Free Lunch"


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Hydro energy can also cause significant shifts in the local micro climate. Also these projects create a large number of jobs during creation but very few jobs during the rest of their lives. 

Also large hydro dams will eventually fail. The devastation caused by such failures is unbelievable especially if populated areas are down stream.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Hydro energy can also cause significant shifts in the local micro climate. Also these projects create a large number of jobs during creation but very few jobs during the rest of their lives.
> 
> Also large hydro dams will eventually fail. The devastation caused by such failures is unbelievable especially if populated areas are down stream.


A good reason to research tide driven hydro electric power generation utilising the worlds highest tides in the Bay of Fundy. There is the good possibility of wave generated Hydro electric power as well.

Canada is late into the game to capitalise on R&D of these sources of electricity but perhaps we can convert over to this carbon free source of generation.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sounds like a valid suggestion, Big DL. Would this disrupt fishing in that region?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Sounds like a valid suggestion, Big DL. Would this disrupt fishing in that region?


That and other considerations are under study.

The matter is under study for commercial production because of Bay of Fundy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tidal Power from the power of Tides of the Bay of Fundy is currently generating power here Annapolis Royal Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the system is similar to conventional Hydro Power in as much it involes a “dam” to capture water and release it to generate electrical power.

Elsewhere this system has been developed Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other system for Fundy’s unique conditions are under study as can be seen hereBay of Fundy tidal-power turbines clear first hurdle – Daily Commercial News

and here Between the Poles: Tidal Power Generation in the Bay of Fundy

also this Tidal Energy | Pros for Wave and Tidal Power

If memory serves there are a few project under review one is a Nova Scotia company and another is an BC Company.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting article re the Annapolis Royal area and tidal power.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Petropolis: Filming Canada's tar sands*





> Canadian media artist and filmmaker Peter Mettler aerially filmed the tar sands of Alberta, Canada from a helicopter to highlight the vast scope and impact that the industrial mining site has on the environment. The result is his new film, Petropolis, which screens tomorrow evening at the Flatpack Festival in Birmingham, UK.
> 
> The mining area of the tar sands is as big as all of England and the tar sands oil production releases five times more greenhouse gases than conventional oil production.
> 
> As Mettler explains, getting the oil out of the tar sands uses roughly as much water as a city of two million people. Afterwards, 90 per cent of this water is so contaminated with toxic chemicals that it must be stored in tailings ponds so huge that they can be seen from outer space.


(New Scientist)


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

I'll be interested to see how balanced and fair this film treats the big picture. 

I hope not, but I'm guessing that the bad will be over-emphasized and the good will be either completely ignored or understated to an extreme. It's so easy and simple to trash the oilsands....it's like trashing politicians and banks. However, it does make for a quick easy-bake fan-base.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Hydro energy can also cause significant shifts in the local micro climate. Also these projects create a large number of jobs during creation but very few jobs during the rest of their lives.
> 
> Also large hydro dams will eventually fail. The devastation caused by such failures is unbelievable especially if populated areas are down stream.


You won't get disagreement from me there, as I'm in favour of smaller more localized power generation. My point was oil-proponents are quick to denounce a "green" solution due to the manufacturing impact of said solution, but then completely ignore the manufacturing impact of an oil refinery, for example.

It's pretty simple:
Badness of green solution = manufacturing impact + maintenance
Badness of oil = manufacturing impact + maintenance + emissions

If you want to criticize something, include all the facts. Don't expect me to believe "solar panels are just as bad as oil because harsh chemicals are used in manufacturing solar panels." Uh-huh, and do they harvest oil refineries by hand picking them from refinery flowers in a meadow?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC, this post you've made here fundamentally operates on the assumption that climate change and GHGs are even a problem, or exist for that matter. The Liberal monster has mesmerised you!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Death toll in the oilsands: industry claiming wildlife*




> A tailings pond reflects the Syncrude oilsands mine facility near Fort McMurray in July 2008. Documents released Thursday detail animal deaths over eight years at three operations to be at least 165 animals including 65 deer, 30 foxes, 27 bears and 21 coyotes, as well as moose, wolves, beavers, muskrats, martens, bats and voles.





> EDMONTON — Ducks aren’t the only animals dying in Alberta’s oilsands region.
> 
> As one company stands trial on wildlife charges over the deaths of 1,600 migrating waterfowl, government documents released by Greenpeace show the toll over eight years at three operations was at least 165 animals from hulking black bears to tiny voles.
> 
> ...


(ChronicleHerald)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mostly vehicle accidents?


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Mostly vehicle accidents?


Yes, no doubt all hit by vehicles that were being driven under the oilfluence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> The carcasses — and the variety of species they represent — are likely "just a fraction" of the real toll, Greenpeace spokesman Mike Hudema said Thursday.


Mike Hudema is a publicity hound. He protests by trespassing and breaking laws. It is hoped by many here that he winds up behind bars for a substantial period of time. In short, the guy's a jerk.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Maybe the deniers should read the following. It's not just climate change, water diversion, toxic lakes, destruction of forests, destruction of native lands. 

Troubled Water, Troubling Trends, by Mary Griffiths and published by the Penbina Institute in 2006 states, “Approved oil sands mining operations are currently licensed to divert 359 million m3 from the Athabasca River,or more than twice the volume of water required to meet the annual municipal needs of the City of Calgary. Less than 10% of this water returns to the river.”

Andrew Nikiforuk, author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, published by Greystone Books in 2008 says, “Astronauts can see the ponds from space, and there is no denying that the world's biggest energy project has spawned one of the world's most fantastic concentrations of toxic waste, producing enough sludge every day (400 million gallons) to fill 720 Olympic pools.”

Christopher Hatch and Matt Price, authors of The Most Destructive Project on Earth, published by Environmental Defence in 2008 claims, “Everything about the Tar Sands happens on a massive scale. The enormous toxics problems go hand-in-hand with massive global warming pollution and the impending destruction of a boreal forest the size of Florida.”


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Who's sorry now? Alberta government scientist apologizes to oilsands critics*





> Legal pressure has forced a senior Alberta government scientist to retract highly public statements saying two prominent oilsands critics lied and fudged their data.
> 
> In a letter to the scientists he questioned, Preston McEachern — head of oilsands research for Alberta Environment — now says he was the one who was wrong.





> Alberta Environment spokesman Chris Bourdeau defended McEachern.
> 
> "He was very apologetic," Bourdeau said. "He realizes how he framed his viewpoint was not the best approach."





> “The Stelmach government is so intent on hiding the environmental devastation in the oilsands that they went so far as to call two esteemed researchers liars.”


(MetroNews.ca)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

KC4 is right. The system ultimately works.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

*Oilsands database shows chronic pollution*

CBC News - Edmonton - Oilsands database shows chronic pollution


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thought that this would reveal some massive levels of pollution. For an enterprise of this size I was rather impressed at the small number of infractions recorded--with many of them reported by the companies themselves.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And here is the key point in the story:

"Kevin Timoney, an independent biologist who has criticized the oilsands before."

People with axes to grind have agendas and Timoney is certainly one of them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> People with axes to grind have agendas and Timoney is certainly one of them.


Sounds like all he wants is for evil oil production to leave the province for good.

I did a quick search on him and I laughed to see this article from 2007 in which he is telling his wife that they need to move from Sherwood Park because he saw something in a lichen that indicated he would suffer from air pollution:

Air quality study convinces ecologist it's time to move



> As for the impact on human health, there is no doubt that whatever is harming the lichens is also finding its way into the lungs of Sherwood Park residents, Timoney said...
> 
> "We first moved here because my kids needed a better school, but now they are done and I keep saying to my wife, 'Why are we still here? Let's get out while we still can breathe.' "


"Wilma! We're packing!"

I did a quick search on the Canada 411 site and he's still living there, by the way.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

I love Alberta but like my father, If you even say anything remotely critical of Alberta people that live there freak out. Can't you even admit that you have a problem with the oilsands production when it comes to pollution? Or the detrimental effect it has on wildlife?

I can't believe that people who live there don't freak out more at the oil companies but I guess it's their bread and butter so it wouldn't be worth it. The real sad part is that those tailing ponds will be there long after the oil companies have made their billions and Alberta will be left holding the bag for the clean up costs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imactheknife said:


> I can't believe that people who live there don't freak out more at the oil companies but I guess it's their bread and butter so it wouldn't be worth it. The real sad part is that those tailing ponds will be there long after the oil companies have made their billions and Alberta will be left holding the bag for the clean up costs.


That certainly doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*James Cameron is coming to town....*

*Alberta community ready for Hollywood*









Leah Harvey, Raylene Hunter, Melanie Paskiman, left to right, look at unhealthy and 
deformed fish caught in Lake Athabasca, near Fort Chipewyan, during a press conference 
this month in Edmonton​


> ...the community of about 1,000 on the shores of Lake Athabasca in Alberta’s northeastern corner is preparing itself for an entirely new closeup.
> 
> Hollywood director James Cameron, known almost as well for his vigorous environmental activism as for blockbuster movies such as Titanic and Avatar, is planning to visit the community on Tuesday to hear for himself how people feel about the rapid growth of oilsands operations and their affect on land and water.
> 
> They’ll probably outline to Cameron the same complaints they’ve been making to the Alberta government for years: fish from the Athabasca River doesn’t taste the same; water levels in the lake are dropping; there are unusually high rates of rare cancers.


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is this the same James Cameron who ran, tail between legs, after he boldly challenged opponents in a global warming debate?

Glad to see the rank-and-file taking their complaints to His Majesty, King of Warmed Over movie plots.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Why, oh, why, won't the evil lefty CBC stop harrassing the good corporate citizens of this great country?* 

*Alta. oilsands pond sludge oozes into bush*





> A northern Alberta tailings pond appears to have toxic sludge flowing into the muskeg from an uncontained western edge, a situation uncovered by a CBC News investigation.
> 
> The pond, located in a remote area about 70 kilometres northwest of Fort McMurray, contains toxic waste from the Horizon oilsands project.... members of the Fort McKay First Nation are worried animals they traditionally hunt and trap may be drinking the water flowing from the tailings pond because there isn't a barrier to keep them away.....Environment Canada declined comment.....disbelief that regulators would approve this type of tailings pond.
> 
> "_ wonder if the people who approved this have ever gone back for a look,"_


_

(CBC Edmonton)_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Fix it and fine them!


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Well, if there actually has been a breach of the intended containment area /system, CNRL will be required to take immediate remedial action. I find it unlikely that if there was a breach (yet to be confirmed) that CNRL would not already know about it. I wonder if CBC actually knows where the actual boundary of the containment system is. One would probably have to consult an elevation map of the area to discern where the limits of the boundary are intended to be as they are not easily visible without the presence of an artificial berm. 

Keeping in mind that significant amounts of toxic hydrocarbons are naturally present and seeping from the ground in this area, water and soil samples are always taken prior to any commercial development, and regularly taken during and after development. This is especially so of the area surrounding any development. And yes, (for those that are highly suspicious of any oilfield business) this is always done or audited by an independent third party. Any changes would flag a potential problem and depending upon the degree of change, would require action. 

Regarding the lack of fence: CNRL would likely have preferred to install a fence around their development but typically would be prohibited from doing so as it impedes natural wildlife movement. It’s a challenge to find the right solution for all concerned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> CNRL is legally permitted to have this setup. The plan was approved six years ago by Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB).


So essentially people want CNRL to take a second look at this. CBC is upset because they could find nobody to comment on the situation this weekend. Typical forced crisis.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Yeah! Screw the wildlife! Our papers are in order!


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

rondini said:


> Yeah! Screw the wildlife! Our papers are in order!


Yep! Go get 'em Rondini! You tell 'em all you know how to do this better for all. 


You can bet that their papers are all in order....whomever doesn't have their projects well documented, will suffer the slings, stones and arrows of those who KNOW all the oil companies are guilty of willing and wanton misconduct.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> *Why, oh, why, won't the evil lefty CBC stop harrassing the good corporate citizens of this great country?*
> 
> *Alta. oilsands pond sludge oozes into bush*
> 
> ...


Once again the CBC is exposed for what it really is, a left wing taxpayer funded media that tries to create stories from nothing to put industry in a bad light:

Alta. tailings pond OK'd by federal inspectors


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Once again the CBC is exposed for what it really is, a left wing taxpayer funded media that tries to create stories from nothing to put industry in a bad light


Uh, I don't get it. You're mad at CBC because they publish a story about the concerns of natives and scientists about the tailings ponds, and then publish a story two days later saying that the site has been inspected and approved by the MOE? How's that biased?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Uh, I don't get it. You're mad at CBC because they publish a story about the concerns of natives and scientists about the tailings ponds, and then publish a story two days later saying that the site has been inspected and approved by the MOE? How's that biased?


Had they done their homework and investigated the facts _before_ publishing the accusations, there would have been no story. They have a habit of deliberately trying to paint the industry in a bad light. The investigative process before publishing is called balance. They didn't use the concept.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Had they done their homework and investigated the facts _before_ publishing the accusations, there would have been no story.


The first story, which was about concerns raised by locals was published Monday. The MOE investigated Tuesday, and CBC ran the follow-up saying that the MOE does not report any infractions on Wednesday.

While I'd like to see some independent investigation (as it appears the locals are undertaking, by having water samples sent to labs in the US for analysis because they don't trust the Canadian government to protect their interests), the CBC has been cut back so severely under the past few governments, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have the staff to do it.

So as I see it, the locals contacted the media to try to draw some attention to the issue, CBC reported it, the government responded by having someone pop out to do a cursory inspection, and the CBC reported that. I don't think you can blame the CBC here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So as I see it, the locals contacted the media to try to draw some attention to the issue, CBC reported it, the government responded by having someone pop out to do a cursory inspection, and the CBC reported that. I don't think you can blame the CBC here.


CBC shouldn't have run the story without investigating the environmental permit first. This is lazy-assed reporting.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> CBC shouldn't have run the story without investigating the environmental permit first. This is lazy-assed reporting.


Neither story has anything to do with the permit. Obviously the permits are in place. The initial story is about locals raising concerns about toxins getting into local wildlife and water. The follow-up story simply states that the MOE looked at the pond and found no infractions. Both are purely factual accounts.

I completely agree that the interesting facts are not being reported. Are there any toxins in the water or wildlife? And I'd love to see the CBC or some other journalists do the investigative work necessary to answer that question. But I don't think the CBC's failure to do this is a case of being lazy, so much as so grossly underfunded that it's not an option.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Neither story has anything to do with the permit. Obviously the permits are in place. The initial story is about locals raising concerns about toxins getting into local wildlife and water. The follow-up story simply states that the MOE looked at the pond and found no infractions. Both are purely factual accounts.
> 
> I completely agree that the interesting facts are not being reported. Are there any toxins in the water or wildlife? And I'd love to see the CBC or some other journalists do the investigative work necessary to answer that question. But I don't think the CBC's failure to do this is a case of being lazy, so much as so grossly underfunded that it's not an option.


Thorough investigation is required before reporting. The only thing preventing them from first investigating the permit was the desire to report quickly. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. If there is an actual issue involved, then they need to focus on THAT issue, not fire buckshot everywhere and hope some of it hits the target.

To meet any sort of professional standard, the first article should have stated that, despite meeting all of the requirements of their environmental permit, residents are concerned that...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> To meet any sort of professional standard, the first article should have stated that, despite meeting all of the requirements of their environmental permit, residents are concerned that...


Exactly my point.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> CBC shouldn't have run the story without investigating the environmental permit first. This is lazy-assed reporting.


The CBC has an agenda.

It's ridiculous that taxpayers fund this garbage. It's time to get rid of the CBC. In today's day and age, there is no need for nationally run media. 

I'm so sick of this crap. Imagine if the US government funded Fox News.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The only thing preventing them from first investigating the permit was the desire to report quickly.


So the fact that they have a permit makes the concerns of the locals a non-story?

I think the real story here is that the locals can't get the government to address their concerns by doing the water-quality testing. If the locals send water to independent labs in the US and find that there are contaminants, I wonder if they'll be able to sue the MOE?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> So the fact that they have a permit makes the concerns of the locals a non-story?


Of course not. The point you seem to be avoiding is that the CBC should have pointed out that a proper permit was in place and being adhered to by the company involved and then went into the residents concerns. To run an aerial picture of the pond to sensationalize the would-be story that residents contacted them about, was a demonstration of the agenda of the CBC.

And if your concern about the cuts in CBC funding are real, how did they afford to hire the plane or chopper to take their cameraman up to get that shot? The cost of a few phone calls to confirm the existence of, and adherence to a valid permit is peanuts compare to that cost. Apparently no money is spared to give the industry a black eye.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So the fact that they have a permit makes the concerns of the locals a non-story?


No. The fact that they did not first check the permit means that they have not presented a story at all. Just a bunch of allegations. Lazy.

I could report that the street is torn up in front of someone's house and the locals are furious, then show a photo of angry residents standing in front of a hole. Better still if I find out why it's torn up and whether the reason is a good one.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> No. The fact that they did not first check the permit means that they have not presented a story at all. Just a bunch of allegations. Lazy.


I would think it goes without saying that the oil sands operations have permits. But they did state in the first story that the operations were legal. There were no allegations. Just simple reporting of the facts.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Of course not. The point you seem to be avoiding is that the CBC should have pointed out that a proper permit was in place and being adhered to by the company involved and then went into the residents concerns.


From the first story:


> CNRL is legally permitted to have this setup. The plan was approved six years ago by Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB).
> 
> But members of the Fort McKay First Nation are worried...


Face it; they did exactly as you said they should and you hate it anyway. You just hate it because it's the CBC.



> And if your concern about the cuts in CBC funding are real, how did they afford to hire the plane or chopper to take their cameraman up to get that shot?


I have no idea if they hired that plane, got a free ride from someone who was worried and wanted to show them (my wife used to do a lot of ariel photography, and hitched rides with pilots all the time), or got the image from someone else and neither do you.



> The cost of a few phone calls to confirm the existence of, and adherence to a valid permit is peanuts compare to that cost.


Which was done as well. Maybe you should read the story before spouting off about how bad the CBC is.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I could report that the street is torn up in front of someone's house and the locals are furious, then show a photo of angry residents standing in front of a hole. Better still if I find out why it's torn up and whether the reason is a good one.


Be careful Mf, if you actually spend the time to thoroughly investigate it, you may sabotage your own story. Then what will you have to report? 

Big Oil is such a popular target. Some will believe just about anything negative anyone has to say about the industry, true or not. A general, negative comment about the industry (no facts necessary, it appears) will gather many sheep, er, supporters. It's soooo easy to be popular that way.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> It's ridiculous that taxpayers fund this garbage. It's time to get rid of the CBC. In today's day and age, there is no need for nationally run media.
> 
> I'm so sick of this crap. Imagine if the US government funded Fox News.


Precisely WHY we need a national media, one that is OUT of private hands. Just like essential services (electricity, water), there must be a media that does not cater to the lowest common denominator (aka Fox News) and which has some semblance of the common good, not private shareholder or political bias.

CBC News is flawed, for sure, but its flaws are freckles compared to the flesh-eating disease that is Fox.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Precisely WHY we need a national media, one that is OUT of private hands. Just like essential services (electricity, water), there must be a media that does not cater to the lowest common denominator (aka Fox News) and which has some semblance of the common good, not private shareholder or political bias.
> 
> CBC News is flawed, for sure, but its flaws are freckles compared to the flesh-eating disease that is Fox.


We need neither of them. But only one of them is costing me money.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Interesting new report (which I am trying to find a full copy of) by the Royal Society of Canada:
http://www.rsc.ca/documents/October2009_OilSands_PressRelease.pdf

http://http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Braid+Government+comes+worse+than+oilsands+scientists+report/3985427/story.html



> The report concluded that the oilsands are far from the worst emitter in Canada, let alone the world. It found no evidence of dangerous water contamination, polluted air, or health problems caused by those factors.





> ....what are the key take-aways from the report?
> The first has to be that this stands as an independent, comprehensive, third-party report in which the participants received no compensation and clearly refutes assertions that have been made by non-governmental organizations seeking to shut down the oilsands.


I am glad to see that tailings ponds are getting the extra attention that they deserve. They are nasty a$$ creations and while the industry is making headway with newer and better technologies, I have to say that these existing ponds are a growing nightmare for everyone involved, but not necessarily for the reasons that the general public has been led to believe. 

The new technologies have yet to completely replace the need for these ponds and with the constantly rising standard of reclamation requirements, so goes the cost and liability for same. The target may be accelerating faster than the current (regulatory) system has means to handle. I am glad that I am not alone in foreseeing this train-wreck of economics vs. environment building.

And, here is the link for the full report, if anyone is interested:
RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*SURPRISE, SURPRISE....*

*Oilsands emissions data left out of UN report*



> Federal government admits deliberately leaving numbers out that indicate pollution from oilsands production outstrips auto emissions





> The federal government has acknowledged that it deliberately excluded data indicating a 20 per cent increase in pollution from Canada's oilsands industry in 2009 from a recent 567-page report on climate change that it was required to submit to the United Nations.
> 
> The numbers, uncovered by Postmedia News, were left out of the report, a national inventory on Canada's greenhouse gas pollution. Overall, the report revealed a six per cent drop in annual emissions for the entire economy from 2008 to 2009, but does not directly show the extent of pollution from the oilsands production, which is now greater than the greenhouse gas emissions of all the cars driven on Canadian roads.


(Vancouver Sun)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since human-produced CO2 does not cause measurable climate change, it doesn't matter. I love to see the clawing at hair shirts over this!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Since *I, a layman in the field with no expertise or understanding of the science, believe* human-produced CO2 does not cause measurable climate change, *I think* it doesn't matter.


T,FTFY.

Of course, essentially every credible scientist in the world disagrees with you, but you go right ahead believing whatever makes you happy. I just hope that when you recognize you position is not intellectually different than the creationists who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, the cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you any long term damage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> T,FTFY.
> 
> Of course, essentially every credible scientist in the world disagrees with you, but you go right ahead believing whatever makes you happy. I just hope that when you recognize you position is not intellectually different than the creationists who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, the cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you any long term damage.



When "credibility" is based on the litmus test of whether they support the notion of ACC, we have what is called a "closed-loop" of logic.

Interesting, of course, that when the notion of the 6,000-year-old Earth was considered the best available theory, you would have piped up and declared it correct because it was the prevailing notion supported by most of the published experts.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Interesting, of course, that when the notion of the 6,000-year-old Earth was considered the best available theory, you would have piped up and declared it correct because it was the prevailing notion supported by most of the published experts.


If there had ever been any evidence to support it, or scientific consensus on that evidence, then yes, I would have agreed that the idea was the best available until it was overturned. That's how science works. You don't get to choose what you believe, you must accept what is supported by reason and evidence. With respect to the global climate, the vast majority of evidence and analysis agree that human activity is having a significant impact. I can understand why one would not *want* to believe that (I would certainly prefer this were not the case), but as a rational person, what one want's to believe is not pertinent to what one must believe when confronted with the facts. You can carry on with your irrational denial if you like, but recognize that you have become divorced from rationality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> You don't get to choose what you believe, you must accept what is supported by reason and evidence.


Yes, and in a free society we do so and arrive on out own well-reasoned conclusions--which may not be the one you embrace.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> If there had ever been any evidence to support it, or scientific consensus on that evidence, then yes, I would have agreed that the idea was the best available until it was overturned. That's how science works. *You don't get to choose what you believe, you must accept what is supported by reason and evidence.* With respect to the global climate, the vast majority of evidence and analysis agree that human activity is having a significant impact. I can understand why one would not *want* to believe that (I would certainly prefer this were not the case), but as a rational person, what one want's to believe is not pertinent to what one must believe when confronted with the facts. You can carry on with your irrational denial if you like, but recognize that you have become divorced from rationality.


I think you are gravely mistaken on this point. Of course you get to choose what you accept to believe, even in science. That is why there is peer review and why there is ongoing debate as to the validity of results and findings and why over the centuries why what we *believe *to be true has changed. 

You can choose to believe that science has the final word on the nature of reality if you wish, but that doesn't make it so, it is just one possibility. You seem to always want to vaunt science as a great tautology and the final definer of the nature of existence and that is your choice, but even within science what we believe to be the nature of that existence is constantly in flux and yes much of it is opinion and conflicting opinion at that so don't try and pretend to us or fool yourself that in science you don't choose to believe or not believe.

We will always know far, far less than what is to be known so until we know it all it is always going to be a matter of choosing to believe what is the truth or fact.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I think you are gravely mistaken on this point. Of course you get to choose what you accept to believe, even in science. That is why there is peer review and why there is ongoing debate as to the validity of results and findings and why over the centuries why what we *believe *to be true has changed.


Okay, fair point. It's true that, in absence of complete data, multiple legitimate interpretations are possible, and that trained scientists can interpret the same data differently.

There is, however, only one reality. And as more data is accumulated, incorrect interpretations (or rather the theories that arise from them) will become incompatible with the facts. 



> You seem to always want to vaunt science as a great tautology and the final definer of the nature of existence


No, that is backwards. Science does not define reality; reality defines science.



> but even within science what we believe to be the nature of that existence is constantly in flux and yes much of it is opinion and conflicting opinion at that


The difficulties physicists have with mathematically defining reality do not prevent us from making reproducible observations of it or workable models to describe it.



> don't try and pretend to us or fool yourself that in science you don't choose to believe or not believe.
> 
> We will always know far, far less than what is to be known so until we know it all it is always going to be a matter of choosing to believe what is the truth or fact.


 This doesn't follow at al..l {something's gone haywire with the editor... I can't backspace or press return...will continue in a new post}


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

> We will always know far, far less than what is to be known so until we know it all it is always going to be a matter of choosing to believe what is the truth or fact.


Any honest scientist, or other rational person cannot choose what they believe is a fact. They may have different criteria for different types of evidence, or thresholds of skepticism for evidence from different sources, but a fact is a fact, and one cannot choose [not] to believe. One may become convinced they were in error by new evidence, but belief is not a choice.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> The difficulties physicists have with mathematically defining reality do not prevent us from making reproducible observations of it or workable models to describe it.


True, but while in the process of making those models, other scientists will use what's available to further their own research without a deep understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of those models.... leading to inaccurate conclusions. This, apparently, is a big frustration among modellers, as such things are brushed off as "just details". (Or so I'm told.)

While science can continually adjust and account for changing conclusions, the rest of the world who must make decisions based on these conclusions has a much more difficult time adapting.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Okay, fair point. It's true that, in absence of complete data, multiple legitimate interpretations are possible, and that trained scientists can interpret the same data differently.
> 
> *There is, however, only one reality.* And as more data is accumulated, incorrect interpretations (or rather the theories that arise from them) will become incompatible with the facts.


Even quantum physics postulates the possibility of other realities and parallel universes. You cannot disprove this therefore your statement is scientifically unverifiable and your argument therefore rhetorically tautological.




bryanc said:


> No, that is backwards. Science does not define reality; reality defines science.


Philosophically perhaps but practically and especially for the lay person it is the way I stated it and often the way your arguments come across.



bryanc said:


> The difficulties physicists have with mathematically defining reality do not prevent us from making reproducible observations of it or workable models to describe it.


Under certain circumstances and to the best of the ability of our limited means of observation and if we *believe* our means of observation to be adequate to determine the truth or facts.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Any honest scientist, or other rational person cannot choose what they believe is a fact. They may have different criteria for different types of evidence, or thresholds of skepticism for evidence from different sources, but a fact is a fact, and one cannot choose [not] to believe. One may become convinced they were in error by new evidence, but belief is not a choice.


The very notion of what represents or constitutes a fact presupposes a certain philosophical perspective and thus why your argument is rhetorically tautological. Your notion of what is the truth exists within a closed universe of empiricism, which is a choice and a belief on your part, to believe that the universe can be empirically defined and empirically detected. So from the get go you have made a decision to believe what you want to believe and thus all of the subsequent findings, evidence, "facts" are based on that logical tautology... the choice to believe in science and empiricism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Indeed, I can take any set of data and reduce its complexity until I find "statistical significance" and produce a model using that data. It will work admirably in hindsight for the available data. I could get it peer reviewed and approved. Creating a prediction using that model will probably be worthless.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> The very notion of what represents or constitutes a fact presupposes a certain philosophical perspective and thus why your argument is rhetorically tautological. Your notion of what is the truth exists within a closed universe of empiricism, which is a choice and a belief on your part, to believe that the universe can be empirically defined and empirically detected. So from the get go you have made a decision to believe what you want to believe and thus all of the subsequent findings, evidence, "facts" are based on that logical tautology... the choice to believe in science and empiricism.



Unlike conceptual relativism, empirical objectivism (i.e. science) works in that it correctly predicts events and properties.

Having taken several courses in epistemology, and thoroughly enjoyed them, I'm quite familiar with the argument you're making. Ironically, it's your position that is fundamentally rhetorical, because we all accept the existence of an objective reality by the nature of the way our brains work. It's true that one cannot prove that an external objective reality exists, but it is the most parsimonious explanation for the sensory experiences we perceive.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Unlike conceptual relativism, empirical objectivism (i.e. science) works in that it correctly predicts events and properties.
> 
> Having taken several courses in epistemology, and thoroughly enjoyed them, I'm quite familiar with the argument you're making. Ironically, it's your position that is fundamentally rhetorical, because we all accept the existence of an objective reality by the nature of the way our brains work. It's true that one cannot prove that an external objective reality exists, but it is the most parsimonious explanation for the sensory experiences we perceive.


I'm not speaking of the nature of reality. I'm speaking of the search for statistical significance which informs so much of climate modeling. Statistical significance is easy to find depending on how we choose to search for it. However, it only applies to the existing data, but does not provide a glimpse into the future--the IPCC and many climate scientists attempt to use it to do just that.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Indeed, I can take any set of data and reduce its complexity until I find "statistical significance" and produce a model using that data. It will work admirably in hindsight for the available data. I could get it peer reviewed and approved. Creating a prediction using that model will probably be worthless.


Except that the AGW models do not even work backwards. To make them work, they had to make the Maunder Minimum, the Medieval Warming Period and three earlier but similar cycles disappear. As to working forwards the past three unusually harsh winters, even as Hadley et al were saying they were a thing of the past, speak for themselves. Especially as the scientists the AGW crowd loudly proclaim to be quacks, successfully predicted those same harsh winters.

Another nagging issue is that no hard evidence has been provided as to whether increased CO2 levels cause warming or whether warming produces increased CO2 levels. OTH there is credible evidence that CO2 levels were as much as 17 times greater at the valley of the last major ice age. 

At best AGW is an unsubstantiated hypothesis at worst an outright scam. Given the $Trillions$ that could be diverted to Banksters and the Church of Climatology, scam seems far more likely.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm not speaking of the nature of reality. I'm speaking of the search for statistical significance which informs so much of climate modeling. Statistical significance is easy to find depending on how we choose to search for it. However, it only applies to the existing data, but does not provide a glimpse into the future--the IPCC and many climate scientists attempt to use it to do just that.


is this sort of how conservatives project that handing billions in tax cuts to corporations will result in fantastic job creation? That sort of "statistical significance"?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Except that the AGW models do not even work backwards...


Agreed. Once the data set cherry picked by the researchers is exhausted, there is little to no overlap between the models and objective temperature data.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> In a no-nonsense letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, noted that the carbon intensity of U.S. transportation fuel could increase by as much as 37 per cent if the country shifts to dirty tar sands crude. The great snake and its diluted stream of bitumen would also act as a damper on clean energy investments.
> *Americans see a dirty picture*
> 
> 
> ...


The Tyee – Alberta Hides Dirty Truth as US Demands Tar Sands Facts

but do keep heads stuck firmly in the tar sands......denial of consequences is so amusing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Unlike conceptual relativism, empirical objectivism (i.e. science) works in that i*t correctly predicts events and properties*.
> 
> Having taken several courses in epistemology, and thoroughly enjoyed them, *I'm quite familiar with the argument you're making*. Ironically, it's your position that is fundamentally rhetorical, because we all accept the existence of an objective reality by the nature of the way our brains work. It's true that one cannot prove that an external objective reality exists, but it is the most parsimonious explanation for the sensory experiences we perceive.


Not always, not even close to always, but....

I'm not so much making an argument (as for the most part I am an empiricist myself) as pointing out that your presuppositions as a scientist limit that which you consider to be fact or at least the basis by which you determine/considered things to be a fact, i.e. if it is not empirically provable/disprovable it cannot be a fact.

I am trying to point out that empirical objectivism is a belief and a choice of belief in the multitude of philosophical perspectives that a human being can choose to take on in how one views, studies and interprets the world/universe. 

You have made it clear that your choice is empirical objectivism, but it does not mean that you/it are/is right and that all other forms of interpreting the universe are wrong. I am simply trying to point out that even within empirical objectivism there is debate as to what constitutes a fact or law as both have changed over the course of human history and to suggest that their is no choice/belief/opinion built into empirical objectivism is not true because ultimately it is based on our (extended) sensory capabilities which I would suggest are finite and not necessarily as objective as some would like to presume or believe. 

Even within empirical objectivism there is the mind of the individual which can choose to focus on and emphasize this or that aspect/evidence/outcome/fact/observation etc. that leads to a specific analysis. Things maybe "as they are" but we determine or at least provide the analysis for what they mean and to that extent you cannot remove the relativist aspect of science. Thus even in science we choose to believe or not believe even though the "facts" may be empirically the same, the analysis and interpretation of those "facts" may need not be the same at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The Tyee – Alberta Hides Dirty Truth as US Demands Tar Sands Facts
> 
> but do keep heads stuck firmly in the tar sands......denial of consequences is so amusing.


I think the U.S. is keeping its head firmly stuck in the tar sands as well--Obama has pushed for increased reliance on Canadian oil sources and it's full steam ahead for the pipeline. Waxman has failed to pass his carbon bills time after time.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Obama bashing, in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*People Who Live Downwind Of Alberta's Oil And Tar Sands Operations Are Getting Blood Cancer*



> A new study has found that levels of air pollution downwind of the largest tar sands, oil and gas producing region in Canada rival levels found in the world’s most polluted cities. And that pollution isn’t just dirtying the air — it also could be tied increased incidence of blood cancers in men that live in the area.
> The study, published last week by researchers from University of California Irvine and the University of Michigan, found levels of carcinogenic air pollutants 1,3-butadiene and benzene spiked in the Fort Saskatchewan area, which is downwind of the oil and tar sands-rich “Industrial Heartland” of Alberta. Airborne levels of 1,3-butadiene were 322 times greater downwind of the Industrial Heartland — which houses more than 40 major chemical, petrochemical and oil and gas facilities — than upwind, while downwind levels of benzene were 51 times greater. Levels of some volatile organic compounds — which, depending on the compound, have been linked to liver, kidney and central nervous system damage as well as cancer — were 6,000 times higher than normal. The area saw concentrations of some chemicals that were higher than levels in Mexico City during the 1990s, when it was the most polluted city on the planet.


(More at: ThinkProgress)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *People Who Live Downwind Of Alberta's Oil And Tar Sands Operations Are Getting Blood Cancer*
> 
> 
> 
> (More at: ThinkProgress)


And when you look at the "non-progressive" source of the study:


> While a causal association between these cancers and exposure to industrial emissions cannot be confirmed...


Air quality in the Industrial Heartland of Alberta, Canada and potential impacts on human health


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oilsands Tailing Ponds Ticking Time Bomb for Canadians
Alberta has failed to protect taxpayers from billions in cleanup costs.*









Oilsands cleanup costs are forecast at $27 billion to $48 billion; companies have posted only $1.4 billion to cover future costs. Photo from Google Maps.​
Having a mortgage is a hassle. All those pesky requirements like property assessments, down payments and monthly payments.

Imagine if you could just tell the bank how much money you think you owe them and that you’ll settle up 70 years after you move out. Wouldn’t that be easier?

That is essentially the deal Suncor has been granted by the Alberta government regarding the ballooning liability from their oilsands tailing ponds and related reclamation requirements.

Like all other operators in the industry, every year Suncor presents the Alberta taxpayer with an estimate of what the corporation thinks it will cost to reclaim the artificial lakes of toxic sludge it has created, in Suncor’s case since mining began in1967. No supporting documentation required.

But wait, there’s more! Last fall, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) approved a previously rejected plan from Suncor that allows the company 70 years after the mine closes in 2033 to sign off on its reclamation requirements.

Collectively, tailings ponds now cover 25,000 hectares in northern Alberta and contain a poisonous brew of organic acids, benzene, lead and fine clay particles that have not significantly settled out in 50 years. The result is lakes of toxic yogurt impounded by the largest earthen structures in the world.

The current plan, to be completed almost a century from now, involves pumping this poisonous slurry into abandoned mining pits and covering it with a water cap — an unproven technique based on the dubious assumption that the contaminated and uncontaminated layers will somehow not mix decades into the future.

Alberta has the constitutional right to manage resources as the province sees fit, but the current situation could be described as regulatory humiliation. Bitumen royalties make up less than four per cent of the provincial budget and capture a similarly puny proportion of the market value of bitumen produced by the companies.

Since 1975, the province produced over 4,800 trillion cubic metres of natural gas, 17.4 billion barrels of conventional crude and 11.4 billion barrels of bitumen with cumulative current value of $1.7 trillion.

Successive governments since Premier Peter Lougheed somehow managed to convert this vast resource bounty into a growing public debt of $43 billion....

(Much more to the story at: The Tyee)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

_The Tyee_... nice. This is probably Rachel's payoff in exchange for Suncor's support of carbon taxes.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> _The Tyee_... nice. This is probably Rachel's payoff in exchange for Suncor's support of carbon taxes.


Wow - very insightful analysis! Really makes you think!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your insight really gave everybody food for thought, chum!



CubaMark said:


> Wow - very insightful analysis! Really makes you think!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm sorry, I must have missed something... 

Looks like a cut & paste to me. Where's _your_ analysis?



CubaMark said:


> Wow - very insightful analysis! Really makes you think!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oil sands found to be a leading source of air pollution in North America*










A cloud of noxious particles brewing in the air above the Alberta oil sands is one of the most prolific sources of air pollution in North America, often exceeding the total emissions from Canada's largest city, federal scientists have discovered.

The finding marks the first time researchers have quantified the role of oil sands operations in generating secondary organic aerosols, a poorly understood class of pollutants that have been linked to a range of adverse health effects.

The result adds to the known impact of the oil sands, including as a source of carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. 

* * *​
The pollutants the scientist measured are minute particles that are created when chemical-laden vapours from the mining and processing of bitumen react with oxygen in the atmosphere and are transformed into solids that can drift on the wind for days.

While researchers have long thought that the oil sands must be a source of such particles, the new results show that their impact on air quality is significant and of potential concern to communities that are downwind.

"It's another aspect that can and probably should be considered" in assessing the oil sands' environmental footprint, said John Liggio, an atmospheric chemist with Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the study.

Using an aircraft bristling with sophisticated sensors, Dr. Liggio and his colleagues flew back and forth repeatedly through the largely invisible plume of emissions that extends from the oil sands in order to record the concentrations of a wide range of pollutants. The measurements were made in the summer of 2013, and gathered during nearly 100 hours of flying time over the oil sands and adjacent boreal forest.

* * *​
The airborne data, supported by further work with computer models and laboratory experiments, show that 45 to 84 tonnes of secondary organic aerosols are formed by the oil sands a day. By comparison, Canada's largest urban area, which includes Toronto and surrounding municipalities, generates 67 tonnes a day, much of it derived from car and truck exhaust.

"The take-away is that there's more that's emitted into the atmosphere than we've fully appreciated," said Jeffrey Brook, an air-quality researcher with Environment and Climate Change Canada who participated in the oil sands study.

(Globe&Mail)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Still worth it!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hello, Bigot.

How many fossil fuel burning vehicles in your family, hypocrite? What do you use to heat your house?

Yeah, thought so...



CubaMark said:


> Oil sands found to be a leading source of air pollution in North America


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.
> 
> How many fossil fuel burning vehicles in your family, hypocrite? What do you use to heat your house?
> 
> Yeah, thought so...


The oil sands aren't zero pollution so he craps all over them. Not good enough for Mother Superior of Zacatecas.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The oil sands aren't zero pollution so he craps all over them. Not good enough for Mother Superior of Zacatecas.


Well, the only thing that's zero pollution is no heat or electricity or vehicles. When The Bigot starts living like that, I'll consider his criticism...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.
> 
> How many fossil fuel burning vehicles in your family, hypocrite? What do you use to heat your house?
> 
> Yeah, thought so...


I don't know why he's suddenly going full raging "Old Man" about an article published in 2016.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Well, the only thing that's zero pollution is no heat or electricity or vehicles. When The Bigot starts living like that, I'll consider his criticism...


In Canada fossil fuels heat our homes, pretty critical as Canada can have winters that last 8 or 9 months. Most Canadians vigorously oppose the freeze us to death method of reducing fossil fuel consumption. If CM or Freddie think that's a good idea I happily encourage them to disable their furnaces.

Fossil Fuel is critical to transportation. Another super critical use as the driving distance from the east to the west coast is almost 4500 miles over 7000 KMS. Because of our northern climate very few small regions of the nation can be at all self reliant on local food production. For the rest of us it comes by truck. There may be rail and bus service between TO and Montreal, the rest of us are dependent on our personal vehicles to get from A to B. For the most part EVs are not practical, but even where they are practical, somewhere in the equation they too use a lot of fossil fuel.

Fossil fuels are also crucial to our power grid. Perhaps Freddie and CM believe electricity is a needless luxury, although I have no idea how they will get from A to B in a flaming Tesla without it.

In short the quickest, most efficient and only feasible way for Canada to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, would be to annihilate half of the population. Easy enough to accomplish; perhaps via a 'vaccine' that gives us Ebola; or maybe a more targeted approach via a weaponized 5G network. Personally I am very opposed to the Cossack solution as I am sure those of us drawing CPP would be at the very top of the hit list.


----------

