# Surprisingly good start, Harper: to the US hands off Arctic, to Hamas, not recognized



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Butt out on Arctic, Harper tells U.S.
Prime minister-designate indicates Canada won’t recognize Palestinian Hamas government

Jan. 26, 2006. 02:37 PM
CANADIAN PRESS



> OTTAWA — Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper says he won’t take advice from the U.S. ambassador on how to protect Canadian sovereignty in the North.
> At a wide-ranging press conference this afternoon, during which he said the new Conservative government will be sworn in on Monday, Feb. 6, Harper said he will stick to his campaign promise to station icebreakers and military personnel in Canada’s Arctic.
> 
> U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins had criticized Harper’s plan, claiming the Arctic passage to be "neutral waters.”
> ...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

An interesting beginning, indeed. The arctic discussion is already under way (again, a gentle reminder, that these aren't election issues any more, so maybe we could look in the other place first, and avoid double posting), but the decision about Hamas is news, indeed. Not saying I disagree, since I'm not totally sure, but it does raise an interesting principle. Do we refuse to recognise democratically elected governments because we don't like them as a general rule? Is this special treatment because a) they are Palestinians; or b) they are connected to Terrorism (capital T intentional)? If there is suspicion about the validity of an election, that is one thing, but I haven't heard that at any point. This outcome, in fact, is pretty much what was predicted. Is it really a good precedent for us to set to say that we will refuse to recognise any government with whom we disagree philosophically?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> This outcome, in fact, is pretty much what was predicted. Is it really a good precedent for us to set to say that we will refuse to recognise any government with whom we disagree philosophically?


A difficult area - but let's remember that those who disagree with Hamas do so not because of philosophy, but because of their actions.

Actual power and responsibility has a way of tempering things though, so let's see how the next few months play out.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Did Canada have an official position on Sinn Fein? Maybe that could provide some perspective on where we've been, but without constraining a discussion of where we should go with Hamas.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*The War in the Arctic*
you are right one thread it enough


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I like the tone of this thread better.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Americans and Israel have been pushing for democracy in the middle east and when a party gets democratically elected, all of a sudden they want to change the rules? Hamas played by the rules and won power. Harper and company maybe more pro-Israel (Doris Day going to far as saying that Arrafat died of AIDS...) but not wanting to recognize the duly elected Hamas smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. To me, it sounded as if Harper was parroting the US position. 

You should not control elections and it's outcome (he Washington Post reported Sunday that the United States had spent $2 million in recent weeks to promote the Palestinian Authority, and by extension Fatah, in a campaign that kept U.S. involvement hidden.)*
Canada did work with the Provisional IRA (PIRA) and played a role in the disarming
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.as...chive&Sub=NewsReleases&Doc=ira.20011024_e.htm

No matter what you think of Hamas (and I don't think much of them), they won. 






http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/REPOSITORY/601260368/1013/NEWS03


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

It’s a difficult decision to make and where to draw the line of what type of government to acknowledge. These guys are known terrorists, blow people up and renounce the right of Israel to exist. How can you negotiate with somebody who denies your right to exist?

I think the IRA situation is similar, but still different. The IRA never denied the right of a protestant state to exist. But they did support terrorism. 

It is also difficult because you can’t negotiate peace with your friends. You have to negotiate with your enemy. I think the rationale of Canada and the US is to influence Hamas to renounce terror and recognize the right of Israel to exist. Once they do that, negotiation is possible. Otherwise, where do you start?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Americans and Israel have been pushing for democracy in the middle east and when a party gets democratically elected, all of a sudden they want to change the rules? Hamas played by the rules and won power. Harper and company maybe more pro-Israel (Doris Day going to far as saying that Arrafat died of AIDS...) but not wanting to recognize the duly elected Hamas smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. To me, it sounded as if Harper was parroting the US position.


It's a done deal. Harper stated it clearly and succinctly. Our new government--your new federal government--will not recognize the new government in Palestine as long as that government exists in order to blow up its neighbour--a neighbour that has agreed to stop attacking Palestine unless attacked first. Harper said that this will be the case as long as a terrorist organization holds power there.

So you'll have to live with it. Canada, like the U.S. and Israel, does not recognize the new terrorist government of Palestine.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Done deal, but who is the puppet master? 
So if you don't like a democratically elected government, you just don't recognize it? 


> Hamas has mostly respected a truce for nearly a year, but says it will not give up its guns or its charter demand for an Islamic state to encompass Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.


http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsA...RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&pageNumber=2&summit=


There is a dilemma here - you can't preach democracy and then balk at the results when you don't like the results of your initiative. I do understand the concerns.



> UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw said in Ankara that “the whole of the international community has the responsibility to accept the outcome of any fair and democratic election, but in this case Hamas has a clear responsibility to understand that with democracy goes a rejection of violence ... the onus is now on Hamas to choose democracy or violence. You cannot have both. What we want to see from Hamas is that they are now prepared to take a democratic path that means rejection of violence and also ... acknowledgment that Israel exists and that they have to deal with Israel.”
> 
> 
> Dr. Sedat Laciner, head of the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK - ISRO) accused of Israel and United States for the election results in Palestine: “The wrong policies left no room for moderate politicians in the Palestinian politics. Yasser Arafat and his men were eliminated by the Americans and Tel Aviv. Then the Israeli offensive policies and abuses have not been questioned by the international community. In fact Bush Administration has fully supported the Israeli wrongs in Palestine with no question. The Israeli wall and other security measures increased poverty in Palestine. As a matter of fact that Israel has done anything possible to undermine the moderate politicians in Palestine. And now they say that the results were surprise. The results are not surprise, because the Palestinians had no way but to elect the extremists, because now all Palestinians are extremists. They need house, they need job, they need anything anyone needs in Israel. And Hamas like the Republican Party in the US is a party which reflects the needs of the people in that country. If Hamas is extremist and unacceptable for the Israelis or the Americans, so it means that the majority of the Palestinians are not acceptable for US and Israel. The world has to break this vicious-circle.”


http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=25179



> If anybody is looking for proof that George Bush's campaign to democratize the Middle East has backfired, Hamas' sweeping victory in Wednesday's Palestinian election would seem to provide it. The Islamic fundamentalist group—responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians on the one hand and a wide network of health-care and social programs for Palestinians on the other—claimed 76 of the 132 seats on the Palestinian Legislative Council, consigning the late Yasser Arafat's Fatah Party to opposition status. The lunatics have won control of the madhouse.
> 
> The more immediate issue is how Hamas will adapt to the reality of the existence of Israel, whose citizens now play the role of lab rats in Bush's grand experiment with potholes and democracy.


http://www.slate.com/id/2134928/


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Amazing.

"Hamas has mostly respected a truce..."

Mostly respected? So, what's a few suicide bombings on a few buses. See January 19, for example. The intention was to kill many, but 'only' 30 were 'only' wounded.

What a grossly stupid phrase, "Hamas has mostly respected a truce."

The answer is yes: don't like them, don't recognize them.

The fact is that it is illegal for Canadians to belong to Hamas, or to send money to them. This has been the case for years. It makes no difference if they get elected to power in Palestine, they're still terrorists and Canada has made a statement about this fact.




ArtistSeries said:


> Done deal, but who is the puppet master?
> So if you don't like a democratically elected government, you just don't recognize it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tangled web  My inclination is to follow Israel's lead on this) but how is Iran "acceptable" as a recognised gov when they proclaim similar goals.

Maybe when we run out of oil the world will get bigger again.  ....sigh.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Tangled web  My inclination is to follow Israel's lead on this) but how is Iran "acceptable" as a recognised gov when they proclaim similar goals.


A very salient point.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I'm just waiting for the bombing of Iran to be declared a pre-emptive strike for "security"
This is the same logic that justified the war crimes of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

The only question is which country's planes will do the bombing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Tangled web  My inclination is to follow Israel's lead on this) but how is Iran "acceptable" as a recognised gov when they proclaim similar goals.
> 
> Maybe when we run out of oil the world will get bigger again.  ....sigh.


Iran is quickly going down the road of not being acceptable. 

For now they are a 3rd party to the Israel-Palestinian problem, although they do provide funding to Hamas. 

A new poll says 57% of Americans would agree to military action against Iran.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If Israel acts...as it did before on a nuclear threat ...I understand that and I suspect anyone on the Arab street would understand as well.....not like it...but understand.

The US no.

Nato ...maybe.

The EU along with Russia perhaps have a lever and the moral authority as it's their doorstep but that old bugbear sovereignty arises. 

The Economist holds out some hope of the Iranian people resolving it tho not in the short term.

Monday may show some direction



> World powers meet once more to discuss how to handle Iran’s nuclear ambitions on Monday, January 30th, and again on Thursday, February 2nd. The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency may refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council, despite Iranian claims that it may reconsider a once-rejected Russian compromise


http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5460853

If you can't read the link let me know.

Real time scary stuff.


----------



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

Since the US ambassador to the Canada is from South Carolina, I think Canada should make a REAL statement -- invade Fort Sumter.

The Civil War, America's most tragic conflict, ignited at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, when a chain reaction of social, economic and political events came together. At the heart of these events was the issue of states rights versus federal authority flowing over the underlying issue of slavery. 

On April 12th, Canada should capture Fort Sumter and hold it until the US agrees to the reality of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> On April 12th, Canada should capture Fort Sumter and hold it until the US agrees to the reality of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.


How do we get other countries to agree to our sovereignty in the Arctic? :heybaby:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Or maybe just occupy the land under several US monuments belonging to the United Empire Loyalists.


----------



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

Beej, making the US to agree to our right and we have it made. It is much like having your older brother standing behind you are you call the other second grades all dopes...........and daring them to touch you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Beej, making the US to agree to our right and we have it made. It is much like having your older brother standing behind you are you call the other second grades all dopes...........and daring them to touch you.


I had an older brother. This sort of favour involved not pissing in his cereal. We will have to find another way or find a more appropriate unrine depository.


----------



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

Beej, when we show the US who controls the high arctic, we will have it made. Even today Ambassador Wilkens said that the softwood lumber dispute would be solved within the year. See, the mighty elephant is already trembling at the possible wrath of the Harper mouse.


----------



## jmac (Feb 16, 2003)

... very good. This is why we hire a leader. He's supposed to represent us, not rape us! Good show Stevie!!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jmac said:


> ... very good. This is why we hire a leader. He's supposed to represent us, not rape us! Good show Stevie!!


your conservative cheque is in the mail


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> your conservative cheque is in the mail


Gee...wouldn't it be nice if ALL Canadians could get a fat cheque from our government once in a while? Just for being here? And for being a part of the overall prosperity?

The same as Albertans seem to be getting? From the Ralph Klein government?:clap: 

Hmmmmm....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Great, but think about all the things you do *without* when you are cashing that cheque. Klein could have solved medical wait times with one stroke, instead, you get a few hundred dollars. Atta go privatization boy!

Same thing with childcare. See how far $25 per week goes when a childcare bill is $500 to $1200 per month. Homecare for $25 per week instead? What are you, nutts?

Solving these equations collectively makes more sense. But don't expect Harper's financial savvy to match the few political things he got right the other day. Some economist!




MacNutt said:


> Gee...wouldn't it be nice if ALL Canadians could get a fat cheque from our government once in a while? Just for being here? And for being a part of the overall prosperity?
> 
> The same as Albertans seem to be getting? From the Ralph Klein government?:clap:
> 
> Hmmmmm....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Gee...wouldn't it be nice if ALL Canadians could get a fat cheque from our government once in a while? Just for being here? And for being a part of the overall prosperity?
> 
> The same as Albertans seem to be getting? From the Ralph Klein government?:clap:
> 
> Hmmmmm....


under martin canada is paying down the debt and coming up with budget surpluses
he did it at the expense of health care
canada currently enjoys a good economy which harpo will inherit sorta like bush inherited a good economy and see how that is working out down there, eh?

martin's economic policies should have been applauded by harpo et al since they are very conservative - i.e. slash spending - isn't that what all good business people are supposed to do?
i submit that with more effective management martin could have started paying down the debt without massive cuts to the provinces and health care
but i'm one of those people that believes people come before profit as far as gov't goes

see ya paul, don't let the door hit ya on the way out
i wonder if turbot will go on the menu at the parliamentary restaurant when mckenna becomes PM


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> your conservative cheque is in the mail


Your Liberal one is already sent out.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Your Liberal one is already sent out.


martin slashed that program to pay down the deficit
no cheque


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Gee...wouldn't it be nice if ALL Canadians could get a fat cheque from our government once in a while? Just for being here? And for being a part of the overall prosperity?
> 
> The same as Albertans seem to be getting? From the Ralph Klein government?.


Actually, no oil sands, no cheque (for starters). So, really, they're getting it from the oil sands, not from the Ralph Klein government. 

So, I guess if we had the Ontario oil sands, the Quebec oil sands, etc, we could all have cheques. Of course, we would also consume all of Canada's natural gas reserves in a couple of years and produce more greenhouse gases, just to extract the oil, than Kyoto provided for the whole country for all purposes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Actually, no oil sands, no cheque (for starters). So, really, they're getting it from the oil sands, not from the Ralph Klein government.
> 
> So, I guess if we had the Ontario oil sands, the Quebec oil sands, etc, we could all have cheques. Of course, we would also consume all of Canada's natural gas reserves in a couple of years and produce more greenhouse gases, just to extract the oil, than Kyoto provided for the whole country for all purposes.


The extra Alberta money is primarily from natural gas. I think I've had to correct this before. In the future, oil sands will overtake it. 

Quebec has large amounts of hydro they choose to undersell. Sort of like Ralphy taking the royalty gas and selling it at half-price locally. Bad idea, Quebec's own fault.

Ontario is located right next to key U.S. manufacturing and services centres. Any other country (except maybe Cuba  ) would kill for that kind of access, and Ontario has done well by it. Good policy matters a great deal, but good location helps. 

Alberta's assets help them and give them more room to make questionable policy (like Norway), but those assets also create billions of dollars for all of Canada. Quebec and Ontario have their advantages too, and really need to figure out the best way to encourage prosperity rather than worrying about Alberta.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

My point was that, gas or oil, it's the source of an extraordinary revenue stream, and Klein didn't put it there.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> My point was that, gas or oil, it's the source of an extraordinary revenue stream, and Klein didn't put it there.


Fair, and it gives him more leeway. Norway would have trouble being poor, but it isn't where it could be. 

In Klein's favour, the policies are in place to really benefit from the resource (unlike B.C. and Quebec forestry and hydro) and ON and QC have other advantages. 

I think AB has more advantages, but ON and QC must focus on improving their backyard. They both have left billions on the table in misdirected attempts at economy building.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Technology... the asians used capital/technology to their advantage... they invested in their future. 

Standard microeconomics here. Alberta (like most western states) is using its present advantage to invest in 'luxuries' as a tax credit (more cars, groceries etc), while the asians (japan, south korea, taiwan, singapore) would have invested it in capital (technology), for more production (and luxuries) in the future.

I bet large scale use of oil will be discontinued before the tar sands are fully exploited. Then what will Alberta have.

Let Ontario invest in science, education and new energy forms.

California already has a hydrogen highway plan. Perhaps the state will be home to a future major automaker? Or will become a major hydrogen industrial centre?

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

alberta would be well advised to turn its petro dollars into medical research
they could be home to the cdn. version of the mayo clinic
and with all those oil profits coming in it might be time to raise the taxes on those oil producers a bit
after all, everyone should profit from the high oil prices that just happened to be there due to instability in the middle east - a middle east nightmare that canadians did very little to create


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> I bet large scale use of oil will be discontinued before the tar sands are fully exploited. Then what will Alberta have.


Just like coal, although coal is seeing a rebirth. We'll see how that works out.

Alberta's approach is allowing for all sorts of good stuff because it doesn't claim to use 'cheap energy' as a foundation for anything. 'Cheap energy' as a foundation for industry is a widely used mistake. Used in ON, QC, BC, MB and many nations, it is just plain wrong. It implicitly devalues personal creativity and ingenuity. If your strategy is cheap energy then, implicitly, your people aren't good enough to compete. A common mistake to undervalue education and creativity.

It would be much better if AB saved more revenues in their Heritage Fund, but they are attracting non-energy economy. Klein is not doing all he could do, but he's also not getting in the way. Reminds me of Chretien in many ways.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...it might be time to raise the taxes on those oil producers a bit
> after all, everyone should profit from the high oil prices that just happened to be there due to instability in the middle east - a middle east nightmare that canadians did very little to create


That is what royalties do. Alberta's royalty system (and SK and BC and...) needs tweaking because it wasn't designed for $35+ oil and $5+ gas, but their basic fiscal structure is well designed and has served them very well.

By the way, everybody does profit from high oil prices in Alberta, and their federal income taxes benefit all Canadians, as does their business with other provinces. This is not AB vs ON.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i'm just saying that in today's age of record oil profits and health care costs skyrocketing maybe it's time that big oil paid a little more into the collective pot

i'm sure they can afford it - hell if they can afford to buy presidents and cause wars, they can afford to dump a few bucks into the pockets of the people
after all, more cars and more pollution means more sick people
child asthma cases are up 4 fold in the past few years - air pollution is the primary suspect - even harpo can appreciate that

and to show that i'm not sympathetic to the problems of big oil, if gasoline drops back down, i would be willing to entertain a lowering of their taxes


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i'm just saying that in today's age of record oil profits and health care costs skyrocketing maybe it's time that big oil paid a little more into the collective pot


So in the high-tech boom, higher income tax rates were needed? What about when manufacturing profits go up? Forestry? Every industry?

In general, set a rate and don't discriminate. I don't agree with oil sands (or wind, or Bombardier, or...) getting special treatment, I think their tax treatment should apply to all business. 

Just because an industry does well doesn't mean higher rates are warranted (doing well means they're already paying more). 

We disagree on this, but I'm sure we'll have many good and polite jousts, like this one, in the future.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

air pollution is on the rise in Alberta as lots of it is produced when making oil from oil sands
this will in turn make for even more sick people as the increase in child asthma shows

health care needs more money and even in the u.s. the big tobacco had to pay its penalty for creating sick people

why would big oil be exempt?

not to mentio the war they helped create which created a false increase in oil prices
and don't even get me started on global warming

or should just anyone do whatever they want as long as it makes money?
in that case why aren't drugs and prostitution allowed to be legalised?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> air pollution is on the rise in Alberta as lots of it is produced when making oil from oil sands
> this will in turn make for even more sick people as the increase in child asthma shows
> 
> health care needs more money and even in the u.s. the big tobacco had to pay its penalty for creating sick people
> ...


Oil sands air pollution doesn't hit people to nearly the same extent as ON smog. 

The Libs should have done something about GHGs, but they didn't. They took the enviro votes and sat on them. Cons won't be that different about it.

Big oil: they pay taxes like other companies. More special treatment compared to some, less compared to others. The Feds got huge income gains from oil profits, and they gladly spent them. I fully support environment-based taxes (real ones, not enviro-quack ones). The Libs were too chicken to do this, the Cons don't seem to want to try. Same end result. This isn't about 'Big Oil', this is about individual support for the idea, not individual support for vague pleasantries.

No one will do anything until people stand up and say 'Tax environmental damage even if it costs me more.' Until then, we're playing media games.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Big oil: they pay taxes like other companies.


Which, as we discussed re: Martin and ships, means using whatever loopholes are out there to avoid taxes. Right?



Beej said:


> No one will do anything until people stand up and say 'Tax environmental damage even if it costs me more.' Until then, we're playing media games.


Agreed. And let me say, for the record: 'Tax environmental damage even if it costs me more.'


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Which, as we discussed re: Martin and ships, means using whatever loopholes are out there to avoid taxes. Right?
> ...
> Agreed. And let me say, for the record: 'Tax environmental damage even if it costs me more.'


Right, just like in the November fiscal update and how it identified an unexpected $2 billion in corporate tax revenue from energy (going by memory here), which doesn't include the expected component, or royalties or personal incomes taxes from all the well paid employees, or local taxes or... But by all means, let's talk loopholes. 
...
Thanks, that's two people. 20 million to go...
For the record: Tax environmental damage even if it costs me more.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

32 million others should pay my share of the envrionmental tax. Spread evenly they won't even notice it...no harm done...


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Smart money says Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and rural Canada are going to win big thanks to agrifi-industrial bio-fuel farming that makes use of Ethanol. See GM's push for all ethanol engines.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes and no re:ethanol. I am surrounded by farmers, many of whom do make at least some of their income from ethanol. But they won't use it themselves. Ethanol's prominence will depend on either law enforcing it's presence, or the passage of a generation or two to allow for changes in mentality at the normal brutally slow rate.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> Yes and no re:ethanol. I am surrounded by farmers, many of whom do make at least some of their income from ethanol. But they won't use it themselves. Ethanol's prominence will depend on either law enforcing it's presence, or the passage of a generation or two to allow for changes in mentality at the normal brutally slow rate.


See, that's our difference in perspective. I think market momentum (in this case, big time backing from GM) will move it forward faster than any law or government incentive scheme.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> See, that's our difference in perspective. I think market momentum (in this case, big time backing from GM) will move it forward faster than any law or government incentive scheme.


Market momentum implies that there is a market. I don't believe that that is as true as you and I both wish it were. People are suspicious of newness as a general rule, and ethanol sounds too much like hippie talk to fly in the rednecked parts of our country.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Feds are supporting large growth in ethanol supply and some provinces are putting in mandatory ethanol rules. Add to that that at current oil prices, ethanol may be a cheaper option, and things are starting to move along nicely.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

From Saturday's Toronto (Red) Star :

GM to promote ethanol-burning vehicles
Jan. 26, 2006. 01:00 AM
KEN THOMAS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON—General Motors Corp. said yesterday it would open an aggressive marketing campaign to highlight its vehicles capable of running on ethanol blends, hoping to drive public awareness of the fuel made from corn.

The campaign, called "Live Green Go Yellow," will be unfurled during next month's Winter Olympics and tout the benefits of E85 vehicles. The vehicles can run on fuel that has 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent gasoline, reducing the dependence on foreign oil and helping Midwest farmers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

not all in u.s. happy with ethanol

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm713.cfm


why not just let the U.S. buy Alberta
most Albertans would probably be happier as U.S. citizens and using U.S. money
solves the U.S. having to buy oil from foreing powers problem
the U.S. oil investors would be happier, stephen harper would be happy
big cash injection for Cdn. economy
just make one provision in the sale that mandates price of gasoline from AB oil sands must be sold to Canada at California prices


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Again,

I'm in favour of market solutions rather than legislative ones. That's the dividing difference between (classic liberalism) as embodied by conservatives and state-driven solutions of the left.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Again,
> 
> I'm in favour of market solutions rather than legislative ones. That's the dividing difference between (classic liberalism) as embodied by conservatives and state-driven solutions of the left.


yeah, i'm sure the investors of Enron, WorldComm and Bre-X would agree with you.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yeah, i'm sure the investors of Enron, WorldComm and Bre-X would agree with you.


That is so lame. Your momma....(whatever not going to finish the retort that post deserves).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> not all in u.s. happy with ethanol
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm713.cfm
> 
> ...


Do you just sit down and decide to make things up because the world is too complex to deal with? Your recent posts seem, at best, comical. I hope that's the intent.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i couldn't find an "outrageous" emoticon
of course selling alberta comment is tongue firmly planted in cheek


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And Harper liking it? Oh well, a nice little story. Maybe ehmac needs some more emoticons.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yes more emoticons
    :baby:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yes more emoticons
> :baby:


More selection, not necessarily more use.

Although, now your message is crystal clear.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I can't seem to access the emoticons from Firefox on a PC


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

[get a mac] emoticon


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Funny. We got rid of them at work, for the most part, and replaced them with Dell PCs. 

It's horrible.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

that's a very hard switch
i bet your company's it support bills have shot way up
i hope the idiot that made the decision to switch from macs to dell gets fired


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

It support hasn't been all that bad, to be honest. The machines have all been fairly reliable. 

The guy who made the call is the son of the guy in charge of the company, so I don't think his job is in danger.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

son of guy in charege of company

tell me again why i don't trust company executives
man, that;s just crazy


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Ethonal as a major source of fuel will host new problems related to land use. The permenant degredation of soil (especially in the third world) and deforestation (especially in the third world tropics) to create new farm land come to mind. Soil is already vanishing faster than it is made. This would just vastly increase our current problem. 

I question whether there is enough arable land in the world to sustain an ethonal economy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> I question whether there is enough arable land in the world to sustain an ethonal economy.


I think a lot of it is balance. 

There is a wide recognition that there is no single solution to our problems. A little ethanol, a lot of fuel economy, a lot of public transit etc... Ethanol is one small piece. 

Ideally, we would use inedible portions for car-food and edible portions for animal-food. This exists to an extent, but bioengineering can create huge gains. Maybe crop rotation between fueling people and fueling cars. We are just at the very beginning of opportunity here.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Maybe crop rotation between fueling people and fueling cars.


now THAT'S an idea
i would still like to see what it costs in terms of fuel for tractor, etc. to produce a gallon of bio-fuel for a car before making a committment

i still think that making cars that use electricity and/or fuel or better yet, hydrogen fuel cells would be a better solution in the long run

micro wind/solar power (i.e. for individual homes) should really be promoted via tax credits

i am waiting for a good wind/solar system for my home that comes in below $5K
at that price point i am very interested


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i still think that making cars that use electricity and/or fuel or better yet, hydrogen fuel cells would be a better solution in the long run
> ...
> i am waiting for a good wind/solar system for my home that comes in below $5K
> at that price point i am very interested


http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/uc_berkeley_stu.html#more

Electricity/hydrogen aren't a solution, they're a delivery mechanism. Where does the power and hydrogen come from? We can do it now, but it is VERY expensive. Technology and efficiency combined will accomplish much.
...
Price is the problem with low/zero carbon solutions. We need to use lower carbon solutions and keep researching zero carbon solutions. Too many enviros just plain don't want to accept that people's wallets matter too. Environment is a major consideration, but not the only one.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Where does the power and hydrogen come from?


electricity can be made renewable via solar and wind
a more concentrated effort (like the manhattan project) would inevitably produce a mechanism for creating and storing electricity far more cost efficently that can currently be done

the gov't of course would have to learn to wean itself off the petro taxes at the pumps and that may be one of the biggest obstacles

free power from the wind and sun?
damn soclialist of me, eh?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> electricity can be made renewable via solar and wind
> a more concentrated effort (like the manhattan project) would inevitably produce a mechanism for creating and storing electricity far more cost efficently that can currently be done
> 
> the gov't of course would have to learn to wean itself off the petro taxes at the pumps and that may be one of the biggest obstacles
> ...


Research is being done. This isn't some government ('wean itself off the petro taxes at the pumps') obstactle. This is about technological progress.

The technology isn't cheap enough yet, and it is being supported with government $. Maybe more $ are in order, but where? Wind doesn't need anymore support, it has plenty now and is receiving huge support in Europe. The remaining gains are small and incremental.

Power storage is a big gap. Lots of potential there.

Free power from the wind and sun: no, investment is not free. No matter how cheap it is to operate, if it takes billions to construct, it ain't free. 

This isn't some grand 'big oil'-'government' problem. We simply do not have the technology to deliver the energy services we want for the price we are used to. Technology and price both need to advance for a real solution.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and I still say that a massive gov't effort akin to the Manhattan Project would make great strides in solar / wind power

I also recognize that research costs money, BUT once that is paid for, the energy is essentially free, unless of course some mega-corp decides to start charging us for access to sun, wind, rain.

don't laugh
there was already one incident where a corporation owned all water, including rain water and took great steps via police to make sure nobody had any water that wasn't paid for
ref: "The Corporation" documentary I watched 2 weeks ago


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and I still say that a massive gov't effort akin to the Manhattan Project would make great strides in solar / wind power
> 
> I also recognize that research costs money, BUT once that is paid for, the energy is essentially free, unless of course some mega-corp decides to start charging us for access to sun, wind, rain.
> 
> ...


It is never free unless you ignore billions of dollars of investment (see Ontario's power debt). So 'once that is paid for' ignores the important part.

Referencing edutainment? The Corporation was entertaining. Remember not to accept what you lean towards while 'analysing' what you don't. Otherwise, well, you get the point.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

nxnw said:


> My point was that, gas or oil, it's the source of an extraordinary revenue stream, and Klein didn't put it there.


Only partly true.

Alberta went through some -*very*- painful cutbacks in the early '90s, well before the current oil boom started. You may or may not believe that these massive cuts to government spending (and services) were a good thing, but we addressed the budget deficit here well before the feds or other provinces did.

When the oil & gas royalties went non-linear, the government already had a balanced budget. It's kind of like making -*major*- sacrifices to pay off your mortgage, pay down your credit cards, etc, and then getting a huge raise or promotion.

Klein can't take credit for the oil & gas prices, but he -*can*- take the credit (or blame, if you're a fan of big government) for getting spending under control in the early '90s.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> I bet large scale use of oil will be discontinued before the tar sands are fully exploited. Then what will Alberta have.
> 
> Let Ontario invest in science, education and new energy forms.


Actually we *are* investing in "science, education and new energy forms" here in Alberta.

Much of the technology used to extract the oil out of the tar sands is home grown, and some rather large wind farms have popped up over the last few years. The "C-train", which is the Calgary light rail transit system, claims to be entirely wind powered, and Chinook mall (the largest mall in Calgary) claims to be partly wind powered. Of course, the electricity from the wind farms just goes into the grid and there is no way of telling where the electrons go, but the point is the wind farms generate a significant amount of power here.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Indeed.. hmm didn't Klien have a plan to go 100% wind power by some point?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Sun Dog said:


> Indeed.. hmm didn't Klien have a plan to go 100% wind power by some point?


when hell freezes over?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I thought that was 100% Klein anyway..........oh... you mean for an energy source


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> Indeed.. hmm didn't Klien have a plan to go 100% wind power by some point?


Not that I recall, and 100% wind power wouldn't be practical at this point anyway -- for example, how do you store energy for when the wind is not blowing? 

Unless, of course, you mean that Klein himself was going to be 100% powered by hot air -- which is of course possible for Klein, as it is for all politicians!

Still, environmental initiatives have at least *some* support in Alberta.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> why not just let the U.S. buy Alberta
> most Albertans would probably be happier as U.S. citizens...


Where do you get this nonsense?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey's being sarcastic tho many observers compare Texan and Albertan outlooks as similar in nature. *The Axis of Oil*


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Not that I recall, and 100% wind power wouldn't be practical at this point anyway -- for example, how do you store energy for when the wind is not blowing?
> 
> Unless, of course, you mean that Klein himself was going to be 100% powered by hot air -- which is of course possible for Klein, as it is for all politicians!
> 
> Still, environmental initiatives have at least *some* support in Alberta.


I guess cleaning all that nasty tar out of the sand is something of an environmental project!

As for storing energy, that is really not a problem, it's what our hydroelectric and other utilities do for a living.

Plus, there are always "batteries."

Wind power becomes suprisingly cheap and reliable on relatively small investments (relative to hydro and nuclear initiatives), and endlessly renewable.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Wind power becomes suprisingly cheap and reliable on relatively small investments (relative to hydro and nuclear initiatives), and endlessly renewable.


exactly

if only 1/100th of the money being spent on male pattern baldness or PED was spent on electricity generation from wind/solar, i dare say i would be able to buy a wind/solar powered system for my home for less than $5,000 and maybe some tax credits from the gov't


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> As for storing energy, that is really not a problem, it's what our hydroelectric and other utilities do for a living.


Are you talking about pump storage here, where you use energy to run a pump to send water up hill to a reservoir when the power is available, then let it run down hill to spin a turbine when it's not?

This is expensive, and not particularly efficient, but probably the only currently available way of storing this sort of energy.


HowEver said:


> Plus, there are always "batteries."


Storing energy from wind and solar is a big problem -- currently available batteries aren't adequate. Could you imagine running an air conditioner of rechargable batteries?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Storing energy from wind and solar is a big problem


i reitareate that if the 1/100th of the monetary resources spent to cure baldness or penile erectile disfunctioin were spent on solar/wind and yes batteries need to be better, we would have a cost effective solution today

hell, let's just take the advertising budget of pizza pops for one year


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i reitareate that if the 1/100th of the monetary resources spent to cure baldness or penile erectile disfunctioin were spent on solar/wind and yes batteries need to be better, we would have a cost effective solution today
> 
> hell, let's just take the advertising budget of pizza pops for one year


I know this is mostly joking, but maybe getting some numbers together would be in order. Energy reserach already gets billions of dollars in research per year around the world. It's not easy. Besides, how would I know about the latest pizza pop flavours if the didn't advertise!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i'm just trying to show how so much money is spent on such stupid things
[insert rant about gun registry here]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Fair enough, but don't kid yourself: an extra billion would bring a brighter energy future closer, but it wouldn't solve it much quicker relative to the current state. Now $50 billion...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You guys are dreaming in technicolour if you think money ISN'T being spent.

Ballard for one.

Batteries are a real problem in recycling and hazardous waste and while there are good small scale systems for individuals there is no large scale industrial level renewable that meets heavy lifting needs at all.

Welcome to your nuclear future and even there that will only partially meet needs as there is no storage system for electricity until a hydrogen infrastructure is built. Scaleable reactors and bus fleets and some truck fleets could be worked into play but the numbers are horrific and the technology very primitive compared to fossil transport and technologies like biomass simply substitute one form of "burning" for another.....no help for the carbon problem

Postulating any solution without a major nuclear component is completely unrealistic as is being acknowledged around the world.
There are good Gen IV nuclear solutions that completely change the energy release structure and can be built beside existing facilities picking up 95% of the energy potential of the fuel, reducing the scale of the existing waste by a similar amount and reducing half life time to 300-500 years.
But it will take 10-20 years to get these rolling and by the change going on we don't have a lot of time to get moving.
Oh yeah it also uses the current weapons grade fuel as well addressing that issue. We HAVE nuclear energy and a nuclear weapons and waste issue, turning it to our advantage and stopping a great deal of carbon loading into the atomosphere is win win all around.



> Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste
> Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated
> By William H. Hannum, Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford
> 
> ...


This SciAm article goes into good detail on the efficiency and how the new reactors fit into the current nuclear power situation.

Over view here of the Gen IV technologies.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm and here http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/gfr.htm


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Iceland is moving aggressively to a fossil fuel free society. They are investing heavily in hydroelectric and geothermal generation and motor vehicles and boats are are to move to hydrogen within a generation.

I understand that, currently, Iceland currently produces more greenhouse gasses per capita than any other country.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Iceland is moving aggressively to a fossil fuel free society. They are investing heavily in hydroelectric and geothermal generation and motor vehicles and boats are are to move to hydrogen within a generation.
> 
> I understand that, currently, Iceland currently produces more greenhouse gasses per capita than any other country.


Iceland has the advantage of huge geothermal resources relative to their uses. Also, I don't think their per capita GHG emissions are very high, relative to Canada.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?Country=CA&IndicatorID=199#row

We are about 2.5 times Iceland...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

My mistake. Apparently what I was thinking about was energy consumption. Icelanders consume 492 GJ per capita compared to 253 GJ per capita for Canada. 

Point is, they have a plan to reduce GHGs to 0. We don't have a plan to reduce them at all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You cannot use Iceland as a reliable gauge as it has been chosen, with its own eager participation, as a test model for hydrogen and alternative energy



> Iceland currently owns more cars per head than almost any other nation on earth, and is the largest per capita producer of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases, due to its huge fishing fleet and metal smelting industry, so the benefits of a switch to hydrogen power will be global. Not only that – Icelanders are hoping that they can serve as a laboratory for the rest of the world.
> “If it comes together in a positive way we can show the rest of the world that it’s possible to have an entire society based on a new kind of energy,” President Olafur Ragnar Grimmson tells Geoff.
> “Energy that doesn’t threaten the life on earth, doesn’t threaten the climate and is friendly to the future of mankind.”
> Of course there are still many hurdles to overcome – at the moment it costs twice to three times as much to produce hydrogen as the equivalent amount of oil, and the buses cost around six times as much to manufacture as their conventional counterparts. The cost of replacing an entire infrastructure based around oil will also be huge. Shell Hydrogen estimates it would take at least $US19 billion to build hydrogen fuel stations in the US. But because Iceland is so small, the cost will be millions rather than billions – making it the ideal location for a grand experiment.





> Meanwhile the recently formed Icelandic New Energy—a consortium that includes automakers, Royal Dutch/Shell and the Icelandic power company Norsk Hydro—is planning to convert the rest of the island nation to a hydrogen system.
> 
> Impressive, yes. But* 72 percent of Iceland’s electricity comes from geothermal and hydroelectric power. With so much readily available clean energy, Iceland can electrolyze water with electricity directly from the national power grid.* This type of setup is impossible in the U.S., where only about 15 percent of grid electricity comes from geothermal and hydroelectric sources, while 71 percent is generated by burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Another issue is the sheer scale of the system. It could take as few as 16 hydrogen fueling stations to enable Icelanders to drive fuel cell cars anywhere in the country. At close to 90 times the size of Iceland, the U.S. would require a minimum of 1,440 fueling stations. This assumes that stations would be strategically placed to collectively cover the entire U.S. with no overlap and that everyone knows where to find the pumps.


http://www.popsci.com/popsci/techno...179aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/2.html

It's an ideal test bed with a variety of transport to fuel but it also point to the need for large scale electrical facilities to produce hydrogen as storage of hydrogen is still difficult.

So its.

Get large scale electricity for hydrogen and replacing fossil fuel fixed pants AND other large scale clean hydrogen source
Develop vehicles to use hydrogen ( Ballard and others )
Develop safe hydrogen storage in and out of vehicles
Scale it up. < Manhattan project or more

France has 70% of electricity provided by nuclear power but that would not even be close to enough to replace the energy to fuel transport or for primary industries.



> assessments of U.S. energy consumption have been broken down into four categories: industry, *which consumes about 35 percent of the total each year; transportation, 27 percent*; residential, 21 percent; and commercial, 17 percent. Significantly energy consumption usually tracks pretty closely with carbon dioxide production because most of the energy consumed is in the form of fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases — primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.


Industry has some saving available in co-generation and other "efficiency" measures but it needs constant heavy lift capacity.

Transport has the issue of storage - there are certain savings to be had, but savings will be outstripped by growth world wide in vehicles.

Residential and commercial certainly can get a 40% savings from conservation, maybe more but again growth say in the GTA alone over the next 30 years would leave us in a zero gain if we got all the housing redone.

The compounding of the problem with a 50% population growth for the planet at the same time as we are hitting the carbon loading problem makes the scale of the problem just astounding.

100 years out with falling populations and a variety of "clean" solutions there might be some net gain on the problem especially if carbon sequestration takes off in a serious way. It's the population/energy demand bottleneck that is so scary and if you take this year's changes.......damn there's some serious changes coming in all too short a time 

The ONLY current large scale, near term alleviation is through nuclear with up 20% perhaps though wind and tide structures.
Combined with aggressive retrofits ( think the Toronto cooling system from Lake Ontario )

But that will likely not even come close to offsetting the increased demand 

This is a serious problem of scale and there are simply no pat answers......

Then there's the "inertia"


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

The world's population estimates and trends have changed. We should see decreasing 'relatively' soon. Many third world states, even China, have fertilitary rates below replacement, and the trend is down, quickly, overall. It will take time for the inertia from the last generation to die down, since so much of the third world is young.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are confusing rates of growth with absolute growth.
The RATES of increase are down....the absolute growth is still rising.
It's likely to be 40 years before absolute numbers start to fall and that's just where the climate gets very gnarly.
Of course a bird flue epidemic could change those numbers remarkably....Mother Nature bats last..... 

The projections are all still in the 9 billion range before it turns downward and of course you have a couple of billion in there that are moving toward first world energy consumption even if the population was stable at 6 billion now.
It's the latter that is so hard to deal with as even in first world the rate of energy consumption is rising.

http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?xml=idb&xsl=idb2

The scale of the problem, even the scale of the change in the Atlantic circulation is just staggering - talk about a slow motion but unstoppable train wreck


----------

