HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #13121  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 5:26 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Dallas County went 60% Democratic in 2016.
I think the biggest city that voted Republican with a majority last year was actually Fort Worth. Anything bigger was blue, even in red states.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13122  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 5:28 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Depending on how much suburban fringe you include, but if you talk about just the city proper, I can essentially guarantee that they'd rather have someone like Trudeau than Trump.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13123  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 5:43 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
late to the game and extra local taxes (when compared to the AUS and USA)

Okay, so there is your mistake - you are assuming that external costs have been internalized and reflected in the product pricing. Qatar, the largest LNG exporter in the world, has a GHG emission per capitia nearly 3 times that of Canada.
So you're saying that Canada emits 5x more GHG than Qatar...

Per capita emissions aren't really useful here - what matters is emissions per cubic ft of NG. (I'm not saying they're good for Qatar and bad for BC's NG, I'm just saying I don't have these numbers.)

Per capita is a silly metric - it tells us that if only the Qataris would make a ton more babies while continuing to produce the same volume of NG as before the exact same (polluting) way, they'd "be a lot greener". Nonsense.


Quote:
As for Australia, its GHG numbers are nearly 30% higher than Canada
That's again generic numbers, right? Not specific to how Aussies extract their NG?


Quote:
Anyway, short story long, since BC gas tries to include many of the real costs (extract+environmental) into their product - unlike the competitors - it kinda supports Hackslack's original assertion that BC gas is more environmentally friendly.
Kind of, but it doesn't automatically confirm BC's gas would be cheaper without carbon taxes and whatever royalties are taken on it.

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to waiving taxes in order to displace more polluting NG internationally... if we had the numbers.

BTW, I recall we had that conversation (with odog, IIRC, just under a different name back then) and it ended up with you guys having to concede that Middle Eastern conventional oil is greener than Alberta's. I mean, they're both dirty, but the overall enviro footprint for the latter can't ever hope to match what can be achieved by the former. So I'm not ready to just accept that our products are, somehow, always automatically cleaner because "we're Canada, we're nice!" or something along those lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13124  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 8:55 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
I think the biggest city that voted Republican with a majority last year was actually Fort Worth. Anything bigger was blue, even in red states.
According to this it was Oklahoma City, OK. Clinton narrowly won Fort Worth, TX.

Link: https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dive...-donald-trump/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13125  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 2:32 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by odog View Post
Making slanderous statements means to make false statements, which I have not done. The statements I made about Quebec were in response to people like you discussing Quebec’s recent positive economic numbers. I argued that since Quebec has benefitted greatly from wealth transfers (equalization), protection of key industries (dairy), and bailouts for certain perennial money losing corporations (Bombardier) that the recent economic news from Quebec should be taken with a grain of salt. How are these statement slanderous? Also, in response to a post stating Quebec may emerge as an economic dynamo “post oil” I responded that this may be a stretch due to the reliance Quebec has become used to, with an example of rioting students destroying public property due to proposed increases to very low tuition rates. How is this slanderous?

In response you have called me “dumb”, “shit, full of” and told me to f*ck off. Also, you say I should be banned.

You have very thin skin MolsonExport – I expected more from a leading proponent of such a dynamic and economically powerful place like Quebec.
Slanderous means more than that, Mr. 15/21:
Synonyms: defamatory, denigratory, disparaging, libelous, pejorative, false, misrepresentative, scurrilous, scandalous, malicious, abusive, insulting; informal mudslinging

You have denigrated an entire province and its people repeatedly.

We clearly can't teach an old dog new shtick.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13126  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 2:47 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
you go on ahead
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Parkdale, Toronto
Posts: 7,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by odog View Post
If the USA had Trudeau as the President, and he bailed out money losing fatcats like Bombardier, raised taxes, ballooned the debt way more then he promised, allowed america's competitors to undermine them with billion dollar energy projects, and flounced around the globe taking selfies, I'm sure he would not be very popular.

Virtually every major aerospace company in the world receives some form of government subsidy, and this is no different in the US. Boeing and Lockheed Martin would likely cease to exist if it weren't for Federal contracts and support through other means. The regulation in this field (largely safety related) ensures this is a current reality. If we want to have a home-grown aerospace industry in Canada, and all of the spin-off employment this entails then supporting our premier company is more or less the cost of doing business. Whether or not we need to retain this industry is another argument, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13127  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 3:01 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
Haha! Now I'm not gonna slander the people of QC, but I will definitely highlight the economic drain the province has been

Quebec has received close to $200 billion in transfer payments! Which is over 50% of the total transfer payments

Alberta on the other hand has received a total of.... drum roll.... $92 million... ! That is less than 0.05% of the amount of transfer payments QC has received!

Keep up the great economic contributions QC!
A country isn't simply about dollars and cents. Albertans in general seem to have a far worse attitude towards the rest of Canada than is reasonable by any measure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13128  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 3:10 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
A country isn't simply about dollars and cents. Albertans in general seem to have a far worse attitude towards the rest of Canada than is reasonable by any measure.
Even if it is just dollars and cents, equalization is a small part of the overall picture. Quebec may have received $200B but it also paid into the pot from which those funds were drawn, and its annual GDP close to $400B. The sum of all the net equalization payments in history works out to perhaps 5 or 6 months' worth of economic activity in Quebec.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13129  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 4:54 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
Keep up the great economic contributions QC!

mediatenor
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13130  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 6:07 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Even if it is just dollars and cents, equalization is a small part of the overall picture. Quebec may have received $200B but it also paid into the pot from which those funds were drawn, and its annual GDP close to $400B. The sum of all the net equalization payments in history works out to perhaps 5 or 6 months' worth of economic activity in Quebec.
Ironically, after I just pointed out that per capita isn't appropriate when looking at the emissions of a specific industry, I now have to point out that for equalization it's per capita that matters. Quebec is mid-pack in the country; last numbers I checked, MB, NB, PE, NS receive more equalization dollars per resident.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13131  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 6:07 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Anyway, short story long, since BC gas tries to include many of the real costs (extract+environmental) into their product - unlike the competitors - it kinda supports Hackslack's original assertion that BC gas is more environmentally friendly.
My own views on this have evolved over the years. I initially thought it was important for provinces like Alberta to build a "social license" by clamping down on the oil and gas industry to properly account for externalities caused by environmental damage. I somewhat naively thought that by doing such a thing, Alberta's oil and gas would be accepted and even celebrated as a source of pride among even environmentalists, as it would have peerless transparency, accountability, and documented mitigated environmental damage.

But then, decade after decade, as Alberta repeatedly mandated more and more regulations, other provinces simply didn't care. The amount of ignorance of the topic is both astounding and expected. People just don't care enough to understand how Alberta's regulation fit in to the world wide context. People don't have the time or inclination to understand why places like Texas, Oklahoma, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela run rough shod over the environment, while Alberta has some of the world's greatest environmental protections. People don't understand the nuances of importing oil by tanker from places with scorched earth environmental policies like Qatar and Saudi Arabia can be more harmful than accepting oil by pipeline domestically from Alberta.

Alberta can continue to proceed down a path of tighter and tighter regulations, but all it is doing is continually shooting itself in the foot, making it's own product more and more commercially nonviable by drowning it in regulations, and to boot, as long as Alberta environmental regulations are all stricter than it's competitors, it is doing on balance more harm to the environment by pricing it's environmentally conscious product out of contention.

And no one else in Canada will care, no matter how much Alberta does.

At the end of the day, people have a puerile view of the world. Things are black and white. Oil and gas is bad. We should stop domestically producing oil and gas. The Conservative party is the party of evil. The Liberals are the party of good. The conservatives are good for business. The NDP are bad for business. The liberal party is corrupt. Pipelines are bad. Natural gas is bad. Fossil fuels should stop being produced domestically.

People don't think outside of these one dimensional lines, and people generally don't have the time or inclination to educate themselves on nuance.

The only rational way to evaluate oil and gas industries from an environmental perspective is to carve them out based on their production and consider their environmental impact. Reclamation, emissions, pollution, particulate matter, methane, sulphate production, carbon production, operational transparency, spill frequency, disaster response - all these should be objectively considered by a standard body and stack ranked and compared - and all externalities priced appropriately.

Do you think anyone in the general population has the time, inclination, or critical thinking capacity to understand this? Just look at the responses in this thread (which I would say consists largely of people with above average awareness).

So my views have evolved to such that Alberta (and BC) can and should be world leaders in pushing environmental regulations higher. But until other countries and industries step up to the plate and follow suit, going any farther than being world leaders is having a net negative impact on the planet at large by pricing their own products out of the market. If other countries do step up, then BC and Alberta should move the needle again with tighter regulations and push the bar higher, but until that time, continually shooting ourselves in the foot to vainly appease people who genuinely don't care enough to understand the environmental context in the first place is an exercise in futility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13132  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 6:27 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
The only rational way to evaluate oil and gas industries from an environmental perspective is to carve them out based on their production and consider their environmental impact. Reclamation, emissions, pollution, particulate matter, methane, sulphate production, carbon production, operational transparency, spill frequency, disaster response - all these should be objectively considered by a standard body and stack ranked and compared - and all externalities priced appropriately.

Do you think anyone in the general population has the time, inclination, or critical thinking capacity to understand this? Just look at the responses in this thread (which I would say consists largely of people with above average awareness).
Guilty as charged, but that's because I'm not in a position to have to make any decisions on those issues at all. This is a discussion forum, it's a pastime.

It seemed a reasonable guess that if BC's NG was not viable commercially (too costly) it was probably mostly because it's too hard to extract or too remote. Doesn't BC have no qualms about exporting coal to China? Surely it would not decide to kill an industry that would have displaced dirtier NG on the global marketplace...?

Single-handedly turning the cheapest-greenest sources of NG into nonviable operations through legislation isn't going us any good. Pollution doesn't stop at borders.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13133  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 6:30 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Out of curiosity, do you actually think the oilsands operations have the potential to be "a world leader" for emissions-per-barrel? Seems hard to believe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13134  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 7:34 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
lacks gravitas

Trump's bizarre speech to the Boy Scouts was certainly lacking in gravitas. Or maybe geotag got it confused with "grab its ass".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13135  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 7:46 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Heh - one sure can't fault Trump for a lack of 'grab its ass' in his behavior... Nice one there (if you came up with that yourself)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13136  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 7:46 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Guilty as charged, but that's because I'm not in a position to have to make any decisions on those issues at all. This is a discussion forum, it's a pastime.

It seemed a reasonable guess that if BC's NG was not viable commercially (too costly) it was probably mostly because it's too hard to extract or too remote. Doesn't BC have no qualms about exporting coal to China? Surely it would not decide to kill an industry that would have displaced dirtier NG on the global marketplace...?

Single-handedly turning the cheapest-greenest sources of NG into nonviable operations through legislation isn't going us any good. Pollution doesn't stop at borders.
Environmentalists are well known for being extremely hypocritical and selective with their targeting, so it's no surprise that some in BC would be vehemently against a pipeline exporting 'dirty' oilsands oil or exporting comparatively clean LNG, while ignoring already present damaging operations like mining and logging in their own backyard.

I believe though most of the thermal coal BC exports though is sourced from the US (and a little from Alberta), while also exporting mostly metallurgical coal from Canada. So banning thermal coal exports would just mean it being shipped from the US instead.

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geo.../CoalInBC.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13137  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 7:50 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
According to this it was Oklahoma City, OK. Clinton narrowly won Fort Worth, TX.

Link: https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dive...-donald-trump/
I stand corrected - as soon as you said it I recalled that Clinton had won Dallas County while Trump had won Tarrant County, but the municipality of FW isn't coterminous with the county. I'm pretty sure that on that famous 3D "columns" map that circulated, the Ft. Worth column was the tallest single column that had a red hue, hence my mistake. That map, I'm sure now, must have been county-based.

It's all arbitrary, though, because city limits aren't apples to apples. (I feel that I need to add this for the sake of consistency, as I've always been vocal against the use of city limits in any comparison on this forum )
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13138  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 7:56 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Environmentalists are well known for being extremely hypocritical and selective with their targeting, so it's no surprise...
Of course, but normally those people don't actually get to write the regulations. They're always against everything, and aren't paid that much attention by governments, typically.

I'm assuming that if it's truly only regulations that killed the Petronas project, it happened under the BC Liberals... surely those guys weren't controlled by the "loony tree-huggers" element of the greens?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13139  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 8:32 PM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Out of curiosity, do you actually think the oilsands operations have the potential to be "a world leader" for emissions-per-barrel? Seems hard to believe.
Why not? Since money can make water flow up hill, why can't it also make the oil sands be a world leader??

This in situ oilsands steam tech could reduce emissions to nearly zero
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13140  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 8:43 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I believe though most of the thermal coal BC exports though is sourced from the US (and a little from Alberta), while also exporting mostly metallurgical coal from Canada. So banning thermal coal exports would just mean it being shipped from the US instead.
This (thermal coal exports shifting to US ports) isn't true. US thermal coal is exported through Canada because a lot of the proposed coal export terminals aren't going ahead because of protests and lack of permits from local and state governments. As former BC Premier Christy Clark said in a letter to Justin Trudeau:

Quote:
As you may know, over the past five years, every proposed coal export facility on the West Coast of the United States has been rejected or withdrawn, typically as a result of ecological or environmental concerns. . . . Oregon, Washington, and California have all made significant commitments to eliminate the use of coal as a source of electricity for their citizens. In fact, in August 2016, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed Bill 1279 that banned the provision of any state transportation funding for new coal export terminals.
She was raising this point in an ask to get thermal coal exports banned at the federal level as a response to Donald Trump adding a tariff to lumber being imported into the US. Banning thermal coal exports would have been a pretty big move, and given the lack of new coal exports from the US west coast ports, is an awful lot of leverage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:06 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.