Discussion:
STILL no regulations for oil industry, Mr Harper?
(too old to reply)
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 02:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
December 9, 2014 - Macleans


Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy

The prime minister explains crazy policy to us


Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:

“Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,” Harper told the
House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
“In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.”

Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:

“For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
energy superpower,’ think again,” he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
resources.”

Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.”) But, as
Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.

Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
premier of Alberta:

“Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
industry, because we need to remain competitive.”

But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:

“We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
will go down neither road alone.”

So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:

An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
“significant” limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.

“For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
in Canada,” states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
Information request.

Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
regulations.

In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
dialogue” that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
industries anywhere in its 10 pages.

So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,” of course, I
mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.”)

One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
The Doctor
2014-12-10 13:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>
>
>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>
>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>
>
>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>
> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,” Harper told the
>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.”
>
>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>
> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>energy superpower,’ think again,” he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>resources.”
>
>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.”) But, as
>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>
>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>premier of Alberta:
>
> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>industry, because we need to remain competitive.”
>
>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>
> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>will go down neither road alone.”
>
>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>
> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>“significant” limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>
> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>in Canada,” states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>Information request.
>
>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>regulations.
>
>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>dialogue” that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>
>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,” of course, I
>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.”)
>
>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.

Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2014 and Happy New Year 2015
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-10 14:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Doctor" wrote in message news:m69iii$rhl$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...

> In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>, =?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?=
> <***@nyet.ca> wrote:

<Snip!>

> Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!

No, Karen's way beyond short-sighted:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1518/

http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1517/index.html

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-7/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8.5/index.html

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-7.5/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-7.8/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-8/
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 21:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2014 6:06 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:m69iii$rhl$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>
>> In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>, =?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?=
>> <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>
> <Snip!>
>
>> Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>
> No, Karen's way beyond short-sighted:

What the hell do any of the following links from you have to do with the fact
that NO REGULATIONS have been applied to the tarsands companies?

You'd take any law or regulation from the Harper government's sites and confuse
them with what is happening in the real world, wouldn't you, dummy?
Or should I say RIGHTwing dummy?


>
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1518/
>
> http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1517/index.html
>
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-7/
>
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8.5/index.html
>
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-7.5/
>
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-7.8/
>
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-8/
>
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 22:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-10 21:15:48 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> On 12/10/2014 6:06 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:m69iii$rhl$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>
>>> In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>, =?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?=
>>> <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>
>> <Snip!>
>>
>>> Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>
>> No, Karen's way beyond short-sighted:
>
> What the hell do any of the following links from you have to do with
> the fact that NO REGULATIONS have been applied to the tarsands
> companies?

What? You think that no regulations of any kind have been applied; that
they can just do whatever they please?

Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?

>
> You'd take any law or regulation from the Harper government's sites and
> confuse them with what is happening in the real world, wouldn't you,
> dummy?
> Or should I say RIGHTwing dummy?
>
>
>>
>> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1518/
>>
>> http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1517/index.html
>>
>> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-7/
>>
>> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8.5/index.html
>>
>> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-7.5/
>>
>> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-7.8/
>>
>> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-8/
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-10 22:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:m6ahph$6qg$***@news.datemas.de...

> On 2014-12-10 21:15:48 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> > What the hell do any of the following links from you have to do with the
> > fact that NO REGULATIONS have been applied to the tarsands companies?
>
> What? You think that no regulations of any kind have been applied; that
> they can just do whatever they please?
>
> Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?

Not even once.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/810.asp
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 22:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>> Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?


On 12/10/2014 2:41 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> Not even once.
>
> http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/810.asp

Still with the links to government laws and regulations, eh, Dumbranski?

Try showing some links that prove the oil industry is actually implementing
those rules and someone from the government is actually watching them do it.

You rightwingers are sooooo stupid. You're FOLLOWERS, not thinkers. If
someone makes up a law or regulation, you think that's all that's needed for it
to be implemented and obeyed.

What is your problem exactly . . . mommy just read you fairy tales and no real
life stories when you were little?
Or are you just too stupid to realize that governments fake competence and
concern to fool the public - at least the rightwing portion of it - while doing
NOTHING to ensure the laws are respected by those who funnel royalties to them?

Now start listing proof that the oil industry is being monitored by government
- and not being allowed to 'self report'.
Over to you, dummies . . . .
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 23:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-10 22:57:37 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

>>>
>>> Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?
>
>
> On 12/10/2014 2:41 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> Not even once.
>>
>> http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/810.asp
>
> Still with the links to government laws and regulations, eh, Dumbranski?

They would be applicable...

>
> Try showing some links that prove the oil industry is actually
> implementing those rules and someone from the government is actually
> watching them do it.

Try showing some links that you are "actually implementing" the rules
and laws you are required to follow....

>
> You rightwingers are sooooo stupid. You're FOLLOWERS, not thinkers.
> If someone makes up a law or regulation, you think that's all that's
> needed for it to be implemented and obeyed.

Try showing that there are any such regulations that are NOT being implemented.

You've already tacitly conceded that the regulations themselves do exist.

>
> What is your problem exactly . . . mommy just read you fairy tales and
> no real life stories when you were little?
> Or are you just too stupid to realize that governments fake competence
> and concern to fool the public - at least the rightwing portion of it -
> while doing NOTHING to ensure the laws are respected by those who
> funnel royalties to them?
>
> Now start listing proof that the oil industry is being monitored by
> government - and not being allowed to 'self report'.
> Over to you, dummies . . . .
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 22:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2014 2:34 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> What? You think that no regulations of any kind have been applied; that they
> can just do whatever they please?
>
> Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?

List the regulations that are implemented for the oil industry, and prove to us
all that you're more than just a pesky fly trying to find shit to cling to.
And make sure you expound on how those regulations are actually implemented -
and followed up by inspections.
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 22:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-10 22:47:12 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> On 12/10/2014 2:34 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> What? You think that no regulations of any kind have been applied; that they
>> can just do whatever they please?
>>
>> Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?
>
> List the regulations that are implemented for the oil industry, and
> prove to us all that you're more than just a pesky fly trying to find
> shit to cling to.
> And make sure you expound on how those regulations are actually
> implemented - and followed up by inspections.


Sorry, but that's a mug's game.

You're the one claiming this industry isn't regulated.

You list the regulations you claim are so badly needed.
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-10 23:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:m6aj22$93f$***@news.datemas.de...

> On 2014-12-10 22:47:12 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> > On 12/10/2014 2:34 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> What? You think that no regulations of any kind have been applied; that
> >> they
> >> can just do whatever they please?
> >>
> >> Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?
> >
> > List the regulations that are implemented for the oil industry, and
> > prove to us all that you're more than just a pesky fly trying to find
> > shit to cling to.
> > And make sure you expound on how those regulations are actually
> > implemented - and followed up by inspections.

> Sorry, but that's a mug's game.

It's Karen's typical response to losing an argument: move the goalposts.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 23:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2014 3:24 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> It's Karen's typical response to losing an argument: move the goalposts.

No 'Karen' here . . . but this poster has you two spinning between posts as
you try to explain the headlines:


Harper calls oil and gas regs ‘crazy economic policy’ in times of cheap oil

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has definitively slammed the door on regulating
Canada’s oil and gas sector, calling it a “crazy, crazy” economic policy under
current global oil prices.
Alan Baker
2014-12-11 00:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-10 23:54:21 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> On 12/10/2014 3:24 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> It's Karen's typical response to losing an argument: move the goalposts.
>
> No 'Karen' here . . . but this poster has you two spinning between
> posts as you try to explain the headlines:

You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?

>
>
> Harper calls oil and gas regs ‘crazy economic policy’ in times of cheap oil
>
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has definitively slammed the door on
> regulating Canada’s oil and gas sector, calling it a “crazy, crazy”
> economic policy under current global oil prices.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-11 21:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2014 4:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?

Never was. Never will be.
You back to claiming you're smarter than me on who I am?
Alan Baker
2014-12-11 23:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-11 21:27:40 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> On 12/10/2014 4:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?
>
> Never was. Never will be.

Incomplete sentences...

> You back to claiming you're smarter than me on who I am?
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-12 00:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/11/2014 3:46 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2014-12-11 21:27:40 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:
>
>> On 12/10/2014 4:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?
>>
>> Never was. Never will be.
>
> Incomplete sentences...


Butter my ass . . . and call it a biscuit . . .
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-12 00:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:m6dabu$q7h$***@news.datemas.de...

> On 2014-12-11 21:27:40 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:
>
> > On 12/10/2014 4:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?
> >
> > Never was. Never will be.

Except when she was using FreeNets:

Karen Gordon <***@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA>
Karen Gordon <***@torfree.net>
Karen Gordon <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-12 00:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/11/2014 4:20 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "Alan Baker" wrote in message news:m6dabu$q7h$***@news.datemas.de...
>
>> On 2014-12-11 21:27:40 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:
>>
>> > On 12/10/2014 4:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?
>> >
>> > Never was. Never will be.
>
> Except when she was using FreeNets:
>
> Karen Gordon <***@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA>
> Karen Gordon <***@torfree.net>
> Karen Gordon <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>

Never been Karen Gordon. Never will be.
Dig all you like. You're the one in the hole.
Alan Baker
2014-12-12 00:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-12 00:53:04 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> On 12/11/2014 4:20 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> "Alan Baker" wrote in message news:m6dabu$q7h$***@news.datemas.de...
>>
>>> On 2014-12-11 21:27:40 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:
>>>
>>>> On 12/10/2014 4:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?
>>>>
>>>> Never was. Never will be.
>>
>> Except when she was using FreeNets:
>>
>> Karen Gordon <***@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA>
>> Karen Gordon <***@torfree.net>
>> Karen Gordon <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
>
> Never been Karen Gordon. Never will be.

Are you denying posting under those addresses?

> Dig all you like. You're the one in the hole.
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-12 10:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:27:40 -0800, "(?_?) " <***@nyet.ca> wrote:

>
>
>On 12/10/2014 4:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> You're back to claiming you're not Karen Gordon?
>
>Never was. Never will be.
>You back to claiming you're smarter than me on who I am?

Most people are smarter than you about everything.
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-11 09:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:24:13 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield" <***@present.com>
wrote:

>"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:m6aj22$93f$***@news.datemas.de...
>
>> On 2014-12-10 22:47:12 +0000, (?_?) said:
>
>> > On 12/10/2014 2:34 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> What? You think that no regulations of any kind have been applied; that
>> >> they
>> >> can just do whatever they please?
>> >>
>> >> Seriously? You want to even pretend for a moment you're rational?
>> >
>> > List the regulations that are implemented for the oil industry, and
>> > prove to us all that you're more than just a pesky fly trying to find
>> > shit to cling to.
>> > And make sure you expound on how those regulations are actually
>> > implemented - and followed up by inspections.
>
>> Sorry, but that's a mug's game.
>
>It's Karen's typical response to losing an argument: move the goalposts.

I find it surprising that you guys are even arguing the point with
this delusional idiot. She is what she is and believes what she
believes and no intelligent argument will make a damn bit of
difference. Taking any shot at this clown has to be for entertainment
purposes only. Rationality is not applicable to any of her points.
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 23:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2014 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> Sorry, but that's a mug's game.

I was addressing the challenge to a mug. . . .

> You're the one claiming this industry isn't regulated.

You're the one who's claiming it is.

> You list the regulations you claim are so badly needed.

No I don't. I'm saying that Harper won't implement them. Here it is again,
mug . . . .
Tell us all what part you don't seem to understand.
_______________________________
— CP — Dec 9 2014

Harper calls oil and gas regs ‘crazy economic policy’ in times of cheap oil

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has definitively slammed the door on regulating
Canada’s oil and gas sector, calling it a “crazy, crazy” economic policy under
current global oil prices.

His comments in the House of Commons come as international talks are underway
in Lima, Peru, in an effort to reach a new post-2020 global agreement on
curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Harper was emphatic that Canada will not move unilaterally to curb fast-rising
emissions from Alberta’s oilsands.
Alan Baker
2014-12-11 00:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-10 23:49:48 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> On 12/10/2014 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Sorry, but that's a mug's game.
>
> I was addressing the challenge to a mug. . . .
>
>> You're the one claiming this industry isn't regulated.
>
> You're the one who's claiming it is.

Actually, it was someone else who presented the existence of the regulations.

>
>> You list the regulations you claim are so badly needed.
>
> No I don't. I'm saying that Harper won't implement them. Here it is
> again, mug . . . .
> Tell us all what part you don't seem to understand.
> _______________________________
> — CP — Dec 9 2014
>
> Harper calls oil and gas regs ‘crazy economic policy’ in times of cheap oil
>
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has definitively slammed the door on
> regulating Canada’s oil and gas sector, calling it a “crazy, crazy”
> economic policy under current global oil prices.
>
> His comments in the House of Commons come as international talks are
> underway in Lima, Peru, in an effort to reach a new post-2020 global
> agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Harper was emphatic that Canada will not move unilaterally to curb
> fast-rising emissions from Alberta’s oilsands.

That sounds like comments about a specific KIND of regulation.

And in specific, it was a comment about "unilateral penalties".
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-10 14:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:

>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>
>>
>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>
>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>
>>
>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>
>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>
>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>
>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>resources.�
>>
>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>
>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>premier of Alberta:
>>
>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>
>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>
>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>
>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>
>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>
>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>Information request.
>>
>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>regulations.
>>
>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>
>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>
>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>
>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!

It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
liberals.
The Doctor
2014-12-10 17:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>(The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>
>>>
>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>
>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>
>>>
>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>
>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>
>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>
>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>resources.�
>>>
>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>
>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>
>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>
>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>
>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>
>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>
>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>
>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>Information request.
>>>
>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>regulations.
>>>
>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>
>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>
>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>
>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>
>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>liberals.
>

Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2014 and Happy New Year 2015
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 21:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>> It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>> which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>> piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>> clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>> liberals.

On 12/10/2014 9:26 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!

They have to hang onto something, doctor . . . . they're mired in the polls at
around 30% and their support base hasn't grown in over 4 years.
That causes them to start the finger pointing at the Liberals and the NDP - to
deflect from their own incompetent government.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/67/8d/51/678d516001a36e2e89e9d42267db62b4.jpg
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-10 21:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>
>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>
>>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>>
>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>
>>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>resources.�
>>>>
>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>
>>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>>
>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>
>>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>>
>>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>
>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>
>>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>Information request.
>>>>
>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>regulations.
>>>>
>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>
>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>>
>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>
>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>
>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>liberals.
>>
>
>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!


Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
approach of not facing the issue posted.
The Doctor
2014-12-10 23:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>(The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>
>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>
>>>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>
>>>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>resources.�
>>>>>
>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>
>>>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>>>
>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>
>>>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>>>
>>>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>
>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>
>>>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>
>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>
>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>>>
>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>
>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>liberals.
>>>
>>
>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>
>
>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>

Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2014 and Happy New Year 2015
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-11 09:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>resources.�
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>
>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>liberals.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>
>>
>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>
>
>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.

The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
The Doctor
2014-12-11 13:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>(The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>>>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>>resources.�
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>>>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>>>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>>
>>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>>liberals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>>
>>>
>>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>>
>>
>>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
>
>The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
>

You are a nitwit Barry.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2014 and Happy New Year 2015
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-11 18:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>>>>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>>>resources.�
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>>>>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>>>>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>>>liberals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
>>
>>The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>>mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>>guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>>spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
>>
>
>You are a nitwit Barry.

Well, the sentence was OK and no spelling mistakes. Keep up the good
work.
The Doctor
2014-12-11 21:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>(The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>>>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>>>>>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>>>>resources.�
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>>>>>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>>>>>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>>>>liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>>>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
>>>
>>>The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>>>mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>>>guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>>>spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
>>>
>>
>>You are a nitwit Barry.
>
>Well, the sentence was OK and no spelling mistakes. Keep up the good
>work.
>

Thank you. Still get rid of the rose colur glasses!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2014 and Happy New Year 2015
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-12 10:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:20:29 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,â€? Harper told the
>>>>>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>>>>>> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d
>>>>>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.�
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean
>>>>>>>>>>energy superpower,’ think again,â€? he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>resources.�
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and
>>>>>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.�) But, as
>>>>>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic
>>>>>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.�
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we
>>>>>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.�
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>>>>>“significantâ€? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>>>>>in Canada,� states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>>>>>dialogue� that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By “helpful,â€? of course, I
>>>>>>>>>>mean “action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.�)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government’s argument was
>>>>>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s
>>>>>>>>>>too high. When it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>>>>>liberals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>>>>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
>>>>
>>>>The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>>>>mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>>>>guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>>>>spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are a nitwit Barry.
>>
>>Well, the sentence was OK and no spelling mistakes. Keep up the good
>>work.
>>
>
>Thank you. Still get rid of the rose colur glasses!!

Beats the hell out of the Blinders you seem to prefer.
The Doctor
2014-12-12 16:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-12, Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:20:29 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
> (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ???Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We???re clearly not going to do that,??? Harper told the
>>>>>>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>>>>>>> ???In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I???d
>>>>>>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.???
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ???For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ???clean
>>>>>>>>>>>energy superpower,??? think again,??? he warned darkly. ???We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>>resources.???
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: ???We are now well into, and
>>>>>>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.???) But, as
>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government???s periodic
>>>>>>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ???Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.???
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ???We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road???cap and trade or regulation???but we
>>>>>>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.???
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government???s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>>>>>>???significant??? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ???For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>>>>>>in Canada,??? states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the ???U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>>>>>>dialogue??? that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By ???helpful,??? of course, I
>>>>>>>>>>>mean ???action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.???)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government???s argument was
>>>>>>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it???s
>>>>>>>>>>>too high. When it???s low, it???s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>>>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>>>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>>>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>>>>>>liberals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>>>>>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>>>>>mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>>>>>guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>>>>>spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are a nitwit Barry.
>>>
>>>Well, the sentence was OK and no spelling mistakes. Keep up the good
>>>work.
>>>
>>
>>Thank you. Still get rid of the rose colur glasses!!
>
> Beats the hell out of the Blinders you seem to prefer.
>

If you base you budget on commodities, price for the worst case scenario.


--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2014 and Happy New Year 2015
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-12 17:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:22:42 +0000 (UTC), The Doctor
<***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

>On 2014-12-12, Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:20:29 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>> (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ???Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We???re clearly not going to do that,??? Harper told the
>>>>>>>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ???In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I???d
>>>>>>>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ???For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ???clean
>>>>>>>>>>>>energy superpower,??? think again,??? he warned darkly. ???We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>>>resources.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: ???We are now well into, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.???) But, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government???s periodic
>>>>>>>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ???Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ???We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road???cap and trade or regulation???but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government???s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>>>>>>>???significant??? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ???For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>>>>>>>in Canada,??? states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the ???U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>dialogue??? that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By ???helpful,??? of course, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>mean ???action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.???)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government???s argument was
>>>>>>>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it???s
>>>>>>>>>>>>too high. When it???s low, it???s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>>>>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>>>>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>>>>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>>>>>>>liberals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>>>>>>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>>>>>>mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>>>>>>guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>>>>>>spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are a nitwit Barry.
>>>>
>>>>Well, the sentence was OK and no spelling mistakes. Keep up the good
>>>>work.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you. Still get rid of the rose colur glasses!!
>>
>> Beats the hell out of the Blinders you seem to prefer.
>>
>
>If you base you budget on commodities, price for the worst case scenario.


Now you're going to be a pretend economist? Only cowards make budgets
to make themselves look good, a trick of politics that has long worn
thin.
The Doctor
2014-12-12 21:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:22:42 +0000 (UTC), The Doctor
><***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 2014-12-12, Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:20:29 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>> (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:46:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:26:01 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC), ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>>>>>>>>>>>(The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <oYNhw.882507$***@fx23.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>=?UTF-8?B?IijgsqBf4LKgKSAi?= <***@nyet.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>penalties on that sector. We???re clearly not going to do that,??? Harper told the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I???d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ???clean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>energy superpower,??? think again,??? he warned darkly. ???We do and we will. And, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>resources.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: ???We are now well into, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.???) But, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government???s periodic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became
>>>>>>>>>>>>>premier of Alberta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>industry, because we need to remain competitive.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>regulation. Canada can go down either road???cap and trade or regulation???but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>will go down neither road alone.???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So the paper trail on the government???s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>???significant??? limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in Canada,??? states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Information request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to work with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>meeting and at every phone call. There is literally no record of any public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack Obama to work on the joint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations that are now, the PM says, the necessary condition of any Canadian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the ???U.S.-Canada clean energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>dialogue??? that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in 2009 is actually still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a thing. I also note with no surprise at all that the latest joint report,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>barely a month old, does not mention joint regulations on oil and gas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven years, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>periodically insisting they could produce no such regulations without U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-operation. They have also refused to seek such co-operation, while refusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to follow up on helpful U.S. unilateral action. (By ???helpful,??? of course, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean ???action that would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.???)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>big change from the last seven years, when the Harper government???s argument was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that the price of oil was too high for regulations. There is, in the consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>messaging of this government, no time when government action to constrain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>carbon emissions of the oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it???s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>too high. When it???s low, it???s too low. One can assume governments in potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
>>>>>>>>>>>which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
>>>>>>>>>>>piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
>>>>>>>>>>>clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
>>>>>>>>>>>liberals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well what rosy glasses Conservatives!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just another one of your posts that is meaningless and your typical
>>>>>>>>>approach of not facing the issue posted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well Tory tends to highball there budget ending up in the red.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>>>>>>>mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>>>>>>>guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>>>>>>>spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are a nitwit Barry.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, the sentence was OK and no spelling mistakes. Keep up the good
>>>>>work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thank you. Still get rid of the rose colur glasses!!
>>>
>>> Beats the hell out of the Blinders you seem to prefer.
>>>
>>
>>If you base you budget on commodities, price for the worst case scenario.
>
>
>Now you're going to be a pretend economist? Only cowards make budgets
>to make themselves look good, a trick of politics that has long worn
>thin.
>

FYI I got a degree in ecomomics in 1990.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2014 and Happy New Year 2015
Doctor WTF
2014-12-12 23:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-12 2:06 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>>>> Thank you. Still get rid of the rose colur glasses!!
>>>>
>>>> Beats the hell out of the Blinders you seem to prefer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you base you budget on commodities, price for the worst case scenario.
>>
>>
>> Now you're going to be a pretend economist? Only cowards make budgets
>> to make themselves look good, a trick of politics that has long worn
>> thin.
>>
>
> FYI I got a degree in ecomomics in 1990.
>

Big fucking deal binky, you can't even spell "ecomomics" moron, you
"degree" isn't worth the paper it was printed on

Truly a fucking moron

--
Dr. WTF


--
Dr. WTF
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-13 00:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/12/2014 3:44 PM, Doctor WTF wrote:
> Big fucking deal binky, you can't even spell "ecomomics" moron, you "degree"
> isn't worth the paper it was printed on
>
> Truly a fucking moron

Uh, oh. . . "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> aka "PV" <not4utono@
spamzone.org> is back to spit venom.

And the word is YOUR degree, not 'you' degree.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/eb/cf/aeebcfc113bd446e0a8f46aa9c9593c5.jpg
Doctor WTF
2014-12-13 02:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-12 5:11 PM, "(ಠ_ಠ) " wrote:
>
>
> On 12/12/2014 3:44 PM, Doctor WTF wrote:
>> Big fucking deal binky, you can't even spell "ecomomics" moron, you
>> "degree"
>> isn't worth the paper it was printed on
>>
>> Truly a fucking moron
>
> Uh, oh. . . "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> aka "PV" <not4utono@
> spamzone.org> is back to spit venom.
>
> And the word is YOUR degree, not 'you' degree.
>
> http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/eb/cf/aeebcfc113bd446e0a8f46aa9c9593c5.jpg
>
>

Who?

Read headers much?

Didn't think so

No wonder binky wants to kiss your ass, you are both a couple of morons

--
Dr. WTF
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-13 22:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>> Uh, oh. . . "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> aka "PV" <not4utono@ >> spamzone.org> is back to spit venom.
> > And the word is YOUR degree, not 'you' degree.
>>
>> http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/eb/cf/aeebcfc113bd446e0a8f46aa9c9593c5.jpg


On 12/12/2014 6:30 PM, Doctor WTF aka "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> again:
> Who?
>
> Read headers much?
>
> Didn't think so
>
> No wonder binky wants to kiss your ass, you are both a couple of morons

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/freezing.jpg
Doctor WTF
2014-12-13 23:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-13 3:53 PM, "(ಠ_ಠ) " wrote:
>
>
>>> Uh, oh. . . "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> aka "PV"
>>> <not4utono@ >> spamzone.org> is back to spit venom.
>> > And the word is YOUR degree, not 'you' degree.
>>>
>>> http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/eb/cf/aeebcfc113bd446e0a8f46aa9c9593c5.jpg
>>>
>
>
> On 12/12/2014 6:30 PM, Doctor WTF aka "PV" <edrnouser@ spam
> telus.net> again:
>> Who?
>>
>> Read headers much?
>>
>> Didn't think so
>>
>> No wonder binky wants to kiss your ass, you are both a couple of morons
>
> http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/freezing.jpg

Sorry I don't click on links of idiots, God only knows where the hell it
goes or what kind of filth it contains at the ends

Still think I am "PV"?


--
Dr. WTF
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-11 21:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/11/2014 10:41 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>> The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>>> mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>>> guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>>> spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.

(The Doctor) ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca wrote:
>> You are a nitwit Barry.

Barry Bruyea wrote:
> Well, the sentence was OK and no spelling mistakes. Keep up the good
> work.


Uh . . . Take a look at your previous posting, Bruyea . . . .

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/24/1f/00/241f00e625f1fcf00c843d23d2416bbf.jpg

And then apologize to the 'doctor'.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-11 21:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> Barry Bruyea <***@sanity.com> wrote:
>> The only separation between you and Karen is that you admit to having
>> mental illness problems. She has yet to admit that affliction, so I
>> guess your one up on the idiot except for you sentence structure and
>> spelling; she is ahead of you on that one.


http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/24/1f/00/241f00e625f1fcf00c843d23d2416bbf.jpg
Mudge
2014-12-10 20:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-10 07:37:11 -0700, Barry Bruyea said:

> It's pathetic the way you liberals are worrying about the price of oil
> which Canada has no control while your idiotic liberals in Ontario
> piss away more billions, raise the debt and just stumble along and you
> clowns say nothing. But then, Hypocrisy is mandatory for most
> liberals.

Not mandatory, m'dear Barry - merely the major component of Lieberal DNA !

And, I sent this twice because my newreader doesn't crosspost without
effort - which I seldom make !

--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in +5C Calgary)
Eat Cow, Drill Oil, Rope Calves, Live Free
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 21:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2014 5:41 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> Looks like shortsightedness strikes again!

Don't confuse arrogance and incompetence with shortsightedness, 'doctor'.
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 17:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2014-12-10 02:10:30 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ) said:

> December 9, 2014 - Macleans
>
>
> Harper and the oil patch: Honesty is the only policy
>
> The prime minister explains crazy policy to us
>
>
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper, today in the House of Commons:
>
> “Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the
> oil and gas sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic
> policy to do unilateral penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not
> going to do that,” Harper told the House as Conservative MPs roared
> their approval.
> “In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas
> sector. I’d be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with
> them.”
>
> Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five
> years ago:
>
> “For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks
> either the willingness or the authority to protect our national
> interests as a ‘clean energy superpower,’ think again,” he warned
> darkly. “We do and we will. And, in our efforts, we will expect and
> we will secure the co-operation of those private interests which are
> developing the oil sands. Consider it a responsibility that accompanies
> the right to develop these valuable Canadian resources.”
>
> Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would
> impose regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government
> certainly said it would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013:
> “We are now well into, and very close to finalizing, regulations for
> the oil and gas sector.”) But, as Chris Turner reminds us in his book
> The War on Science, Prentice quit as environment minister in November
> 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic attempts to demonstrate
> environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to the resource
> sector, pretty much came to an end.
>
> Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas
> regulations ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper
> since he became premier of Alberta:
>
> “Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our
> industrial competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is
> a reminder . . . that we have to be careful laying on costs, including
> regulatory costs, on our industry, because we need to remain
> competitive.”
>
> But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
>
> “We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States
> signals that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization
> applies equally to regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and
> trade or regulation—but we will go down neither road alone.”
>
> So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of
> a mess. The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the
> Americans? Well, there are two problems with that story. First, as
> Bruce Cheadle points out:
>
> An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the
> Globe and Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were
> called “significant” limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
>
> “For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected
> to result in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits,
> comparable to the reductions that would result from the approach being
> developed for this sector in Canada,” states the June 2013 memo
> obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to Information request.
>
> Second, there is simply no record of a concerted Canadian effort to
> work with the Americans on joint regulations. Foreign Affairs Minister
> John Baird mentions the Keystone pipeline to U.S. Secretary of State
> John Kerry in every meeting and at every phone call. There is literally
> no record of any public proposal from Harper to U.S. President Barack
> Obama to work on the joint regulations that are now, the PM says, the
> necessary condition of any Canadian regulations.
>
> In this light, I note with genuine surprise that the “U.S.-Canada
> clean energy dialogue” that was created when Obama visited Ottawa in
> 2009 is actually still a thing. I also note with no surprise at all
> that the latest joint report, barely a month old, does not mention
> joint regulations on oil and gas industries anywhere in its 10 pages.
>
> So. The feds have been promising oil and gas regulations for seven
> years, while periodically insisting they could produce no such
> regulations without U.S. co-operation. They have also refused to seek
> such co-operation, while refusing to follow up on helpful U.S.
> unilateral action. (By “helpful,” of course, I mean “action that
> would seem helpful if anyone felt like constraining the carbon
> emissions of the oil and gas sector. Like, hypothetically.”)
>
> One more thing. If the price of oil is too low for regulations, this
> would be a big change from the last seven years, when the Harper
> government’s argument was that the price of oil was too high for
> regulations. There is, in the consistent messaging of this government,
> no time when government action to constrain the carbon emissions of the
> oil sands is appropriate. When the price is high, it’s too high. When
> it’s low, it’s too low. One can assume governments in potential
> export markets have noted this message, and will act accordingly.

What you don't get is that regulating the supply of something that
humans want has NEVER worked.
Loading...