Trudeau approved some pipelines!

[Cardboard]

RichardGibbons: "This 2 minute scene--so beautiful in such an unusual way--was enough to persuade me to watch the entire show."

 

RB: "Brilliant scene. I may watch some myself."

 

Disturbing, disgusting would be more the terms that have come to my mind.

 

I have watched the Holocaust as well and seen many documentaries on attrocities committed by humans on other human beings and I could never describe such scene in the way you are even, if this show is fictive. Heck, I can't describe horrors in the Godfather that way either and it is fictive.

 

You are sick!

 

Cardboard

 

 

[DooDiligence]

Anyone who enjoys a show talking about slicing the troat of an innocent child in the name of saving CO2 emission is a deranged individual. Period!

 

It's even worse than that--I also watch Game of Thrones. In that, there's a guy who repeatedly rapes his own barely pubescent daughters & granddaughters and, when they become pregnant by him, sacrifices the newborn boys.  That's got to be an even stronger sign of my derangement, I think.

 

(That said, I'm not a fan of anything in the last few seasons related to Theon/Reek. That storyline zoomed right past the point of thought-provoking entertainment to stop squarely in the middle of pornographic sadism, I think.  Joffrey was about as far as they needed to take that kind of character. They didn't need Joffrey-squared in vivid high-definition.)

 

Provocative entertainment often mirrors real life & goes to excess when it runs out of ideas (just like our cardboard tiger...)

[DooDiligence]

RichardGibbons: "This 2 minute scene--so beautiful in such an unusual way--was enough to persuade me to watch the entire show."

 

RB: "Brilliant scene. I may watch some myself."

 

Disturbing, disgusting would be more the terms that have come to my mind.

 

I have watched the Holocaust as well and seen many documentaries on attrocities committed by humans on other human beings and I could never describe such scene in the way you are even, if this show is fictive. Heck, I can't describe horrors in the Godfather that way either and it is fictive.

 

You are sick!

 

Cardboard

 

Before you showed up on this thread we were merely discussing things.

 

If you were my child, you'd be pouting in a corner right now (come to think of it you probably are...)

[RichardGibbons]

Disturbing, disgusting would be more the terms that have come to my mind.

 

Yeah, the scene is certainly disturbing, but to me, it does it without being disgusting.  For me, a better adjective is horrifying.  I still find it beautiful.

 

I see it as brilliant for several reasons.  First, it evokes this horror (or disgust in your case), through a simple conversation, not through graphic images or violence.  This isn't The Godfather, or A Game of Thrones. All the heavy lifting on the horror (and disgust) happens in the viewer's head, not on the screen.

 

Second, in a sense, the extreme environmentalist is kind of right, his arguments logical (not in the killing kid bit, but rather the argument that if you truly care about the environment, having a kid is about the worst thing you can do).  You can follow the guy's logic, and it is extremely uncomfortable walking that path.

 

Third, to me, the directing and cinematography is excellent and beautiful.

 

Fourth, it's concise and elegant. They have 2 minutes to tell a story, and, starting from nothing, they're able to elicit an overwhelmingly strong emotional and intellectual reaction in that short time frame.  Every word and every movement contributes to the whole.

 

Fifth, the whipsaw in the viewers impression of the environmentalist is awesome.  You go from this "seems like a fine friendly fellow, caring about the environment and his fellow humans" to "this guy is an complete psycho".  And at the end, you almost wonder whether he's a normal guy, except for this really extreme perspective when it comes to this one issue.

 

Finally, the scene lingers.  It's so simple--just a couple people having a mostly normal conversation in a bus station--but the ideas and visceral reaction lingers in your head for a while.  (Like I saw this 2-minute clip probably six months ago, but was the first thing I thought of when you said "extreme environmentalist".)

 

All that said, I can understand why many people would get nothing out of this scene but disturbance and disgust.  It's a deliberately challenging scene.

 

I have watched the Holocaust as well and seen many documentaries on attrocities committed by humans on other human beings and I could never describe such scene in the way you are even, if this show is fictive. Heck, I can't describe horrors in the Godfather that way either and it is fictive.

 

Well, pretty well every Holocaust movie I've seen didn't have the elegance and thoughtfulness of this scene, though many have the horror.  The only comparable thing I can think from that set of work was

, and even that relied heavily on the weight of what came before.

 

That said, I find the Holocaust atrocious and depressing, and I don't seek out documentaries on atrocities committed by humans on other human beings, so I haven't actually seen that many such films. Therefore, I'm not really qualified to come up with a list of beautiful moments in films about atrocities--I'm inclined to take your word that there's not that much beauty there.

 

[RichardGibbons]

Provocative entertainment often mirrors real life & goes to excess when it runs out of ideas (just like our cardboard tiger...)

 

Good point. And to be fair, I did learn (or perhaps remember) a couple interesting things from the whole Theon thing.  Even if you wish the worst upon a character, when the worst happens, you find out it isn't at all what you want.  And, a character might seem completely irredeemable one moment, yet turn completely sympathetic the next.

[DooDiligence]

Provocative entertainment often mirrors real life & goes to excess when it runs out of ideas (just like our cardboard tiger...)

 

Good point. And to be fair, I did learn (or perhaps remember) a couple interesting things from the whole Theon thing.  Even if you wish the worst upon a character, when the worst happens, you find out it isn't at all what you want.  And, a character might seem completely irredeemable one moment, yet turn completely sympathetic the next.

 

Theon got a raw deal (I feel like he never got a chance to be a decent guy.)

 

Joffrey, on the other hand, deserved Theons pain (he had all the opportunities & chose to be a douche...)

[RichardGibbons]

Theon got a raw deal (I feel like he never got a chance to be a decent guy.)

 

I disagree slightly.  Theon had a hard path, but made a the wrong decision out of pride, and that proved his downfall.  Theon was raised by Ned. He had more than a decade to learn what it is to be a good person. He had the chance to throw off his dad's influence and his nation's culture. But Theon's pride, his unwillingness to simply be Rob's trusted advisor, enabled his family to bait him into reverting to Greyjoy norms.

 

That's not to say that cutting yourself off from your birth family, your culture, and your birthright over a point of principle would be easy. Heck, all the Libertarians on this board believe fervently in their beliefs, yet none of them has yet moved to Mogadishu despite it being the closest thing on earth to the Libertarian ideal. I'm merely saying that a choice did exist for Theon, even if it was a nearly impossible choice for him to make.

 

And yeah, Joffrey was a douche.

[DooDiligence]

Theon got a raw deal (I feel like he never got a chance to be a decent guy.)

 

I disagree slightly.  Theon had a hard path, but made a the wrong decision out of pride, and that proved his downfall.  Theon was raised by Ned. He had more than a decade to learn what it is to be a good person. He had the chance to throw off his dad's influence and his nation's culture. But Theon's pride, his unwillingness to simply be Rob's trusted advisor, enabled his family to bait him into reverting to Greyjoy norms.

 

That's not to say that cutting yourself off from your birth family, your culture, and your birthright over a point of principle would be easy. Heck, all the Libertarians on this board believe fervently in their beliefs, yet none of them has yet moved to Mogadishu despite it being the closest thing on earth to the Libertarian ideal. I'm merely saying that a choice did exist for Theon, even if it was a nearly impossible choice for him to make.

 

And yeah, Joffrey was a douche.

 

You're right!

 

I love books & films with these kind of characters.

 

At first I loved Walter & couldn't stand Jessie (Breaking Bad) & then they flipped the script (I'm so easily manipulated...)

[Jurgis]

Winter is coming! ... oh wait.

[Cardboard]

"Before you showed up on this thread we were merely discussing things.

 

If you were my child, you'd be pouting in a corner right now (come to think of it you probably are...)"

 

I started that thread talking about newly approved Canadian pipelines. If you want to quietly discuss shows and movies, start your own thread.

 

Cardboard

[RichardGibbons]

I started that thread talking about newly approved Canadian pipelines. If you want to quietly discuss shows and movies, start your own thread.

 

My fault. You're right. Sorry about that, Cardboard.

[jeffmori7]

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I agree to keep existing pipelines, but I must admit that I find it ridiculous to add any. It is so much capital invested in something that we need to get rid of.

 

At least it is better than the Conservatives who would have approved Northern Gateway also...

 

I once again invite some of you to do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

 

Well that's pretty condescending.

 

I have a very deep science background, but I am also a pragmatist.

 

Tell me Jeff,

Do you have children?

Do you drive any kind of car?

Do you live in more than a one bedroom apartment?

Do you fly?

Do you drink coffee, eat food? 

 

 

In this world we need fossil fuels as we transition, and the need for fossil fuel based products will be with us a long time.  Since Canada is uniquely suited as a provider of fossil fuels without the nasty social baggage of the mid east, and others, I think this is a good thing.  And if you think turning over our energy security to someone else is a good thing then go live in the mideast, Nigeria, or Russia and see what life is like. 

 

And, we are reducing our footprint as we go, and rather rapidly.  Ontario, like it or not has phased out coal power.  The rest of the country is heading that way.  Coal, if you read your science, Jeff, is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases.  Getting rid of this in favour of anything else is a step in the right direction.

 

Oh, and then there is the issue of manufacturing, including steel, solar panels, and Teslas.  It isn't solar that is providing the plastics, or energy, for these products.  I dont know if you looked out the window today but there isn't alot of solar power going around right now, anywhere in Canada, and the Northern US.  What works in southern climates is not necessarily the right thing for Canada, or the norhern US.

 

Al, I'm sorry that it was perceived as condescending. English is not my first language and I can have some difficulties expressing strong ideas with the right tone. But I must admit that I am pretty tired to see some 1st degree analysis looking at really short term benefit on a value investing board where people should be able to think further than their little financial short terms benefit. People here are intelligent and it amazes me to see some weird view about climate change and environmental protection. And I must admit that Carboard doesn't show any tiny bit of understanding what is going on with climate change and it annoys me. When I hear about radical environmentalist and stuff like that, I always find that what is radical is to deny what is happening and keeping our head in the sand. Wanting a better world with less pollution and sustainable way of life dont appear radical to me!

 

I must also admit Al that I really appreciate your contribution here and I do not challenge your background.

 

To answer your question, we have one child, we live in a reasonably-sized townhouse in an urban area where we do shop locally most of the time, walking or biking. We commute by bus, metro and we have a car at home. It is a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid which runs on both electricity and oil. Our electricity at home is provided by nearly 100% percent renewable energy. Yes we use energy, although I am always trying to increase our energy efficiency for our home and transportation, yes we do use some oil, and yes we travel by plane sometimes. I do offset all my transportation carbon footprint because of course, I still use some fossil fuels to live. I am not saying we don't use them and don't need them. They have been incredibly important and useful to humankind to get us where we are and I don't want to contest that. And I'm not saying the transition should be instantaneous. But I am trying to do the most I can to reduce my fossil fuel consumption and to accelerate the transition. The faster we will get out of fossil fuel, the better we will be. I just think that we should put a lot of energy as a specie to fight climate change and reduce our energy usage and transition to a post-fossil fuel world. I can not just accept that the transition will take time, I wish we could try altogether to accelerate it, because we don't have much time. The cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action, so why not put ou effort on this.

 

I totally agree with you that it is not because a solution is good for a country or a region that is good for everyone. And of course we do not fossil fuels for plastic, but that is not the larger problem right now. In Canada, transportation is the largest contributor to our emissions, so I think that reducing our petrol consumption is a no-brainer. And concerning the pipelines, we do use less petroleum as a nation that what is produce already, so we don't need more. I am not asking to close the shop right now, but that is not possible to keep adding more and more production and emitting more and more greenhouse gas while we are also trying all we can to reduce our emissions. We will absolutely miss all the target and I am not really positive about staying under the already dangerous 2 degree Celsius limit. To quote Elon Musk, do we really want to do this big experiment, do we want to take that risk?

 

Finally, concerning Canada and the Trudeau decision, a text in French for those who can read it that I mostly agree it and that summarize my thinking on this matter: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1003083/trudeau-pipelines-extraction-avant-environnement-fillion

 

 

And you know Al, and everyone, I would rather see Canadiens putting some effort to reduce the demand instead of cutting the supply. A consequent carbon tax, real objectives like really increasing the mass transportation and active transport share, a fast switch to EVs lie in Norway where the market share is over 30%, getting rid of coal like Ontario is doing, etc. If we were really showing leadership, I could be less critical of this Trudeau decision. But still I think that we a limited amount of capital, we should put our money elsewhere than in pipelines that will be there for 50 years when we have to be out of oil at this time.

 

Hi Jeff, I get you now.  English is my first language, and I have trouble expressing things without being a pr*ck sometimes.

 

I dont disagree with most of what you have said.  In fact in principle I disagree with the pipe to the coast.  I am okay with US Canada internal pipe to secure our energy futures while we transition.  Not only do I disagree with a pipe to the west coast, but I think it is a terrible business decision.  It will take years to get permitted, and built, and we, or whoever finances it, is taking a huge risk of ending up with a stranded asset.  Its going to get caught up in court anyway, just like Keystone will get caught up in Nebraska. 

 

Alberta has just pushed forward the mothballing of coal fired power plants and is going to be paying the companies to not produce.  How stupid is that?  We certainly dont want to end up on the hook to pay a Kinder Morgan for decades not to move oil. 

 

In my opinion Mr. Trudeau is sort of middling as a leader but that is what you get with dynastic politics.  Essentially, cabinet approved this as a vote getting measure in Alberta.  They can say they tried to get it done, but then not actively facilitate it.  And frankly, Alberta knows they have to reduce reliance on fossil fuels to mitigate this boom and bust cycle.

 

However, I have no problem owning stock in fossil fuel companies.  It is a product we still need, and use in multiple ways.  I also hold stock in two companies that are actively involved in renewables.  I am quite happy to part with my oil stocks when the writing is on the wall.  Chances are the companies will have transitioned in the meantime to energy companies. 

 

And finally, my families footprint is huge, relative to yours.  Would I like to reduce it?  Absolutely, but it is easier said then done.  Having an electric car would help but were not quite there yet.  Heating is problematic.  Any alternative to nat. gas is very expensive.  Flying is another problem, entirely.  The near future is not showing me a lightweight way to power planes. 

 

I think getting the world off coal for power production is a biggie.  And I mean everyone.  The world is heading that way anyway, but it could be accelerated.  I wouldnt buy stock in a coal company these days regardless of the idiot PEs intentions. 

 

Nuff said, for now. 

 

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks for this great answer Al. I agree about the way you say it, there is a huge risk of ending up with a stranded asset. Well said. What I don't like is that there are too many individuals still which don't get all of this. Governments know this, but they don't know how to act, they want to please everybody and they are most of the times lacking courage.

 

About your footprint, I think you live in Ontario, right? In this case, your footprint is already going down with the coal that has been phased out! And you now have great incentives for EVs. But your electricity is really more costly than here in Quebec and you pay your gas a little bit cheaper so it will take more time to make sense financially. Concerning heating, here we use clean electricity also while you are using nat gas. But adding insulation and caulking to reduce air leaks can offer really good return. The easiest is to insulate your attic. Look at this!

 

Concerning investment, while I won't invest directly into oil and gas stocks, I still have some exposure through GM shares and warrants and ATD.B, a big oil retailer. But I don't like natural ressources and I am not confortable being invested directly in oil and gas.

 

Oh and finally, Cardboard, I just want to say that I think you are a good investor and an intelligent guy, nothing against you personnaly. It just really annoys me that a guy like cannot even admit that climate change is a threat and that risk has to be considered. I don't want to take that risk, and I would like you to open your mind about this instead of rejecting your responsability about future generations. We can live with really good standard of living without putting all our eggs in the oil and gas basket, no?

 

And about Game of Thrones, that wasn't the topic at all, but those books are a very good analogy with climate change. Everybody is fighting and not paying attention to the real danger, north of the wall, even if there are many warning signs. Food for thought!

[Cardboard]

Canada is the 5th or 6th producer worldwide alternating with Iran at almost 4 million barrels/day vs a global production of 97 million barrels/day.

 

So that is only 4.1% of global production from one of the countries that has some of the toughest regulations on oil extraction: no flaring of natural gas, tough spill laws and cleanup procedures, regulation around decommissioning liabilities so that the private is fully responsible to absorb that cost (no stranded asset here), etc. I think that makes it one of the key places in the world where you want your oil to come from.

 

And since we already produce more than we consume, I think it is totally fair for the country to look for markets where people will pay a reasonable, international price for it. Hence it is a very smart decision to expand shipping capacity to the Pacific where oil is scarce and in demand instead of shipping everything to the U.S. where they do not pay us for what it is worth. This should also reduce the need to ship by train which is dangerous and irresponsible and these guys do not follow as stringent regulations as pipelines. For example pipelines will refuse oil that has not been treated to remove certain dangerous and explosive chemicals while almost anything was good for tank cars. It is changing but, they are still not there.

 

Regarding global warming, and please let's call it for what it is, the phenomenon is so slow to develop that it is not a good way to entice people to make rapid changes or unlike the ozone layer depletion for example where humanity took rapid action to eliminate CFC's. Unfortunately, it was replaced with HFC's or a molecule that is 1,600 times more active in terms of GHG than CO2... They are now looking for a revised chemical formula which will greatly reduce its atmospheric life and activity.

 

So the right approach should be to reduce pollution and this anyone can understand and see. The Chinese in Beijing didn't need to think about global warming to start reducing their coal usage. Nor British citizens 150 years ago. In turn, this is pushing them hard to use more hydro, nuclear and develop cheaper and more efficient solar panels which will make them competitive with all fossil fuels. So the transition will come. I also believe that solar panels that will produce hydrogen directly (not via electrolysis) are coming too and this will solve the battery problem which is a huge one due to the need for rare metals and recycling.

 

But, to simply put out of work now a lot of our Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. energy workers without any job replacement alternative for global warming is not a fair, nor a responsible strategy. That is why I have profound dislike for well fed environmentalists and Natives leaders who try to block everything but, often get their own money from a permanent government job or subsidies. Where is their morality?

 

Cardboard   

[jeffmori7]

Canada is the 5th or 6th producer worldwide alternating with Iran at almost 4 million barrels/day vs a global production of 97 million barrels/day.

 

So that is only 4.1% of global production from one of the countries that has some of the toughest regulations on oil extraction: no flaring of natural gas, tough spill laws and cleanup procedures, regulation around decommissioning liabilities so that the private is fully responsible to absorb that cost (no stranded asset here), etc. I think that makes it one of the key places in the world where you want your oil to come from.

 

And since we already produce more than we consume, I think it is totally fair for the country to look for markets where people will pay a reasonable, international price for it. Hence it is a very smart decision to expand shipping capacity to the Pacific where oil is scarce and in demand instead of shipping everything to the U.S. where they do not pay us for what it is worth. This should also reduce the need to ship by train which is dangerous and irresponsible and these guys do not follow as stringent regulations as pipelines. For example pipelines will refuse oil that has not been treated to remove certain dangerous and explosive chemicals while almost anything was good for tank cars. It is changing but, they are still not there.

 

Regarding global warming, and please let's call it for what it is, the phenomenon is so slow to develop that it is not a good way to entice people to make rapid changes or unlike the ozone layer depletion for example where humanity took rapid action to eliminate CFC's. Unfortunately, it was replaced with HFC's or a molecule that is 1,600 times more active in terms of GHG than CO2... They are now looking for a revised chemical formula which will greatly reduce its atmospheric life and activity.

 

So the right approach should be to reduce pollution and this anyone can understand and see. The Chinese in Beijing didn't need to think about global warming to start reducing their coal usage. Nor British citizens 150 years ago. In turn, this is pushing them hard to use more hydro, nuclear and develop cheaper and more efficient solar panels which will make them competitive with all fossil fuels. So the transition will come. I also believe that solar panels that will produce hydrogen directly (not via electrolysis) are coming too and this will solve the battery problem which is a huge one due to the need for rare metals and recycling.

 

But, to simply put out of work now a lot of our Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. energy workers without any job replacement alternative for global warming is not a fair, nor a responsible strategy. That is why I have profound dislike for well fed environmentalists and Natives leaders who try to block everything but, often get their own money from a permanent government job or subsidies. Where is their morality?

 

Cardboard 

 

Thanks for you point of view. I still think Alberta, or Albertans should use the money they get from petrol to transition away from it while they have the money. It is what Trudeau is saying, but so far, what we have seen in Alberta is government sending back money to everyone, which will then burn it by buying new F150 for which they will need more oil, and so on...Meanwhile in Norway...

[Cardboard]

The Alberta government has mis-managed its finances for years, no doubt about that. And now to reduce the blow from the oil bust, they are going to spend a lot of money on infrastructure. The fast elimination of coal powered production will also cost some dough. Taxes will go up a lot. Unlike you, I think that the people of Alberta are learning quickly about the dangers of relying too much on oil development going forward.

 

And regarding mis-management of its finances, so is Quebec who has gladly taken dirty oil money from Alberta for years to finance its lavish lifestyle or well beyond its means. Then there is Bombardier...

 

Cardboard

[jeffmori7]

Alright, let's stop it here, instead of discussing the pros and cons of each provincial government policy over the years :)

 

Really appreciate the fact that we can have a civilized discussion here even though we probably disagree on many things.

[jeffmori7]

I think this article should belong to this discussion: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/is-canada-setting-itself-up-for-a-pipeline-glut/article33603108/

[Cardboard]

It is an article that highlights the problems with a government that wants to control everything. Let the pipeline companies bear the risk of their decisions and their collective actions will find the most efficient ways to ship oil to markets.

 

It is not the job of the government to assess oil production numbers and then required shipping capacity. We have companies that are much better suited at defining what is required.

 

Cardboard

[SharperDingaan]

The federal governments economic job is to ensure that resources receive market price, wherever possible; that means Cdn and US tidewater access on both the West & East coasts, & the Cdn North coast as well. It means transportation via the safest & most economic means possible, and the movement of non-tanker traffic through the North West Passage. For o/g that means pipelines, for agriculture & minerals it means rail. 

 

We have multi-layered government for 2 reasons; greater responsiveness to citizens on the ground, and ability to act in the national interest of all citizens. Petty bitching gets a fair hearing, but overridden to the benefit of all.

 

The geologic record evidences that global warming is cyclical; human activity may accelerate/slow it, but it doesn't stop it. Carbon trading is just a human effort attempting to ensure that not everywhere is as air polluted as Bejing. Put a value on clean air, & perhaps we can make the oil sands more valuable as a lung than as a oil source. If we don't try, nobody knows.

 

SD

 

 

 

[scorpioncapital]

By trying to regulate a fair market price, I'm skeptical any government will not end up producing a very unfair market price because in a free market prices can drop off a cliff in some industries as innovation and demand /supply dictate. For example, look at the attempt to regulate Uber and Airbnb to maintain a fair market price when the natural price would be much lower without the meddling.

 

[SharperDingaan]

Ultimately we pay global price, adjusted for transport and processing cost. Carbon tax is just another processing cost, & we pay it because as a community - we have collectively deemed it a worthwhile thing to do; doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

 

We make this type of energy more expensive, to promote both conservation and local alternative sources. Electric is great if you're close to hydro, not so much if you're far away from it. Nuclear is a great alternative if you're live on Canadian Shield, but a really bad idea in earthquake zones or oil fields. Windmills don't work so well in the frozen north, etc.

 

It sucks if you're an oil worker, but its kind of hard to argue against.

If the world takes a different view we can always change our collective mind, either temporarily or permanently.

 

SD

 

[scorpioncapital]

" collective mind" - scary concept, like the Borg in Star Trek :)