Alberta wants strong action on climate change


mentalfloss
+2
#1
Alberta wants strong action on climate change

EDMONTON - The Alberta government should listen to the large majority that is calling for strong action on climate change — not just the intense closed-door lobbying effort by oil industry.

A new poll by Ipsos-Reid shows that 76 per cent of Albertans want to see tough action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas industry, says Simon Dyer. Only six per cent were opposed.

“It’s clear Albertans think we can have strong climate legislation and a robust energy industry,” said Dyer.

“The government has a strong mandate to act.”


Instead, thanks to oil-industry lobbying in the past 12 months, the government has watered down its proposals to replace the current levy on excess greenhouse gases, said Dyer.

The levy — $15-a-tonne on emissions that exceed a required 12-per-cent reduction per barrel — expires in September. Talks are underway for new regulations expected this fall.

Under the latest proposal, the levy would double to $30 on emissions that exceed a required 24-per-cent reduction per barrel — dubbed the “double-double” plan.

That’s weaker than proposals made last year for a $40-a-tonne levy and 40-per- cent reduction in emissions per barrel, said Dyer.

The “double-double” proposal is low cost to industry — an estimated five to eight cents a barrel — according to recent analysis, Dyer noted.

“There is wide support for this, there’s no economic downside, so let’s get it done,” said Dyer, adding he’d like to see an escalator in the plan.

Environment Minister Robin Campbell said the province must improve its environmental performance in the oilsands to meet international expectations.


“We know that everyone watches what we do in Alberta,” said Campbell at the official startup of the province’s new arm’s-length monitoring agency that will track pollution levels in air, water and on land.

The new agency “will look at the oilsands but also the refineries east of Edmonton that people have lots of questions about,” said Campbell, adding that its $50-million budget is not necessarily a hard cap.

The Alberta Monitoring, Evaluating and Reporting Agency, headed by former environment minister Lorne Taylor, will provide scientific data on pollution levels across the province. It will make no recommendations for action; that’s up to Alberta Environment.

Greg Stringham, spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the new monitoring agency is a critical step to improve environmental performance in oilsands by providing “credible, transparent data” on pollution levels that will lead to action.

“Absolutely it is. That’s how this works,” said Stringham.

“We want to know what the trends are, then you can react, find out what’s causing it and what needs to be done (to reduce the pollution),” he said.

Stringham said it’s not yet decided whether the provincial agency will replace the Joint Oilsands Monitoring (JOSM) agency set up by the federal government three years ago.

CAPP would like to see the federal government continue to have a role in environmental monitoring, he said.

“We want it to be transparent and we want both governments involved, federal and provincial,” said Stringham.

Also unclear is the fate of several longtime local monitoring agencies, such as the Wood Buffalo Environment Agency.

Taylor said his board will be having talks with all smaller groups to see if there is duplication.

Alberta wants strong action on climate change (external - login to view)
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+3
#2  Top Rated Post
Legislated climate change. That people could conceive of such insanity is perhaps one of the most frightening aspects of the general stupidity presently smothering the Western World.
 
DaSleeper
#3
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#4
Trust me Flossy, Alberta doesn't buy into this... We think you and your ilk are snake-oil salesmen
Last edited by captain morgan; May 26th, 2014 at 08:00 AM..
 
mentalfloss
+2 / -1
#5
I post facts.

You post tears.

You should really try to actually discredit the article if you're that upset.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#6
I see.. So, Simon Dyer says that the Oil Co.s have been in closed-door meetings with gvt during which time there has been 'intense lobbying'? A link to this remarkable factoid would be great, but I won't be holding my breath on that

Might even be fun to take a look at the actual question by Ipsos Reid, but I'm guessing that there is a reason that it wasn't included - maybe it has more to do with the dismal projections by the pollsters (incl Ipsos Reid) in the last couple of provincial elections.

Until then, all this is just another steaming pile of horse sh*t


Last edited by captain morgan; May 26th, 2014 at 08:01 AM..
 
mentalfloss
+1
#7
Don't care about the rhetoric.

The poll numbers support the mandate and if you feel that strongly about the questions asked, I'm sure Ipsos Reid posts it.

I would think this is a fairly straightforward issue.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#8
Adding yet another tax on to oil does not affect the companies one bit. That cost is just added to the price at the pump like all other fees and taxes shoved on industry.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Don't care about the rhetoric.

Yet, that is mostly all you have ever had to offer... You can start with posting a firm statement as to exactly what 'Climate Change' is.

After all this time, I still do not have an understanding of how you or any of the truthers define it, particularly in relation to human influences

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I would think this is a fairly straightforward issue.

Oh, it is straightforward. What I posted initially has a lot more accuracy than the insinuations by yourself and Simon Dyer
 
mentalfloss
+1
#10
I'm sorry you could not refute the numbers and take umbrage with the Alberta government's opinion.

Better luck next time.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I'm sorry you could not refute the numbers and take umbrage with the Alberta government's opinion.

Better luck next time.

I can and coincidentally, held a formal poll in the bar last Friday afternoon.

Of 100 respondents, 91 said, unequivocally that they did not believe that man-made global warming or climate change existed... The other 9 respondents referred to the truther position as being a bunch of useless douchebags.

It was a very clear signal and representation of the entire country
 
mentalfloss
#12
That was pathetic cap.

Try again.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That was pathetic cap.

Try again.

Depends on who paid for the beer.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Depends on who paid for the beer.


I'm in the O&G business, so gvt subsidy is the ticket
 
petros
+3
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I see.. So, Simon Dyer says that the Oil Co.s have been in closed-door meetings with gvt during which time there has been 'intense lobbying'? A link to this remarkable factoid would be great, but I won't be holding my breath on that

Might even be fun to take a look at the actual question by Ipsos Reid, but I'm guessing that there is a reason that it wasn't included - maybe it has more to do with the dismal projections by the pollsters (incl Ipsos Reid) in the last couple of provincial elections.

Until then, all this is just another steaming pile of horse sh*t

You're right. It isn't a very well written article
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Don't care about the rhetoric.

The poll numbers support the mandate and if you feel that strongly about the questions asked, I'm sure Ipsos Reid posts it.

I would think this is a fairly straightforward issue.

Numbers? Where are the numbers?


Here they are: Albertans On Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities | Ipsos (external - login to view)

Climate change was never asked about. The title of the newspaper article is a ruse.

This result comes from a survey of 802 Albertans conducted by Ipsos Reid on behalf of the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance (working in conjunction with the Pembina Institute). The survey was conducted online using Ipsos Reid’s national online household panel between May 15 and 19, 2014. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample's regional and sex composition reflects that of the actual Alberta population according to 2011 Census data. The precision of Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll is accurate to within +/- 3.9 percentage points had all Alberta adults been surveyed. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error, and measurement error
 
mentalfloss
+1
#16
The effects of climate change are more remote than direct pollution.

If the intent is to reduce pollution then that is an even stronger problem for the province.


You get a cookie for this one, petros.
 
petros
#17
It makes perfect sense to increase the efficiency of combustion to reduce pollution.

More bang for your buck.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#18
There is no doubt, advocats for and the industry itself are not going to lobby for regulation or admit to environmental effects. Nevertheless, the polls are correct; the majority of citizens in Western Canada are concerned for their heath, their future, and the environment. The only way safeguards are going to be put into effect is by govenment through the force of expressed concerm by voters. Whether it is flaring, the use of chemicals in fracking, or tailing ponds and C02 emmissions, regulation and consequent safeguards will only come through legislation and enforcement.
 
petros
+2
#19
This is a bit of a ruse article. It's not about reducing emission but better combustion resulting in cleaner emissions and zero link to climate change.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

There is no doubt, advocats for and the industry itself are not going to lobby for regulation or admit to environmental effects. Nevertheless, the polls are correct; the majority of citizens in Western Canada are concerned for their heath, their future, and the environment. The only way safeguards are going to be put into effect is by govenment through the force of expressed concerm by voters. Whether it is flaring, the use of chemicals in fracking, or tailing ponds and C02 emmissions, regulation and consequent safeguards will only come through legislation and enforcement.

Bump
 
petros
#21
Burp
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Bump

Bump
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The effects of climate change are more remote than direct pollution.

If the intent is to reduce pollution then that is an even stronger problem for the province.


You get a cookie for this one, petros.

Pollution and climate change aren't the same thing.

The sentiment in my original post still stands
 
petros
#24
There is nothing wrong with cleaner combustion.

As a gear head I just wish that maybe someday people will be able to handle the horsepower of super efficient autos.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#25
I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that wasn't supportive of lowering pollution including tailpipe emissions... It's the attitude of 'if it moves, tax it' that kills me
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that wasn't supportive of lowering pollution including tailpipe emissions... It's the attitude of 'if it moves, tax it' that kills me

Especially if it's a web poll like this one.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Especially if it's a web poll like this one.

The 70% approvale rating was disappointing... Normally, they are in the range of 97% consensus.

Does this mean that this poll was an abject failure?
 
petros
#28
97% of 32% is a dead ringer. Like I say though, this is about getting better efficiency from NG, coal and coke. The majority of oil facilities run on the coke they produce, the coke efficiency can be ramped up using CNG/N/O2 cojets to burn any nasty flue gasses.

This is what my oldman did for a living as a Mech Eng. He designed and built more efficient, cleaner powerplants, boilers and scrubbers.
 
no new posts