Linda McQuaig says oilsands 'may have to be left in the ground'

[Locutus]

Yes, I know...who the fukk is this broad and why do we care. But you see, this unelected dipper is on the CBC Toronto news so it must be germane, and electioney because...CBC...because downtown Toronto.

Since 1905, both Alberta and Saskatchewan have owned their mineral and oil rights. Now, an NDP candidate from downtown Toronto has made the following statement. ''Oilsands may have to be left in the ground. ''

And she's not even elected. More of what we can expect.


Linda McQuaig says oilsands 'may have to be left in the ground' - Politics - CBC News

 

[Locutus]

Dean Skoreyko ‏@bcbluecon

The Media Party know full-well how damaging @LindaMcQuaig comments are to Mulcair becoming PM and will do their best to suppress

 

[petros]

Like, OMG!

 

[Liberalman]

At least the Harperites got right the real threat is the Liberals and the NDP is a brain f@rt

 

[petros]

Are you high?

 

[Locutus]

AUGUST 08, 2015 4:32 PM

EDMONTON, AB: Wildrose Official Opposition Leader Brian Jean released the following statement in response to a position taken by star NDP candidate Linda McQuaig that Alberta’s oilsands should be left in the ground so that Canada can hit its climate change targets:

“While the federal NDP have a long tradition of campaigning against Alberta and its energy sector, it is deeply concerning to see one of their star candidates and top spokespersons on national television calling for a moratorium on oilsands development.

“As the MLA from Fort McMurray I know that Alberta’s oilsands have been a leading driver of Alberta and Canada’s economy and a source of hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Developing the oilsands means prosperity for all Canadians.

“Premier Notley may be a member and supporter of Thomas Mulcair’s NDP but as Premier of Alberta she must actively repudiate this crazy idea in the strongest terms possible.”


Reader Tips - Small Dead Animals

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Jeez, didn't anybody actually read what she said? Her point was that IF we're going to meet emissions targets some of it MAY have to be left in the ground. That's a true statement. The NDP is not and has never been against resource development as such, it's against things like exploitation and environmental damage and foreign control, all legitimate concerns. Pretty sad when a politician gets excoriated for speaking the truth.

 

[petros]

Why would we need to meet targets?

 

[captain morgan]

Jeez, didn't anybody actually read what she said? Her point was that IF we're going to meet emissions targets some of it MAY have to be left in the ground. That's a true statement. The NDP is not and has never been against resource development as such, it's against things like exploitation and environmental damage and foreign control, all legitimate concerns. Pretty sad when a politician gets excoriated for speaking the truth.

Utah set to be home of first oilsands mine project in U.S. by end of 2015 | Financial Post

.. Ummmm, about those emission targets?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Jeez, didn't anybody actually read what she said?

Don't be silly.

 

[petros]

Don't be silly.

Unfortunately for him he went the silly route.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Unfortunately for him he went the silly route.

Yes, reading what was actually said is silly indeed.

 

[darkbeaver]

At 45 dollars a barrel it will stay in the ground anyway. The targets will be met. The earth will be clean again and the sun will once more shine on happy fully employed voters.

 

[petros]

It is quite silly.

The whole "emissions" thing for one with bitumen being some exceptionally super carbon source unlike any other on earth.

And as for emissions is she talking CO2 or the whole shebang?

My scientifically centred thinking organ is telling me that IF CO2 has indeed been behind warming out of the coldest period in all civilized mans history and emissions were cut tomorrow, we'd be baked to a crisp in a week and then see wild rains and flooding.

Its the SO2 in emissions that control the climate with immediate results.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It is quite silly.

The whole "emissions" thing for one with bitumen being some exceptionally super carbon source unlike any other on earth.

And as for emissions is she talking CO2 or the whole shebang?

My scientifically centred thinking organ is telling me that IF CO2 has indeed been behind warming out of the coldest period in all civilized mans history and emissions were cut tomorrow, we'd be baked to a crisp in a week and then see wild rains and flooding.

Its the SO2 in emissions that control the climate with immediate results.

Can we not talk about your colon?

Cure for global warming, if it ever happens, is simple. Sulfates in the stratosphere. 20-50 thousand tons oughta do it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Can we not talk about your colon?

Cure for global warming, if it ever happens, is simple. Sulfates in the stratosphere. 20-50 thousand tons oughta do it.

We will need to see some fuel requirements for that plan eh. On the surface it would seem to me that delivery of these sulfates to the stratosphere might be expensive, it may also contribute some \additional load of pollutants on the atmosphere. However if I had time to reposition my investments behind sulphates I could be inclined to get behind the idea.

 

[Locutus]

Jeez, didn't anybody actually read what she said? Her point was that IF we're going to meet emissions targets some of it MAY have to be left in the ground.

What she actually said (in downtown nuclear-powered air conditioned Toronto with well over a million gasoline burning vehicles on the road) was this:


"A lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we're going to meet our climate change targets," McQuaig said.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

We will need to see some fuel requirements for that plan eh. On the surface it would seem to me that delivery of these sulfates to the stratosphere might be expensive, it may also contribute some \additional load of pollutants on the atmosphere. However if I had time to reposition my investments behind sulphates I could be inclined to get behind the idea.

Shirley, you jest

It'd be 250-600 C-17 flights. Wouldn't even be a blip on current fuel usage.

 

[damngrumpy]

That is a candidates opinion not likely the parties opinion but then in a democracy
I thought everyone is allowed an opinion. Guess I was wrong. I don't agree with
her necessarily or even if it were a party platform issue WHICH TO MY KNOWLEDGE
it is not I am still voting Mulcair to get rid of the current government,

 

[darkbeaver]

Shirley, you jest

It'd be 250-600 C-17 flights. Wouldn't even be a blip on current fuel usage.

Well that's the end of that idea. Flattened my tires you did but good advice often does that. Shirley there must be someway to capitalize off uve this downturn.