Quit recently? It hasn't been all that evident.
Did you Google "responsible development" yet, and find your error?
Only when he's mad.Except out the ears.
So, often.
Bob Rae preaches sustainable development of oilsands
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Did you Google "responsible development" yet, and find your error?
So, often.
Rather than firing them all as Harris did and Harper would have done and Martin did.
Like I said, could have just left the OP at "Bob Rae preaches". And maybe added "et al" after "Bob Rae".
8O..........Ol Bobby says he'll live up to his word, and not seek the leadership of the Libs.
Hope he does.
He's a smart guy and a good orator, but if bullsh it is all we need, well, we have Harper.
Hope he does.
He's a smart guy and a good orator, but if bullsh it is all we need, well, we have Harper.
Only in his own mind.
It funny you mentioned that.. yesterday I was in White Rock, BC.. Driving around and along the freeways to home, Langley, BC. I noticed lots of old growth trees.. I guess that's why many people move to here to Beautiful British Columbia.. the old growth trees, lots of green and very clean.
You sure they are old growth? I wasn't aware of any in that part of the lower mainland. Most of that was logged in the 1800s
Bob should try and help his own province and quit worrying about Alberta,the leeches sure seem to be coming out now the oilsands are going to make Alberta a very rich province!
I love it!
You Ontario hicks should leave developing Canada's oil to the experts from Alberta.
This is our field.
I love it!
You Ontario hicks should leave developing Canada's oil to the experts from Alberta.
This is our field.
Last edited:
Ok, so if I got this right, sustainable development is different from "sustainable" development and the former can or does contain responsible development, which can be pretty much whatever anyone voicing an opinion on the subject wants to call responsible. Can I take it then that there is more to this than the one liner insider thing? Maybe someone could give me a hand here,
Is this one of those I really don't know what this is all about things but I'm going to say something anyway because otherwise I might look like I don't know about this? If not can some one give me a clear description of the differences? Thanks
The main reason there is so much need to interfere in Albertas drive to develop the oil sands is that there are impacts of that development that go beyond Albertas borders. The second reason that I can suggest is that Alberta is not doing a good job of developing the oil sands in a "responsible" manner, and we would be happy to help you out of your irresponsibility.
I think some of the forests in south Surrey and Stanley Park, as well as a few other area in the Greater Vancouver area can be classified as old-growth forests.
You are thinking of tree you can drive through.. sure. That's old, however wiki's definition is close to what I am talking about.
Old-growth forest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
how so? Some of the most experienced miners in the world run the oilsands.
Cant see how you can add anything of merit to the pool of talent they have.
You should have been here 35 years ago if you did.
How so? Experienced miners have achieved their level of expertise through dedication to their job. That leaves room for others who have dedicated their time to ecology, economics, and social issues related to large and troublesome projects. I have been watching the change from single issue development to sustainability for those thirty five years. And I recognize the push back from the development at all costs crowd as a desire to return to a simpler, more easy money kind of time.
We can't afford to go backwards anymore.
Dedication and a pioneer type spirit.Lot's of them came to BC to mine coal back in the shell days and now are back at fort Mac. mining oilsands.
The best of the best in their field.
They can reclaim a tailings pond now in just a few years as opposed to 30 years before,how is that going backwards?
No I was going by age. I just can't recall any in Surrey that I know that are old growth although much of the second growth Fir over 100 years shows old growth tendencies. Stanley park doesn't have as much old growth as most people think either.
I wouldn't say it was. What I said was, "And I recognize the push back from the development at all costs crowd as a desire to return to a simpler, more easy money kind of time" That would be moving backwards because we need development that is fiscally and ecologically sound, given the financial mess so much of the world is in it surprises me that supposedly conservative people, like our governments, just don't see the links.
Here it is...
This statement is false.
Way back in March, the Haper gov't said the same thing, only they used the wording "Responsible development".
Hence my comment...
Well said.
The environmental impact of the accidents that have been documented, says, although improving, they have far to go.
If anything, Standard Oil sucked Sarnia dry long before they found easier pickings in Alberta....
In this part of the country we have seen this in forestry as much as anything, the cheapest trees go first, then comes a request for lower stumpage rates or other subsdies, along with the threat to go to greener pastures. But you can see it in everything from farming to windmills to oil and gas or hydroelectricity.
One of the great advantages of being a part of the biggest third world country in the world. You can always take your money sucking machine to the next resource rich area. Or if not you can take it to Chili, or China, or someplace else that has a lack of need to know about the cost of our easy money.
?
Let's put this one down to misunderstanding. There is a lot of that around in regards to sustainability as was mentioned in my intro thread. Its the reason why I asked what is the difference between sustainable and "sustainable" and where responsible fits in. That can mean anything and with Harper it probably doesn't mean even that. what you gave me was basically a history of your earlier conversation with a couple of assertions thrown in. I didn't know whether you were trying to make a joke out of my question.