Bob Rae preaches sustainable development of oilsands
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
strawman... If you are having trouble arguing the point with relevant material instead of using stuff you have cooked up that is really ridiculous, and therefore easy for you, to shoot down, why not participate in the discussion.
The Liberals and the NDP have decided that it is important to recognize sustainable development as a means of achieving production that would be desirable. I think that is great if true. The NDP seems aware that the oil sands are not sustainable as they are, and the Liberals seem to think that they might be brought into the mainstream with some judicious deliberation, , or something.
The Conservatives on the other hand, at least according to the bear, are for making responsible development the catch word. Why bother to set up a different phraseology, unless you mean something different. There is always the possibility that they are avoiding the need to discuss sustainability, by trying to make it look like they are. Seems a bit silly.
You should reread what he said, then ask some questions if you still don't understand.
Well that's as clear as mud, lol.
That's not according to me, that's a fact.
I'm not surprised you don't understand that.
Why would the NDP and Liberals use the same phraseology for something different?
Probably not as silly as the argument you just foisted upon the discussion, lol.
Alright, fair enough, I've read it again and if Petros can't explain how "If food production were put into the sustainable development scheme, acres seeded would remain static but population would end up being the factor use to control and limit those acres." can be anything but ridiculous, perhaps you could.
That was my impression too. The Liberals are big on finding the right words, the trouble is that they don't seem interested in using the ideas behind the words for anything other than levers to maintain their status as the natural governing party.
Since you brought it to the attention of the thread I thought that I could attribute the news to you. It may be a fact that the Conservatives are for "making responsible development the catch word". Unfortunately we need more than divisive and meaningless posturing. We could really use some leadership bringing the sustainabilty of the planet into the spotlight. By deciding to set aside the fairly clearly defined terminology, and instead dredging up something different the Conservatives are setting themselves and Canada apart from the efforts being made to rationally approach the future.
There is a reason for that kind of backwards thinking, the Conservatives have their heads on backwards.
Do they? I haven't seen evidence of it. Where have you seen that? For example what I said was that they have different though not very well defined views of the relative sustainability of the Tarsands. I'm not surprised you don't understand that.
Thank you for your input.
In the context of this quote of yours, "If food production were put into the sustainable development scheme, acres seeded would remain static but population would end up being the factor use to control and limit those acres"
I would like to know what meaning it is supposed to have. How can there be an IF as in IF food production were put into sustainable development? Why would acres seeded be static? How, and why, would population be used to limit or control acreage? And what would a wierd comment like that have to do with green minded people?
What did you thought? here is a thought..... X amount of acres can only feed X amount of people. Are you going to make more land/use more resources or keep populaion in control?
I thought that your comments were designed to be derogatory towards green minded people, and in such a way as to appear serious and concerned, without actually having to put any thought into it. So when you asked what I want to know, I asked those questions which would decide whether you had put any thought into it. As you still have not tried to answer my questions I gather you have realized the entire thing was indefensible.
From your return which seems to indicate you would rather play a game of answer a question with a question, I come to the same conclusion. I am still interested if you want to try to justify the comments.
Yes, I would try to make more farmland, use more resources, and control population. Without cutting more trees, using less fossil fuels, and using educated voluntary population control. Would that be a bad thing?
huh.
Someone mentions "greenies" and I simply think of people that prefer the planet to be green and blue rather than brown and grey; as opposed to "brownies", who seem to prefer polluting and brown-nosing up bigbizbutt in order to reform the planet into grey moonscape.
Someone mentions "greenies" and I simply think of people that prefer the planet to be green and blue rather than brown and grey; as opposed to "brownies", who seem to prefer polluting and brown-nosing up bigbizbutt in order to reform the planet into grey moonscape.
Beijing is throwing it's weight around today.
B.C. wants fair share of benefits for Northern Gateway support
B.C. is setting five conditions, including an undefined ‘fair share’ of benefits, for supporting the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project to stream oil-sands bitumen to tankers on the province’s coast for shipment to Asia.
B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake told a news conference Monday the province’s support for the controversial project hinges on the plan being approved by an ongoing panel of the National Energy Board and what Mr. Lake described as a fair share of fiscal and environmental benefits.
Mr. Lake said the province has yet to define a number reflecting a fair share, but is working on a definition.
Other conditions are “world-class” marine spill oil response and similar measures for land oil spills. Also, the province wants legal requirements and treaty concerns of first nations addressed and those communities provided opportunities in the project.
“We want companies going beyond their minimum legal obligations to first nations,” said Mary Polak, aboriginal relations minister.
The “minimum requirements” formalize conditions Premier Christy Clark has been talking about as her government tries to come to a position on the project.
More to come
B.C. wants fair share of benefits for Northern Gateway support
B.C. is setting five conditions, including an undefined ‘fair share’ of benefits, for supporting the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project to stream oil-sands bitumen to tankers on the province’s coast for shipment to Asia.
B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake told a news conference Monday the province’s support for the controversial project hinges on the plan being approved by an ongoing panel of the National Energy Board and what Mr. Lake described as a fair share of fiscal and environmental benefits.
Mr. Lake said the province has yet to define a number reflecting a fair share, but is working on a definition.
Other conditions are “world-class” marine spill oil response and similar measures for land oil spills. Also, the province wants legal requirements and treaty concerns of first nations addressed and those communities provided opportunities in the project.
“We want companies going beyond their minimum legal obligations to first nations,” said Mary Polak, aboriginal relations minister.
The “minimum requirements” formalize conditions Premier Christy Clark has been talking about as her government tries to come to a position on the project.
More to come
lol Well, there are types of greenies. I wasn't referring to the "snot" kind. lolGreenie Bob Rae under arrest :lol:
So what you are saying is greenies isn't necessarily derogatory even if the intent is. Good point.
The pendulum swings both ways and is aimed at all sides of the issue.So what you are saying is greenies isn't necessarily derogatory even if the intent is. Good point.
It isn't, really. The "pit" would be "all sides of the issue" and the people that populate those sides.