Northern Gateway would up risk of whale strikes
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Indeed blah blah blah.... statistically speaking, he's right.
And statistically speaking, me being at the beach increases the risk of me stepping on a clam because clams are found at the beach.
Maybe vessels in the water need those things people put on their cars to scare away deer.
Then if they get hit by a ship, it's their own fault
So let's stop all trucking in Canada and the USA and see how you fair...
It's my job, I don't have to agree with how it's run and I could run it on bio-diesel I would..
I wonder if that remote eastern pod was genetically diverse?
If it still exists would it not then become all the more important to try and save the remaining few?
We probably should try and move several of the tankers out of that geographically small marine area ASAP.
British Columbia with its massive coastline and vast marine regions would seem like the ideal relocation spot.
You ask about my statistical basis for moving ships to save whales?
Let see, you move tankers out of a small zone where hideously threatened right whales are struggling to survive into a huge marine region with no right whales.
I’m gonna go with common sense on this one.
Or perhaps the whales are gone completely?
If so I have a question or two.
Tides, the environmental funding aggregator is pouring tens if not hundreds of millions into blocking Canadian resource exports.
Virtually all that money comes from outside Canada, most from the USA.
Tides even appears to be bribing Canadian First Nation Chiefs to block pipelines.
We do not even seem to be able to build an export pipeline across some sparsely inhabited bald a$$ed prairie.
Where was Tides when the right whale was/is being annihilated in Norwegian waters?
Why is Norwegian oil, or for that matter any Norwegian shipping allowed in US waters?
Canadian waters?
Why is any North Sea oil at all allowed in North America without much if any complaint from environmental agencies?
Considering the right whale and all.
Look into the expected container and bulker shipping traffic in and out of Prince Rupert once the Asia Pacific Gateway is complete.
Those whales will be bouncing off of hulls like bugs hitting your windshield.
Those whales will be bouncing off of hulls like bugs hitting your windshield.
They should--but slowing down is big money. A few years ago, Vancouver asked incoming container ships to slow down (at the time somewhere around 30-40% of urban air pollution in Vancouver was due to ships, and slower velocity meant less pollution). They said they couldn't do it--time is money. I think the next thing was to have them burn cleaner oil (other than Bunker C) when they got close to port. I think that might be in place. We also got shoire power hooked up in some terminals now, so the vessels don't have to idle to keep the generators going. Even that was a huge engineering challenge.
If it still exists, they haven't found any in recent surveys. Of course they should try to save the remaining few. But it's insane to say that the best course of action is to shift the risk to some other place. Is the solution to a pedophile living next to a playground with 10 kids, to move the pedophile next to a playground with 200?
Insane. 8O
If you're going to go with common sense, then you shouldn't invoke 'statistically speaking'. A statistical argument involves analysis with numbers. And for the record, Norway's 25,148 km coastline is pretty close to BC's 25,725 km. Certainly the difference isn't large enough to call one small and the other huge. There's those pesky numbers again...
More specifically, I was referring to your talk of equivalence. I've already listed a number of factors. I guess if you're willing to assume the number of whales are the same in the two places, and that the shipping routes are equally frequented by the same number of whales, and that the shipping routes are equally frequented by the same number of whales, in different species, that remarkably have the same behaviours, well maybe it could seem equivalent. A pretty far fetched set of assumptions though. Especially since you've already noted that the two places aren't the same...
Common sense is a poor analog for good sense.
What I would suggest is insane is your stooping to dragging pedophiles into this debate.
That, I would suggest is nasty.
How desperate are you to defend your points?
How low will you go?
Nazi’s and gas chambers next?
The right whale does not swim in BC waters does it?
Moving tankers (or pedophiles in your fevered mindset) where there are no threatened right whales would seem to be a partial solution.
Few things are perfect in this world.
Moving onward.
You stated there were virtually no whales in Norwegian waters.
I responded that multiple Norwegian whale watching organizations (that seem successful) report both quantity and diversity of whales in Norwegian waters.
Are the Norwegians lying or are you possibly mistaken in your claims?
Next up is your bafflegab about whale densities, shipping routes and statistical analysis.
My point was simply moving tankers out of critically endangered whale habitat into non critical endangered habitat would seem to make some sense.
You talk about BC’s 25,725 km of coastline as versus Norway’s 25,148 km of coastline.
But all that really matters in the debate about right whales is that BC has 25,725km of coastline that is not home to threatened right whales as versus Norway’s 25,148 km of coastline that appears to be absolutely critical habitat for the right whale?
No?
I see you fail to address my points on the Tides organization, its foreign funding and the lack of condemnation about Norway’s apparent extermination of threatened species.
Continue to cherry pick away.
As to “common sense is a poor analog to good sense”.
Sounds like more smoke and mirrors.
Are you really totally unaware that the general usage of “ common sense” in the English language is pretty much identical to the English usage of “good sense”.
Common sense tends to be more defined as plural although if you research the definition of “good sense” you will see it lumped together with the term “common sense”.
Hairsplitting and deflection.
Here you go Bill.
First Nations chief received $55,000 from Tides Foundation | LEVANT | Columnists
Next time why not use google instead of just posting funny gif's.
Perhaps even join in the debate.
You're right, maybe I should have made a joke about Nazis like you did in another thread? I'm not calling you a pedophile, I used another type of risk to show you how ridiculous your logic is.
If it sounds like a bad idea to you, well it should. Your idea lacked merit.