Rex Murphy on Enviromental-ISM.
ridenrain @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:49 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tshmrYZnjXs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fflaggman%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F2007%2F04%2F28%2Fcbcs%2Dresident%2Dsubversive%2Drex%2Dmurphy%2Drips%2Denvironmentalism%2F[/youtube]
camerontech @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:13 pm
"an intense anglo-saxon injunction favoured by street gangs, quentin tarantino scripts, hockey thugs and guttermouths everywhere."
geez, lighten up people...
his point about the whole thing is dead on though
Scape @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:43 pm
That plutocrats and bureaucrats suck at environmental policy and pretty much everything else?
camerontech @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:44 pm
Scape Scape:
That plutocrats and bureaucrats suck at environmental policy and pretty much everything else?
zactly
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:57 pm
The problem with the Conservatives is that unlike the Liberals, they know full well that the proper way to reduce consumption is to remove the subsidies and regulations that prevent natural market rates from controlling consumption and stabalising both supply and demand. However, like the Liberals, they are willing to sacrifice what is right for Canada in order to avoid the hard choices and instead buy political favour.
hurley_108 @ Tue May 01, 2007 8:11 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
The problem with the Conservatives is that unlike the Liberals, they know full well that the proper way to reduce consumption is to remove the subsidies and regulations that prevent natural market rates from controlling consumption and stabalising both supply and demand. However, like the Liberals, they are willing to sacrifice what is right for Canada in order to avoid the hard choices and instead buy political favour.
For once I agree with you. No subsidies -> no oilsands -> no Alberta -> no problem.
grainfedprairieboy @ Tue May 01, 2007 8:14 am
I agree that there should be no subsidies for the oil industry (any industry) either. I disagree that it would impact Alberta.
hurley_108 @ Tue May 01, 2007 8:26 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
I agree that there should be no subsidies for the oil industry (any industry) either. I disagree that it would impact Alberta.
The Alberta government is giving enormous subsidies to the oil industry. How can you claim that removing them would have no impact?
Clogeroo @ Tue May 01, 2007 8:32 am
$1:
The Alberta government is giving enormous subsidies to the oil industry. How can you claim that removing them would have no impact?
How much are they giving out?
Blue_Nose @ Tue May 01, 2007 8:34 am
"FLICK OFF"
How on earth could someone believe this is an effective market strategy? What purpose could the underlying message serve - "Let's insult people while trying to sell them our highly debated and controversial ideas"?
Dolts.
hurley_108 @ Tue May 01, 2007 8:41 am
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
The Alberta government is giving enormous subsidies to the oil industry. How can you claim that removing them would have no impact?
How much are they giving out?
I'm not sure of the dollar figure, but the way it works for the oilsands at least is that they pay just $1/barrel of oil produced until all start-up costs are recovered. Edit to clarify: The companies pay $1/barrel in royalties.
What that means is that there's zero incentive to be economical in start up because every extra dollar spent now is a dollar they get to keep to themselves later.
What this means is that the government of Alberta makes more from gambling than it does from oilsands.
What it means is that there's zero pressure against further oilsands development, causing the housing crunch, the insane inflation we're experiencing.
What it means is that the government is giving away the natural resources that belong to all Albertans.
grainfedprairieboy @ Tue May 01, 2007 9:21 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
I agree that there should be no subsidies for the oil industry (any industry) either. I disagree that it would impact Alberta.
The Alberta government is giving enormous subsidies to the oil industry. How can you claim that removing them would have no impact?
As a percentage of the industry subisdies are actually miniscule.
Because there is a Bull market for global commodities.
sasquatch2 @ Tue May 01, 2007 11:17 am
You must give Rex our blunt, outspoken newfie credit.
He has pointed out the Feds current stance is hedging their position against the reality of the most massive public relations movement in the history of Canada if not the world.
He is totally correct that Ontario's FLICK OFF campaign is just plain rude.
MissT @ Tue May 01, 2007 1:05 pm
Hmm. I don't tend to have these sorts of conversations with my family on the rare occasions I go back to Canada, so I don't know if the term is in common usage over there, but here in the UK, "flicking off" is what girls do... alone... you get the picture. I just don't understand why the Ontario government thinks that would help global warming. Can somebody explain?
Blue_Nose @ Tue May 01, 2007 1:11 pm
MissT MissT:
Hmm. I don't tend to have these sorts of conversations with my family on the rare occasions I go back to Canada, so I don't know if the term is in common usage over there, but here in the UK, "flicking off" is what girls do... alone... you get the picture. I just don't understand why the Ontario government thinks that would help global warming. Can somebody explain?
ROTFL it gets better and better.