View topic - Are you a member of an Environmental or other radical group

It is currently December 10th, 2019, 7:39 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Are you a member of a enviromental or "other" radiclal group
Yes 83%  83%  [ 20 ]
No 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 24
Author Message
PostPosted: January 18th, 2012, 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
frozentripper wrote:
Maybe the beer will have to wait until then, Miller's High Life for me.

Looks like we have an early decision!!

Whitehouse statement is here. Cited rushed timeline as the single factor for the rejection of the permit: "This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people." Republicans get their pound of flesh, Canada gets rejected at the altar, Obama gets points for consistency and following the rules, and TransCanada is encouraged to re-apply a second time with an alternate route proposal. Maybe Republicans have figured out how to create jobs after all … at least among lobbyists, lawyers, and environmental consultants in a second round of maneuvering around Keystone XL Redux.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 19th, 2012, 10:42 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6146
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Reach in and get your beer Idylwyld.

Image

I'll get mine when the pipeline is approved with the next EA...

Cheers!

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 19th, 2012, 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
...member of a radical group... :o

I love that Natural Resources Minister, Joe Oliver!

I have recently been re-reading Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and came across this group of conspirators:
Quote:
Now," says Ben Rogers, "what's the line of business of this Gang?"
"Nothing only robbery and murder," Tom said.
"But who are we going to rob?--houses, or cattle, or--"
"Stuff! stealing cattle and such things ain't robbery; it's burglary," says Tom Sawyer.
"We ain't burglars. That ain't no sort of style. We are highwaymen. We stop stages and carriages on the road, with masks on, and kill the people and take their watches and money."
"Must we always kill the people?"
"Oh, certainly. It's best. Some authorities think different, but mostly it's considered best to kill them--except some that you bring to the cave here, and keep them till they're ransomed."
"Ransomed? What's that?"
"I don't know. But that's what they do. I've seen it in books; and so of course that's what we've got to do."


I think I gotta hit the books, then....

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 20th, 2012, 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2006, 4:25 pm
Posts: 3016
Location: Milton
Here is how to recognize a radical.... 8)
Jeff


_________________
Choosing to save a river is more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss. — (David Bolling, Ho


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 9th, 2012, 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
Rick Mercer is funny - unless you are hard core Conservative.

In the mean time, we have Harper in China drumming up support for more business. And the Toronto Sun (!) has got a clever cartoon on the connection to the proposed pipeline:
Image

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 16th, 2012, 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2006, 4:25 pm
Posts: 3016
Location: Milton
This stuff is so strange it is hard to believe that someone in the position of being a Senator would actually say it.
Quoted from Lake Ontario Waterkeeper..
Quote:
Senator Don Plett took his criticisms one step further, speculating that environmentalists might support terrorism and receiving funding from creatures on other planets (no, seriously):

So I am a little short on my alien cash flow...
and the little green men I have hired to wreak havoc through our terrorist networks .. :roll:
have gone to Vega... (what happens is Vega, stays in Vega.. :thumbup: ) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega)

Whole Article
http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2012/03/16/ca ... more-23217

I hope that those that voted for these guys that appointed guys (Replace guys with profanity 8) )
Are writing some seriously strongly worded letters, since I am on the bad guy list I am still waiting for the knock on my door.
this truly is sad.
Jeff

_________________
Choosing to save a river is more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss. — (David Bolling, Ho


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 17th, 2012, 9:20 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6146
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
JJ,


Quote:
I hope that those that voted for these guys that appointed guys (Replace guys with profanity )
Are writing some seriously strongly worded letters


I have my doubts since there's still the capacity to produce fish, by both anglers and commercial outfits. Habitat loss does not necessarily mean loss of fish production... reading between the lines a little...

Quote:
Ottawa is going to war on the environment. On Tuesday, leaked documents revealed that the Harper Government is planning to rewrite the cornerstone of Canadian environmental law: the Fisheries Act.

...

The Harper Government amendments will remove protection for habitat and focus solely on fish with “economic, cultural, or ecological value.” It’s a preposterous proposal born of lack of regard for nature and/or total ignorance – (what, exactly, is a fish without ecological value?).


Removing protection for habitat leaves the door wide open for fish farming, since natural habitat isn't needed for production.... open water, feeding enclosures and hatcheries will still provide fish after natural habitat and the capacity for production is destroyed. For commercial purposes, there's no penalty to the market since there still is supply available for sale.

This has been partially going on over large areas of the Great Lakes where habitat has been damaged enough to eliminate natural production in some of the more sensitive species... eg. lake trout, and native salmon. The fix has been somewhat similar to putting cattle out to pasture... inland hatcheries provide fish for stocking, they grow to adults out in the lakes and then are harvested off by anglers.

Again, there's no penalty to the sport fishing market and the $$$ it generates, since the supply to anglers is still there. The loss has been in natural habitat, in the history of poor management that's resulted in habitat loss.

There's some proof in seeing politicians, aka professional liars, in the news reports reeling in monsters, describing how great the fishing is.

_________________
><((((º>


Last edited by frozentripper on March 17th, 2012, 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 17th, 2012, 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1367
Location: Oshawa
I think anyone who wants to use a non renewable resources to support the economy is a radical. Wtf sense does that make? Good luck to our children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren to dig themselves out of the heaping pile of sh!t we will leave them.

_________________
"It's healthy to be dirty" - Lars Monsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 17th, 2012, 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
That sort of attack on environmentally concerned folks serves two purposes: for one it sows doubt into the minds of the public as to the validity of the environmental cause. And further, it forces us to spend energy on defending such ridiculous claims.

Let's take the high road: ignore it and just keep working. At the same time, when it should come up for discussion, just tell them these ideas and such senators are "full of sh*t" - in exactly these words. And let them figure it out on their own. Once encouraged to think, people are not stupid....

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 17th, 2012, 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
jedi jeffi wrote:
This stuff is so strange it is hard to believe that someone in the position of being a Senator would actually say it.

I actually have a slightly different view of this. Extremist positions (hurling all kind of bogus claims and insults at "environmentalists," whoever these folks may be) is a sign that the argument has been lost. When environmentalism goes mainstream, and takes up all the space in the middle (among independents, moderates, fair minded people and rationalists), and the majority of questions and debates have shifted to options, trade-offs, and challenges (and not feasibility), there's very little room left for those stuck in the old way of viewing things, clinging tendentiously to the status quo, and who fear change. People become acerbic and irrational because they fear change, and they see change coming at them quickly from all sides. The best way to understand statements to the effect that "environmentalists are terrorists" is not with interpretation and analysis, but with sociology and psychology. Such folks are taking themselves out of the debate, and sitting on the side lines shouting (and it's likely on the sidelines they will remain).

Sen Don Plett doesn't deserve our consideration, or an answer to his charges, he deserves our pity. And so he should have it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 17th, 2012, 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2006, 4:25 pm
Posts: 3016
Location: Milton
fish farms as an answer..... I think not.
http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2 ... almon.html
This seems to be the norm with a variety of viruses or diseases.... in fish farms around the world.
Funny these seem to react like viruses and diseases in various crowded areas.. but then again I am not a scientist .......
Jeff

Ps edit
here is the latest oneI was looking for...
http://atlantic.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local ... lanticHome

And this one is just a tad on the scary side

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... fish_N.htm
Quote:
populations could be damaged in the same way the smallpox virus struck Native Americans and Dutch elm disease decimated elm trees, says Jim Winton, chief of fish health at the U.S. Geological Survey in Seattle.


Oh and more on killing off of habitat or other species,
Gee and we seemed like a smart species,
and I am sure when the powers to be where shown what little side effects there would be...
Quote:
The study sheds more light on the worrisome phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder. Bees play a critical role in the pollination of crops, and thus a threat to bee colonies can potentially affect entire ecosystems.


http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... study-says
:(
Jeff

_________________
Choosing to save a river is more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss. — (David Bolling, Ho


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 11th, 2012, 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 16th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1488
Location: Ontario, Canada
Yes, I realize this is an older thread, but I found some info from reply posted on the CBC on an article regarding the Northern Gateway Pipeline and I thought it was interesting enough to share.

frozentripper wrote:
The oil will eventually flow to the states, Northern Gateway will be forgotten and everybody on both sides of the border will be happy with the resulting megabucks... well, almost everybody.

I never heard of this fellow before until I read the posted reply but after watching his many videos, he has my utmost respect. Check out John Bolenbaugh on YouTube. He was an oil clean-up worker that didn't like the way the clean-up was being done and became a whistle blower. And not without repercussions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe3U9hkbH-U&feature=plcp

If it's Enbridge your dealing with, the end result might not make anyone as happy as you might think.

This guy is real eco-warrior without the hype.

You can see all of his videos regarding the Enbridge Kalamazzo, Michigan oil spill and how they handled it at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/johnBolenbaugh/videos

_________________
The Wilderness needs strong voices to protect it. And yours can be one of them.
Visit the Friends of Temagami website to learn more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12th, 2012, 9:38 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6146
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Tripper, the vids will have to wait since the rusty pipes out here are too narrow... maybe there's some text on the developments.

TransCanada pipe (not Enbridge) is now building the southern leg of the Keystone pipeline through the states to get the oil sands connected... the northen leg, with the reroute around the sensitive Sand Hills should get a ruling early 2013.

The Northern Gateway pipeline through BC, is facing all kinds of obstacles, from the BC premier wanting a share of the profits, to radical groups threatening sabotage (this brings relevance to the OP).

Geez, I can't wait to get my Miller's High Life, Idylwyld... I've always enjoyed seeing those neon signs in creaky little spots in the middle of nowhere and going in and getting that first taste of American beer...

Hm? What? Oh yeah, the pipeline...



Quote:
First Nations showdown could be Northern Gateway pipeline’s biggest obstacle

Jen Gerson | Jul 31, 2012 9:12 PM ET


CALGARY – This month’s interprovincial tussle over the Northern Gateway is just the beginning, experts say: The pipeline could face sabotage and a legal morass that would challenge the limits of aboriginal law and sovereignty over disputed lands.

“[It is] difficult to foresee a quick completion of this pipeline,” said Tom Flanagan, former advisor to Stephen Harper and a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. ‘‘The difficulties are very real and they’re large.”

The federal Joint Review Panel is expected to rule on the Enbridge-proposed pipeline, to run from northern Alberta to Kitimat B.C., by the end of 2013.


If approved, Enbridge would negotiate for access to the lands along the route, about 80% of which is provincial crown land. Much of the line would also run through territory claimed by First Nations groups, who are promising both legal obstacles and physical blockades.

Merle Alexander, a Vancouver-based lawyer who specializes in aboriginal law, equated the process to a chess match.

“It’s essentially going to be a legal war of attrition,” he said.

The company said it has been negotiating with First Nations groups for years, but if Enbridge could not find an agreement with aboriginal leaders, the federal government would have the authority to expropriate — a murky proposition when balancing the rights of aboriginals.

“First of all, the leadership in these bands have convinced themselves that they own this land rather than that they have a claim to it,” said Mr. Flanagan, who has written widely on First Nations issues. According to law “it’s crystal clear that the government has the right to authorize projects with payment of compensation for any damage to the value of the claimed land.”

If it comes down to it, there’s people ready, across B.C. that are ready to stand in front of bulldozers if they have toEnbridge has a constitutional obligation to consult native groups affected by the pipeline. But what defines consultation — whether that means providing information, promises of collaboration, or obtaining consent — remains untried.

“The Supreme Court has ruled consultations to be inadequate or too hasty, or that there was not enough information at the table or that they didn’t seem to be sincere,” he said. “There’s no clear standard on what constitutes adequate consultation.”

Affected First Nations groups could apply for court injunctions arguing inadequate consultation. Or they could sue for potential damages against claimed lands.

Even if they lost, these suits could hold back the project as claims wend their way through trial and appeals.

Further, each of the more than 40 groups that have made land claims along the corridor would have the right to its own separate negotiations, Mr. Flanagan said.

“You hear from those who are vowing simply that there can never be any pipeline at all,” he said.

Last week, B.C. Premier Christy Clark laid down several conditions for her approval for the Northern Gateway pipeline, notably a larger share of profits for the province. Her demands are not likely to be met by Alberta Premier Alison Redford, who equated her counterpart’s expectations to a redrawing of the constitution.

Ottawa could overcome this kind of opposition by invoking declaratory powers, Mr. Flanagan said, an act that would require a vote of parliament.

“It’s been done hundreds of times in the past, it’s been done for the railways and it’s been done for the nuclear industry,” he said. “The founders foresaw the possibilities that provinces might try to obstruct activities … so they can declare this to be a work for the advantage of the whole country.”

However, Mr. Alexander said this becomes far more tricky when dealing with competing sovereignty claims by First Nations groups.

He believes the government would have much more trouble with the courts than Mr. Flanagan contends. If aboriginal bands were to try to prove their claims on as-yet-unsettled territory, he believes the courts would demand a higher degree of consultation.

In addition to the legal quagmire, several groups have threatened to block the pipeline physically.

“If it comes down to it, there’s people ready, across B.C. that are ready to stand in front of bulldozers if they have to,” said Geraldine Thomas-Flurer, the coordinator of the Yinka Dene Alliance, a group of First Nations opposed to the pipeline.

“We’ll react very heavily and very swiftly. Like I said, there are laws that are available to us and we’ll use them,” she said. “Enbridge can’t think they’ll just go through the territories and not expect that there’s going to be a legal battle. And the same goes for our government.”

In addition to the legal uncertainties, Mr. Flanagan said Enbridge may have to deal with a standoff with First Nations groups — a proposition that echoes conflicts akin to Oka and Ipperwash.

“The legal morass is daunting in and of itself. Then there’s the other possibility of direct action on the part of the people on a very large, thinly settled area with few roads that are difficult to police,” he said. “Even though the federal government has the powers under existing jurisprudence, politically it’s quite different. The province is unlikely to foment guerrilla warfare. The Conservatives might lose seats, there might be political backlash. But there’s a different history with First Nations. Who knows what happens if you use all the legal powers you actually have under those conditions?”

Mr. Alexander, who is also representing several bands fighting the construction of oil pipelines, foresees Northern Gateway as an unprecedented test of aboriginal rights.

“It will be one of the most exciting and interesting times in aboriginal law because there’s never been so much friction,” he said. “Aboriginal rights have never really had to go up against the national interest, which is extremely unique and extremely interesting, in a bit of a morbid car accident sort of way.”



http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/31 ... -obstacle/

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12th, 2012, 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: November 20th, 2011, 7:16 am
Posts: 173
Didn't read the posts thus far however the captioned question (Are you a member of an environmental or other radical group) made me ponder ...why is being an environmentalist bundled in the same sentence as being a "radical".

On the way back from canoe trip today, I tuned in to CBC radio. A guy was talking about his book (which of course I cannot recall the title) however one interesting part I recall was his observation that the Clinton administration told people (at the time) - "the world is in a crisis...do without" "Turn down your heat, wear mittens and sweaters in the house and live in the dark". People did it for a while - but after a while became apathetic (the world is always coming to an end) - so they turned the heat back up and decided environmentalism was for "radicals". Not only did Clinton fail to make positive change (according to the author), the concept of deprivation and discomfort became attached to being environmentally conscientious.

His view: Clinton set back environmentalism 50 years. He further derides the government's push for electric cars (not sure if that was a Clinton jab and just government in general). Apparently, the battery needs to be replaced every 3 years - and while the car is cheaper to run that gasoline - by the time you factor in the battery replacement - its twice or 3 times more. So not only is environmentalism radical - its expensive.

Anyway, long post to state: he advocates environmentalism is making change that is profitable and environmentally beneficial - one change he suggested was moving China from coal to natural gas. With the population base, the order of magnitude in reduced carbon emissions would be huge. And it could be very profitable.

After hearing his views, then reading this thread caption - I couldn't help but feel his hypothesis is correct.

Wish I could remember the book - the guy was a Ph.D from Berkley California)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12th, 2012, 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
ravenlunatic wrote:
On the way back from canoe trip today, I tuned in to CBC radio. A guy was talking about his book (which of course I cannot recall the title) however one interesting part I recall was ...

Were you listening to an interview with former climate skeptic, Richard Muller, who was interviewed today on The Sunday Edition with Michael Enright? He's currently on a press junket for his new book: "Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines."

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/03/158085161 ... ng-climate

He made significant news recently when he changed his views on climate change (from opponent to "almost entirely caused by humans"). His views on the electric car are not surprising. His previous research and scientific institute (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project), received a large share of their support from the Koch Brothers (who have major stakes in oil and natural gas). NiMH batteries used in today's hybrid and electric vehicles are early generation, Nickle Metal Hydride, batteries. They have high energy density compared to Lead-acid batteries, but low efficiency in charging and discharging. They typically have a 8-10 year warranty (100,000 - 150,000 miles). Newer battery designs (lithium ion, sodium, metal-air) have higher specific energies (weight to power), longer life (with further breakthroughs needed), better charging and discharging efficiencies, etc. The goal is to produce a next gen battery that is safe, can be charged in 10-15 minutes (even less), has a 300 - 500 mile driving range, and lasts the lifetime of the vehicle. There are several companies promising such a breakthrough in the next 5 to 10 years (likely trying to secure funding for their proprietary bench or pilot scale technologies).

frozentripper wrote:
Geez, I can't wait to get my Miller's High Life, Idylwyld

You're already trying to change the terms of our agreement? I don't think so … It's a Labatt Blue for me. He nixed the proposal (in the time frame specified) for approving a pipeline as originally proposed (through a sensitive area of the Sand Hills). I said it would be back, but under a different guise and under less contentious political circumstances (and with less grandstanding from Republicans who seemingly don't know how regulations work in this country, particularly concerning State Department approvals for a pipeline crossing international borders).


Last edited by idylwyld on August 12th, 2012, 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group