Friday, December 18, 2009

Ain't nobody happy . . .

In Mandryk's SP column today he said its usually a sign of a good decision when nobody is happy. I'm happy. I think the government made a lucid decision . The benefit of development did not out weigh the cost at this point in time. The inane comments on this issue was the response from opposition who chastised the government for wasting several months and spending money on the process to arrive at a non-decision and the Chamber of Commerce who claims government didn't base its decision on good economics.

If we get to the point were we are freezing to death in the dark, the opponents to the decision can then shout their "I told you so" words of wisdom.


  1. Mistress I happen to agree with you on this point, but for many people this debate is open and shut and they are not willing to spend money for a study on something they are not prepared to examine with an open mind. For these people the study was as expensive and as pointless as say.....$50,000 to examine Gordie Howe Bowl.

  2. Mistress,

    I think what irks me most about this decision is to set a date at when they will look at it again. 2020??? With all the "Green Meanies" (I don't mean the Rider defense) in Copen.. these days screaming about climate change we may indeed need to produce energy that at this time appears to be expensive compared to what we have. Nuke reactors aren't built in a day. I want a government that is forward thinking enough to get the ball rolling. They say it is too expensive at this time. Well put together the plan on how this would work and set the ground work to get the ball moving in that direction. I noticed the enviro crowd was so please they didn't even bark at the fact the Gov. indicated they would look at Sask being a waste disposal sight. Not one negative word reported in the media I heard or read. Oh and for some reason no one even mentions the costs associated with finding a "green" alternative for base energy load? Is all this research not costing us the taxpayer something??

  3. It appears to me that the only political option for those who want nuclear power is to vote for the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservatives in 2011, as they have been very clear on this issue.

  4. The 'green meanies' at Copenhagen live on cloud 9. I was astounded at the interview of the young delegate from Sask that is there, has he been briefed at all on our country or is he simply there to wave a sign and chant for the environment?

    I admit, Canada is not the most 'green' country around but a portion of this can be attributed to the global importance of our energy production. Being another sheep, as the advocates such as Lizzie May and the protesting hippies are demanding, would be akin to leading our economy to the slaughterhouse. Yes it is important that we begin searching for solutions and ways to reduce, but to do nothing more than consent to the demands of other nations who are not faced with our economical structure, among other factors, is naive. It would be interesting to see the reactions of these countries criticizing Canada if we were to cut off the pipeline of resources to their nations in order to reach our target goals. I bet they would not be so outspoken then.

    Perhaps the best start to our green movement should be preventing the Lizzie May's from blazing a carbon trail across the Atlantic to rave like a lunatic on a single policy issue, while at the same time exposing her lack of any ability to govern. Harper if you happen to be a follower of the Mistress, PLEASE PLEASE either don't buckle or if you do, point fingers across the room at each country and tell them exactly which resources they can expect not to rely upon from Canada anymore in order to meet our Copenhagen targets. See the looks on the faces when the oil, potash and other valuable commodities we export are no longer for sale.

    (sorry to get off topic here, but it seems like today's theme and Copenhagen are one in the same)

  5. I do think that Canada could be more cooperative at Copenhagen and be willing to make some concessions I have to agree somewhat, and reluctantly, with Moose. It would cripple our economy to accept what they are asking us too.

    How would the general population of Canada feel if Harper suddenly announced that as of 2011 no cars that are not hybrids would be allowed on the roads? I am sure anyone who is not in a position to simply write off their old car and purchase a brand new one would be claiming bloody murder. Economically, what is being demanded is not feasible for Canada and no matter how many D-list politicians (May, Mayor of Toronto, etc..) make cameos in Copenhagen that reality will not change.

  6. Maybe Canada should send Flavor Flav to Copenhagen to join our other D-listers

  7. to Anon & 8:40-

    LOL! Do you think anybody will vote for the old PCs if they ever end up putting people on the ballot?

  8. You sound like the dinosaus of the past...fear of the unknown. The fact is we must do something to ensure the long term viability of our environment. It wasnt long ago the same skeptics were screaming over the idea of energy conservation. The world as we know it was going to end & our enrgy costs were going to soar! Fortunately the young in our socieity are concerned about their future and are looking at alternatives. Maybe some of those alternatives will not be viable but at least they dont have their heads in the sand.
    As Obama has said , if we dont grab the future of alternative sources we will be left behind as China and India race to produce the new forms of energy.
    In case you hadnt noticed, its the baby boomers & their consumerism that helped get us in this mess. Fortunately many of our youth are less materialistic & have greater priorites in life then simply consuming more and more goods. Bravo to them!!
    Thank God for the so called hippies in Copenhagen...without protesters what a dull world it would be. At least they are passionate about their world. And are you so old you cant recall the changes these 'lunatic' protesters brought to this world. If women hadnt gone to the streets in portest, burned bras etc. women would not have the rights they do today. It sometimes takes exaggerated tactics to get attention paid to the major issues & even if I dont agree with some of the stands taken, I do thank them for their passion and commitment.

  9. Anon 9:23 it isn't about being dinosaurs, it is about being realistic. Would you like another Kyoto here where everyone promises everything and delivers nothing? Talk is cheap. Give the Canadian government some credit for at least making the world aware of our unique position and inability to meet their demands without crippling our economy.

    Criticism of the protesters is more directed at the ones who have no knowledge of the situation other than "the environment is suffering." This approach to our future is larger than just the environment, and to address it will impact our entire country from the salaries we make, products available, taxes we pay, laws we live by. This is not a small issue that is easily described as 'reduce emissions.'

  10. Want to know the real solution: technology sharing. If the developed nations were willing to transparently share and exchange information this mess could be solved at a fraction of the costs.

    Problem is, the Western Powers do not want their precious technology to fall into the hands of the non-Western Powers. It is easy to point fingers at one another, if Obama is so great why hasn't he shared every bit of science, technology and knowledge the US have regarding alternate energy resources, climate change and other environmental issues.

    Extend this further, why is there no sharing of technology in other fields that would allow developing nations to grow at 'greener' levels, using what we have learned from our development.

    Why?? Because, like with anything, this is all about money. Nothing but Dolla Dolla Bills, maybe Flavor Flave should be over there

  11. Anon 9:23 it is about being dinosaurs. And yes it is much more then emissions but there is hardly time to address all these issues on a blog. I used energy as but one example as that is what was being addressed here. And who are you to assume that the protestors know not of what they speak of. I dare say it appears you havent an extensive knowledge of the issues either. You seem merely to want to support your Conservative federal Government which has done nothing but wait to find out what the U.S is ready to offer. Gotta love you political sheep ready to go to the slaughter in support of your political parties even when they are wrong...rather humorous!
    We havent had a leader with a spine or truly Canadian positon since Trudeau. Yes, I know, many of you politcal lackies will start screaming at the top of your lungs at the mere mention of his name. But noone can say that Trudeau wasnt a ferocious defender of Camnada & that he didnt propose made in Canada solutions to many problems. Likely because he was very much an intellect with thoughts of his own..didnt have to wait for a made in the U.S. Canadian response. O.K., now start your yellpin..LOL!

  12. Trudeau - NEP - big enough laugh for u. He did defend "His" Canada.

  13. With that being said, are you going to argue that Trudeau would any less be defending Canadian interests than Harper is?

    Copenhagen is concerned with meeting environmental goals that are directly at odds with how Canada is structured economically (whether the fact our economy is tied too closely with our energy sector is an entirely different debate, the reality is that it is). Look at the divide between developed and developing nations and the different targets that are being sought. Canada, due to the global impact it would cause if our energy sector went into the tank, requires special attention. No one is willing to recognize this fact, if Canada shut down the potash mines in order to hit Copenhagen targets(will never happen, but for arguments sake let's say they restrict mining and production to meet Canada needs only and close the export market) what is the impact on the global economy? What are the fall out effects?

    This isn't about political stripes (Ie. Liberal v. Cosnervative v. NDP) this is about making a proper decision for Canada. Those wasting their time with fossil awards or whatever are missing out on the larger point which is that the global community must attack this problem collectively. That means areas that don't require extensive mining operations and are mining/production based export economies should bear a stronger burden in some areas (ie. stronger carbon reductions) whereas nations that are at the opposite end of the spectrum should bear the burden in other areas (ie. in funding for developing nations, perhaps as a result of the money made from their resource based industries). This isn't a simply game of you cut this, I cut that, they'll cut that. This is reality, the geographical nature of the world means different objectives and different duties to different countries. Yes I would like Canada to be a leader in emissions reductions, but that just won't happen if the powers that be still want to resources we have. Politicizing this into a Conservative party tactic is divisive and accomplishes nothing but name calling. What sort of gains did the Liberals make under their Kyoto commitment? Not much in the grand scheme of things.

    Criticizing evaluating what other nations are offering? Isn't this a fundamental principle of negotiating? I don't hear you criticizing every other leader for their 'wait-and-see' approach. Name one other country that has made a firm commitment in this regard? Each proposal is based on the premise that others will be doing something else. There is no reason that Canada should be running in there promising the world, we have been Mr. Nice Guy on the international scene far too long to continue to be pushed around in Copenhagen.

    It is you, Anon 10:49, that seems to be a political lackey. Your post screams nothing but bitterness towards the Conservative government.

    I truly hope that the global leaders can reach an understanding on the gravity of this potentially climate Armageddon, but it must be understood that what is being pushed on Canada (ie. a 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020) is not equitable. Each country is unique in what it provides to the world, and in a complicated scheme such as that of our global community broad based targets such as that mentioned above are useless and nothing but talk.

  14. So must I remind everyone here that climate change is good. I would hate to have been living during the last ice age. If people want to cut down on polutants entering the atmosphere, I'm ok with that. CO2 is not a pollutant it is necessary for plant life and ours. I am however, not interested in having some unelected body dictate to me where my money needs to be spent. How much money has been wasted in Cope already with nothing showing for it but pumping millions into the Danish economy.

    P.S. I just love the hoar frost on all the trees

  15. The real problem in this entire mess is humans really. Why not look at that problem first. The population of the planet has swelled to over 6 billion people, including our species infecting every continent. Humans are like cockroaches in their ability to adapt and infest different regions.

    The easiest solution to curb the emissions would be to start legislating reproduction (here come the big brother comments). But seriously, the world is too stressed from the current populations as is, less people will require less resources, and less stress on the land. Countries continue to reproduce at a rapid pace that is unsustainable. Stop having babies is the first solution.

  16. Grizz, Dont be so predictable! NEP yadda yadda...same old! It doesnt surprise me that you would hang on to the one most controversial policy to yip about & neglect any of the good policies implemented during his time...but as I surprise.!

  17. Anon 11:08, like many Conservatives , you immediately see criticism of your beloved leaders/party. Yes our economy, like that of most of the industrial world, is structured around fossil fuels. So do we stick our hands up in the air and proclaim "Nothing can be done for fear we will not survive economically" How about we start looking at making changes to how we produce/process our resources. No, it wont happen over night but unless we face 'reality' we will eventually be at an economic disadvantage!!

  18. Anon 11:49, Who determines what countries are to stop populating? It seems one of our greatest problems is that the industrialized world with the minority population has created the bulk of this problem. We have used an over abudance of the resources & consumed the vast majority of the goods. And now that the underdeveloped countries want to follow suit and use the cheapest resources to produce goods to help their economies grow we are up in arms & expecting them to forgoe their economic growth because we want to continue to hoard all the worlds wealth. We have this fear we may have to now share the wealth. God forbid if we cant buy that cabin at the lake or that new bobble we dont need to make the world a bit more equitable. I know many on here will now start screaming socialist...its not socialistic to face the truth & call for a more equitable world.

  19. Anon 12:53, this is Anon 11:08.

    Are you so dense that you don't understand the practical implications of such commitments at this point? There are many things that are great ideas in theory (socialism and capitalism to name two), but which humans have not been able to practically apply. I understand your need to grasp for ideals, but take a step back and ask if what you are clinging to is reasonable.

    I would love our society to not be so reliant and the destructive elements that it is, and agree change is required moving forward. However, to pull unreasonable numbers out of a hat and set targets that for some regions are not sufficient and for others are unattainable is not productive.

    Way to continue to generalize all 'Conservatives' into one group. I am not a member of any political party, I have voted for both Liberal and Conservative in elections (sorry NDP). I would agree, that generally my views are right-centre based. It is good to see to you that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is nothing but 'one of them Conservatives' that are all the same. I have taken studied environmental impacts and global concerns in classes while in university and spent time working on both sides of the coin (industry and conservation). It speaks of your mental fortitude that you still choose to generalize and classify people based simply on one trait (fyi the Klan also takes that viewpoint), good work man you are probably a beacon of light to your kids.

    If you want Canada to cave at Copenhagen be prepared to find a way to support a swelling of unemployed workers hitting the government coffers at the same time as baby boomers finally start retiring. I'm sure our stressed out system will be able to handle that, especially with the lack of funding from taxes and resource based income that fill the government pockets. Things should become increasingly more fun out west here at that time, what with all the non-resource based jobs for the masses.

  20. Anon 12:53,

    I hope you are sitting down as you read this and for the record you may call me a cynical bastard but this is basically reality:

    Regardless of what you may believe human population has always seen a wealth of power confined to a limited few. This is not even a philosophy confined to humans, in a pride of lions there is a pecking order of eating and if the food runs out too bad. It is not like the primary cats are going to eat a little less to make room for the bottom feeders. The sooner you accept that by an inherent nature there is an imbalance the power, the sooner you will begin to see the reality of the world.

    So on that premise, and the doctrine that history will repeat itself. Let's understand that no matter the utopia we strive for there will always be a ruling class/wealthy class/upper class (whatever you want to call it). I certainly wish I was a part of it (and arguably you could make a case that I and every other Canadian citizen are).

    No matter what you wish for this will not change. It has not changed regardless of the era, the form of government, the leader, anything. It has always remained the one constant....there is a pecking order. Is it right? God no. Is it reality? yes.

    Accept that and things will become a lot more clear for you. Even your beloved socialism could not escape creating a hierarchy once human instinct was intertwined with the theory. Human nature will be the one flaw in implementing any theory.

    So continue to hope for something that will never happen, once you have exited LaLa land joined the real world perhaps we can discuss solutions that are practical.

    Posts such as that are things that myself and my college roommates would say while sitting around in our dorm rooms getting stoned and talking about changing the world.

    p.s.- say hi to the unicorns in fantasy land for me, it's been a few years since i was there

  21. LMAO!! You guys need to take a chill pill! Its absolutely hillarious.
    Anon, do you believe that your studying a few classes at university makes you an authority...I dont think so dear.
    I refer to those Conservatives on here as that is predominatly who posts on this blog. Its very obvious. Like anon above, I am not of any political stripe. I would lump Harper, Layton and Ignatieff all in the same boat...intellectual light weights.
    Sadly, you are right anon, the world will always be full of inequities but again , that does not preclude us from striving for better. Hopefully our only solution is not simply say things have always been this way and will never change thus why strive for any better.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.