Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

But Canada is a huge fossil fuel supplier to the world.   Switching over to green has to have a huge impact on its wealth. It must be a major issue economically and politically in your country.  I can't believe no one's interested. It sounds like you're downplaying it.

I wasn't passing judgement one way or another. You asked and I told you what I've heard from the people I know. If you want the media's reaction, or the government's reaction or Big Oil's reaction, you'll have to ask Google. I can't speak for them or the rest of the country.

One thing I can say is whatever is going is not very urgent, is it? I can't remember how many years they've been discussing it and it hasn't happened, so this suggests that the pipeline was going to be built to accommodate some future requirements and not current ones. So at the moment, there are no repercussions to anyone I know. The gas stations haven't run out of gasoline, heating fuel is being delivered to people's homes. That's about all I can tell you about it. From your other response, you seem to know more about the details of Canada's oil sector than I do, which I can believe because I don't pay it that much attention.

I can say that if the effect is to not develop what used to be called the "tar sands" (before they invented a less dirty sounding name for it) then a lot of people are going to be happy. The profligate use of water by that industry, for which they did pay very much, meaning that the government was subsidizing the industry (the way they subsidize solar farms, I guess) means that a lot of water got wasted and much land up there was destroyed by ponds full of toxic crap that aren't going anywhere for a long long time. There are a lot of people who won't miss that. Why, in this century, we still allow industries to take government subsidies and pump out crap, a clean environment being an externality I suppose, is beyond me. And for some reason, it's usually conservatives who allow this (although nobody is innocent on that score), as if their desire to know the true costs of things disappears if it means bonuses suffer. I mean, they want to know what health care costs and what welfare costs, and insist that those costs NOT be hidden, but the costs of dumping toxic stuff, that they don't want to know much about. Isn't that odd?

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for pointing it out.
Presently, most Canadian oil to USA is transported by trucks. Unfortunately, that's not as clean as transporting it inside a pipeline.
One positive effect of the cancelled southbound pipeline is that it will speed up development of alternative energy in Alberta. The electricity is transported cleanly to USA through the existing electricity grid.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/alberta-wind-and-solar-future-1.5728757

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=21992

Unfortunately, the XL pipeline like covid masks became a political symbol in the US.  So despite the safety value of transporting oil in a pipeline as well at a lower cost than on tanker trucks and trains and the thousands of jobs lost because of it, Biden cancelled it the first day of his administration to show he's "woke" and "green".  Now he's destroyed the security the last administration set up to prevent border crossing by illegals., all thrown to the wind.  These knee jerk reactions to things Trump did are stupid and hurtful to America and others, all for Democrat power.  Sorry that Canada had to take a hit because of it.

[Alan Klein]

I wasn't passing judgement one way or another. You asked and I told you what I've heard from the people I know. If you want the media's reaction, or the government's reaction or Big Oil's reaction, you'll have to ask Google. I can't speak for them or the rest of the country.

One thing I can say is whatever is going is not very urgent, is it? I can't remember how many years they've been discussing it and it hasn't happened, so this suggests that the pipeline was going to be built to accommodate some future requirements and not current ones. So at the moment, there are no repercussions to anyone I know. The gas stations haven't run out of gasoline, heating fuel is being delivered to people's homes. That's about all I can tell you about it. From your other response, you seem to know more about the details of Canada's oil sector than I do, which I can believe because I don't pay it that much attention.

I can say that if the effect is to not develop what used to be called the "tar sands" (before they invented a less dirty sounding name for it) then a lot of people are going to be happy. The profligate use of water by that industry, for which they did pay very much, meaning that the government was subsidizing the industry (the way they subsidize solar farms, I guess) means that a lot of water got wasted and much land up there was destroyed by ponds full of toxic crap that aren't going anywhere for a long long time. There are a lot of people who won't miss that. Why, in this century, we still allow industries to take government subsidies and pump out crap, a clean environment being an externality I suppose, is beyond me. And for some reason, it's usually conservatives who allow this (although nobody is innocent on that score), as if their desire to know the true costs of things disappears if it means bonuses suffer. I mean, they want to know what health care costs and what welfare costs, and insist that those costs NOT be hidden, but the costs of dumping toxic stuff, that they don't want to know much about. Isn't that odd?

But doing away with the pipeline, an American decision, is just making the whole process dirtier, less safe, and more expensive.  There are greater chances for fire when oil-laden trucks or train tankers get into accidents.  Trucks have to burn fossil fuel to transport the oil adding CO2 to the atmosphere as well as other pollutants.  On the other hand, oil flowing through a sealed pipe is cleaner, safer, and more efficient.  Of course, dirt issues affect America more than Canada.  But that's the reason Biden should have considered these things.  But XL became so political here, he felt compelled to stop it despite how counterproductive his decision is for everyone.   

He's doing the same thing at our southern border just to poke his finger in Trump's eye and show he's "woke".  Another counterproductive policy.   

[LesPalenik]

We all agree that canceling the pipeline wasn't a smart decision. Transporting liquids through a pipeline beats the cost of transport by trucks or trains.
But Elon Musk is already working on electric alternative, very cost-effective 4-motor Class 8 Tesla Semi trucks. That should mitigate the transportation costs and air pollution.
An interesting development is a concept of three such trucks driving in a convoy. The first truck is driven by a human operator and the other two trucks drive in autonomous mode, following the leading truck.

As a side note, rail is four times more fuel efficient than trucking, and one train can keep more than 300 gas-powered trucks off public roads and produce 75% less greenhouse gas emissions.

[Robert Roaldi]

As a side note, rail is four times more fuel efficient than trucking, and one train can keep more than 300 gas-powered trucks off public roads and produce 75% less greenhouse gas emissions.

Letting the rail system fall into disrepair in favour of cramming millions of trucks onto highways was a mistake, imo. I understand that some industries really like just-in-time inventory but they are not the only stakeholder in the culture. I remember some of the discussions decades ago during that transition when we had to endure the propaganda about how rail was subsidized and trucking was a "freer" market. I try to remember that when I look at all the taxpayer-funded widened highways that cover former farmland. Spilt milk, I guess.

[Robert Roaldi]

Unfortunately, the XL pipeline like covid masks became a political symbol in the US.  So despite the safety value of transporting oil in a pipeline as well at a lower cost than on tanker trucks and trains and the thousands of jobs lost because of it, Biden cancelled it the first day of his administration to show he's "woke" and "green".  Now he's destroyed the security the last administration set up to prevent border crossing by illegals., all thrown to the wind.  These knee jerk reactions to things Trump did are stupid and hurtful to America and others, all for Democrat power.  Sorry that Canada had to take a hit because of it.

Well, I'm not 100% sure that we are taking a hit. The jury is still out, could be a blessing in disguise. Besides, the whole plan can always be revived. All that's happened so far is that reports have been written and emails sent.

Pipeline construction jobs are temporary, so I'm not worried about losing them. There's plenty of infrastructure that needs repairing, lots of construction jobs there.

Tar sands bitumen is difficult to make a profit on to begin with. If the industry were forced to find ways to eliminate those acres of sludge ponds, no one would be there digging it up in the first place. The industry only exists because of government subsidy. So Canadian taxpayers have to fund the creation of permanent pollution just so we can ship the crude to Gulf refineries who will then sell us back the value-added gasoline products. I mean, I can see how the oil companies think this is a good idea.

[Alan Klein]

Why doesn't Canada just refine it there?

[LesPalenik]

Why doesn't Canada just refine it there?

That's a valid and a very good question.
Building a refinery is very expensive with a long time horizon to break even and most investors prefer to put their money into short term projects with a quicker payback.
Furthermore, in order to profitably run a refinery, it has to operate pretty much at a full capacity. 

On top of it, as Robert pointed out, the tar sands oil extraction is a dirty business and many Canadians would prefer stopping such development and have the government to invest into alternative energy projects. Which is already happening, as mentioned in my earlier post.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tristin-hopper-why-canada-shouldnt-refine-the-oil-it-exports

[jeremyrh]

Maybe the Canadians should be more like the Chinese :-)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-10/china-oil-giant-cnooc-beats-canadians-in-oil-sands-emission-cuts

[Alan Klein]

Maybe the Canadians should be more like the Chinese :-)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-10/china-oil-giant-cnooc-beats-canadians-in-oil-sands-emission-cuts

China is the world biggest fossil fuel polluter and producer of CO2 and burns more coal than anyone else and growing.

China's new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world's: study
China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.

Including decommissions, China’s coal-fired fleet capacity rose by a net 29.8 GW in 2020, even as the rest of the world made cuts of 17.2 GW...

“The runaway expansion of coal-fired power is driven by electricity companies’ and local governments’ interest in maximising investment spending, more than a real need for new capacity,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, CREA lead analyst.

China approved the construction of a further 36.9 GW of coal-fired capacity last year, three times more than a year earlier, bringing the total under construction to 88.1 GW. It now has 247 GW of coal power under development, enough to supply the whole of Germany.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal/chinas-new-coal-power-plant-capacity-in-2020-more-than-three-times-rest-of-worlds-study-idUSKBN2A308U

[Alan Klein]

Biden tells the truth, not like that orange creep who put kids in cages.

There's a five-alarm crisis on the border — and Team Biden imposes a media blackout


"Our entire administration will always be honest and transparent with the good news and the bad. We’ll level with you when we make a mistake. We’ll straight up say what happened."

That was President Biden on Jan. 21, a day after being sworn into office.

Today, two months and zero solo press conferences later, the Biden administration is on track to be the least transparent administration in the TV era. Another example of shutting out the press is underway at the U.S.-Mexico border, where said administration has imposed a media blackout on its migrant holding facilities, formerly known as "kids in cages" under the previous administration before the term apparently was retired by most of the media and by Democratic politicians out of courtesy to Team Biden.

The administration also is restricting the information that the Border Patrol can provide to the press, according to a recent NBC News report.
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/544225-theres-a-five-alarm-crisis-on-the-border-and-team-biden-imposes-a-media

[Robert Roaldi]

On top of it, as Robert pointed out, the tar sands oil extraction is a dirty business and many Canadians would prefer stopping such development and have the government to invest into alternative energy projects. Which is already happening, as mentioned in my earlier post.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tristin-hopper-why-canada-shouldnt-refine-the-oil-it-exports

I get economies of scale and specialization. So the US Gulf coast has masses of refineries and it makes sense in the interests of global efficiency to use them to capacity. It's a well-known trade-off, their size means they're more efficient overall but it also means that the strategic expertise stays in that one place, in this case the USA. Good for them. In the context of global trade and cooperation, it even makes sense. Until one day a country elects a whack job who does not understand complex concepts and unilaterally pulls out of international trade agreements because of bees in his bonnet. Then all the other countries have to take into account that unreliability in their plans, what's the other choice?

Great play was made on these pages about British sovereignty w.r.t. Brexit and not being beholden to the EU. Well, should countries be beholden to the US instead? The logic sort of folds in on itself.

There is no one solution that fits for all time, of course, but people prefer to trade with entities that they can trust. If the trust is broken, takes a while to get it back, if ever.

[Alan Klein]

I get economies of scale and specialization. So the US Gulf coast has masses of refineries and it makes sense in the interests of global efficiency to use them to capacity. It's a well-known trade-off, their size means they're more efficient overall but it also means that the strategic expertise stays in that one place, in this case the USA. Good for them. In the context of global trade and cooperation, it even makes sense. Until one day a country elects a whack job who does not understand complex concepts and unilaterally pulls out of international trade agreements because of bees in his bonnet. Then all the other countries have to take into account that unreliability in their plans, what's the other choice?

Great play was made on these pages about British sovereignty w.r.t. Brexit and not being beholden to the EU. Well, should countries be beholden to the US instead? The logic sort of folds in on itself.

There is no one solution that fits for all time, of course, but people prefer to trade with entities that they can trust. If the trust is broken, takes a while to get it back, if ever.

You raise a good point.  The US shot itself in the foot.  One of the reasons people invest in America is because of our solid legal system and fairness to all players.  And usual reliability, notwithstanding NAFTA. If you invest in let's say China, they steal your commercial secrets and then compete with you or nationalize your company completely. 

So when we pull a cancellation like this, it turns off other countries and investors.  Now Biden wants to raise taxes on companies.  That will turn off even more foreign investors.  One of the good things Trump did with lowering taxes is to attract investment here.  That incentive will be lost or at least lessened.  Of course, if your PM is smart, he'll play that up to encourage investors to Canada. 

[Robert Roaldi]

You raise a good point.  The US shot itself in the foot.  One of the reasons people invest in America is because of our solid legal system and fairness to all players.  And usual reliability, notwithstanding NAFTA. If you invest in let's say China, they steal your commercial secrets and then compete with you or nationalize your company completely. 

So when we pull a cancellation like this, it turns off other countries and investors.  Now Biden wants to raise taxes on companies.  That will turn off even more foreign investors.  One of the good things Trump did with lowering taxes is to attract investment here.  That incentive will be lost or at least lessened.  Of course, if your PM is smart, he'll play that up to encourage investors to Canada.

As a general rule, I find conversations about taxes to be silly. Everyone ALWAYS complains about taxes but everyone wants public services, whether they admit it or not and even when they don't realize it, there is a lot of self-delusion at play. There is a corollary effect where everyone thinks they're underpaid but are convinced that people who do services for them charge too much.

Are taxes high these days? Which taxes, municipal, state/provincial, income tax? Were they higher in the 1950s and 1960s where everyone was doing ok and there was less disparity in wealth and income. Did tax policy aid that, did it make it worse?

When a state/province downloads services to cities and brags about lowering taxes, is it just smoke up your ass? You still have to pay someone, don't you?

I've heard a lot of complaints about regulations and taxes and such over the last decade or two, but I'm not detecting much suffering on the part of the 1%, have you? Did forcing companies to clean the air and water hurt them much, because I'm having trouble seeing how it did. Maybe some of them suffered but tough shit, if you can't make a living without poisoning your neighbours, what good are you to anyone? Slave traders used to make good coin buying and selling human beings, but nobody misses them much any more.

Bottom line, the take-home pay of the middle class has stagnated since Reagan and has gotten worse since the 2008 crash. Spin it all you want, that's not a good thing and it was the policies introduced since the Reagan era that caused that to happen. It had to be, it wasn't the weather and it's not as if there was any shortage of investment capital in the world. There was always plenty of money to gamble in credit default swaps and fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.

Basically we have a culture full of sheeple who have fallen hook line and sinker for the stupid idea that if we're nice to the 1% and let them keep and horde all their wealth and facilitate that by cooperative laws and sell our public sphere to them, then they will look kindly on us and give us a few jobs. It didn't work for serfs during feudalism and it's not working now. Of course, it works for the 1% just fine.

(Rant over, time for lunch.)

[Manoli]

One of the good things Trump did with lowering taxes is to attract investment here.  That incentive will be lost or at least lessened.

More mythology.
FDI went down, not up, under Trump.
The biggest increases in inflows were during the Obama administration fm 161 to a high of 511 billion.

https://data.oecd.org/fdi/inward-fdi-flows-by-partner-country.htm#indicator-chart
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=US

[Chris Kern]

More mythology.
FDI went down, not up, under Trump.

But fortunately, Trump's highly-successful Operation Warped Reality relieved his adherents from any inconvenient dependence on facts.

[MattBurt]

But fortunately, Trump's highly-successful Operation Warped Reality relieved his adherents from any inconvenient dependence on facts.

But they are highly dependent on their own "alternative facts".
Fortunately for them these alternatives are much more malleable than traditional reality-based facts.

[James Clark]

As a general rule, I find conversations about taxes to be silly. Everyone ALWAYS complains about taxes but everyone wants public services, whether they admit it or not and even when they don't realize it, there is a lot of self-delusion at play. There is a corollary effect where everyone thinks they're underpaid but are convinced that people who do services for them charge too much.

Are taxes high these days? Which taxes, municipal, state/provincial, income tax? Were they higher in the 1950s and 1960s where everyone was doing ok and there was less disparity in wealth and income. Did tax policy aid that, did it make it worse?

When a state/province downloads services to cities and brags about lowering taxes, is it just smoke up your ass? You still have to pay someone, don't you?

I've heard a lot of complaints about regulations and taxes and such over the last decade or two, but I'm not detecting much suffering on the part of the 1%, have you? Did forcing companies to clean the air and water hurt them much, because I'm having trouble seeing how it did. Maybe some of them suffered but tough shit, if you can't make a living without poisoning your neighbours, what good are you to anyone? Slave traders used to make good coin buying and selling human beings, but nobody misses them much any more.

Bottom line, the take-home pay of the middle class has stagnated since Reagan and has gotten worse since the 2008 crash. Spin it all you want, that's not a good thing and it was the policies introduced since the Reagan era that caused that to happen. It had to be, it wasn't the weather and it's not as if there was any shortage of investment capital in the world. There was always plenty of money to gamble in credit default swaps and fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.

Basically we have a culture full of sheeple who have fallen hook line and sinker for the stupid idea that if we're nice to the 1% and let them keep and horde all their wealth and facilitate that by cooperative laws and sell our public sphere to them, then they will look kindly on us and give us a few jobs. It didn't work for serfs during feudalism and it's not working now. Of course, it works for the 1% just fine.

(Rant over, time for lunch.)

Strong work. 

[dreed]

...
Bottom line, the take-home pay of the middle class has stagnated since Reagan and has gotten worse since the 2008 crash. Spin it all you want, that's not a good thing and it was the policies introduced since the Reagan era that caused that to happen. It had to be, it wasn't the weather and it's not as if there was any shortage of investment capital in the world. There was always plenty of money to gamble in credit default swaps and fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.

Basically we have a culture full of sheeple who have fallen hook line and sinker for the stupid idea that if we're nice to the 1% and let them keep and horde all their wealth and facilitate that by cooperative laws and sell our public sphere to them, then they will look kindly on us and give us a few jobs. It didn't work for serfs during feudalism and it's not working now. Of course, it works for the 1% just fine.

Bingo.

[James Clark]

Gonna throw this back to our recent Texas freeze, AND add an actual photograph to this thread

I was in up in the Texas panhandle area this past weekend, and found myself traversing the wind farm area right as the sun came up.  There was still some little bit of snow on the ground from the more recent storm, but the turbines were working again.  So.. mostly just an excuse to show this picture I got as I was driving through