Comments on: Let’s Turn up the heat on Rex Murphy’s flawed logic

By: Rex Murphy: Sarah Palin’s Strong Bond | eaves.ca

Rex Murphy: Sarah Palin’s Strong Bond | eaves.ca — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:31:37 +0000

[...] So up until a few weeks ago I read Rex Murphy sporadically at best. Then the other week he published this questionable piece on climate change (in short: regionalism should trump action) which was neither inspired or thoughtful. [...]

By: Jacques Drolet

Jacques Drolet — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:33:50 +0000

The nudge I would like to make is on your suggestion of “continued emphasis”. Agree that going back to why we did it and what it has done so far is ill placed/motivated. But to now voluntarily go on forward in terms of policy does not seem to me to take into account all that we know and consequently, your comment seems to be visceral which is understandable but it is illegitimate in terms of humanitarian/global values. Priorities, yes, this means considering a little bit more than Albertans and Canadians because in terms of environment we are all in the same boat. Kitchy last phrase I agree but I do not take it away because it carries the meaning. :-)

By: Michael M

Michael M — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:35:39 +0000

…because the tar sands represent the economic needs of canada and not just alberta alone…in fact they currently employ 10s of thousands of otherwise unemployed atlantic born workers…that is why the sands are prioritized. I don't mean to sound hobbesian here – just want pple to recognize that decision making involves prioritizing and in this case I see the case for continued emphasis on oil sands extraction tethered within the current evolving paradigm of existing federal and provincial environmental regulation

By: David Eaves

David Eaves — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:36:34 +0000

Thank you Jacques.
I think one thing I find so troubling about Rex's stand is how divorced it is from the evidence and how one sided it becomes.
I don't mind contrarian arguements – but only when they are backed by fact and evidence. Rex's contrian arguement is about ignoring and/or dismissing evidence.
Moreover I think Rob makes a compelling argument above when he asks why are the economic needs of Alberta's oil industry prioritized over the economic needs of the coastal provinces whose economies will be ravaged by rising sea levels…

By: Brenton

Brenton — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:51:07 +0000

I have taken an economics course or two, and please don't presume to know what I think should or shouldn't happen. I do understand that it costs a fortune to explore for, extract, refine and transport oil. I also know that oil companies are making a killing, and have been for quite some time. Sure, there are some rough times when oil dips to $40, but they keep right on making their billions.

And yes, BP and Shell are investing in newer cleaner energy technologies. Well done. Not sure that gives them a free pass to strip mine an area the size of a very large something.

By: Jacques Drolet

Jacques Drolet — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:23:22 +0000

It is indeed about leadership David. Since we all know it tends to go down the drain as individual move up in the clan hierarchy (whatever the clan is), shouldn't it be obvious that we should start considering Kant and Socrates suggestion of reclaiming our individual responsibilities? To be a wee bit optimist, in this time of blogging openness, could the moment ever be better? Keep on the good work David

By: Michael M

Michael M — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:15:14 +0000

'vaguely' is an understatement. take an economics course. you sound like every other generalizing radish lover.

costs to produce a barrel of oil in the tar sands - conservatively $60 foregoing marketing and distribution costs.

And yeah they DO pollute the area but until the oil companies come up with an alternative fuel we better learn to not condemn so much someone else's backyard in another province that is fuelling our canadian economy by 10s of billions of dollars into the country -otherwise you'l get a worse repeat of the NEC crisis.

You'd presumably also like to shut down logging in Russia and oil refining in Khyrgurkistan too?

and by the way - it is oil companies that are going to help us considerably in getting over our dependence on oil because it is them in conjunction with provincial energy companies (note - NOT environmentalist lobby groups) that have the necessary capital to do so.

By: Brenton

Brenton — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:42:59 +0000

I'm vaguely familiar with the economics of oil and oil companies. They make billions of dollars in profits, hand over a small chunk to provincial governments, and pollute the surrounding areas. Because of Ralph Klein's shortsightedness, Alberta has no Heritage fund and has to beg the oil companies for tax revenue.

By: Michael M

Michael M — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:46:59 +0000

I don't think Rex is being represented very well these days. His timing may be off but who can honestly not recognize the gadfly of old. His point, which admittedly isn't very well written, is that the imposition of further costs on the oil sands and in particular Western Canada would be very bad policy. I think this goes without saying for anyone familiar with economics of oil.

The last time this type of scrutiny took place in Alberta in the 1980's it laid the groundwork for the rise of Manning and Harper.

By: Michael M

Michael M — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:46:51 +0000

The last time this type of scrutiny took place in Alberta in the 1980's it laid the groundwork for the rise of Manning and Harper.