Kelly I made the bias remark because you commented on reading articles that all had a leaning, one way or another. It's definitely hard to find facts with so much conflicting data floating around.
No its because you thought you had "got me". That the article was some kind of statement from KM about the impact to gas prices in Vancouver rather than an op-ed piece written by someone advocating against the pipeline.
On the jobs question I just don't see it as a major contributor to long term job creation. There will be jobs while it's built, but those are temporary. The sample jobs you noted might be created, but we're not talking big numbers-- possibly not even hundreds, and certainly not thousands. As you say, the numbers and opinions are conflicting, which simply makes me skeptical. I'm not ready to support a pipeline that only MIGHT create jobs.
Long term the number of jobs created in BC is likely to be less than 100. However again, it's not just about what BC gets out of it.
I get the idea about attracting investment to Canada, but are these the companies we really want to attract? They continue to be a necessary evil for now, but why not work towards attracting investment in cleaner energy? Our oil supplies are being met through a mix of import and domestic and will be for a while yet, so in the meantime I think the national (and global) interest is to transition toward alternatives. Because we are a wealthy country with vast resources, we're in a good position to do this. As someone stated earlier, nobody thinks this will happen overnight.
This is related to Shadow's post. The oil companies are despised, so why keep pandering to them? And there ARE alternatives. They aren't mainstream and affordable enough, and lots of work needs to be done, but it IS coming. So let's attract investment that will speed up that process!
There is already significant investment going towards alternatives. Once big challenge for Canada is that we are still largely a resource based economy (it's WHY we are such a wealthy country). Much of our competitive advantage comes from the fact that the resources are physically located here (hydro, fossil fuels, minerals, forestry, tourism). When it comes to attracting high tech manufacturing in solar panels or wind turbines there are few reasons to attract international capital flows. If I'm a global fund looking to invest a billion dollars in a solar panel factory, Canada isn't very high on my list of countries to look at. We used to have a very strong semiconductor sector based out of Ottawa but it was decimated in the 2000 dot com boom.
People like to throw claims of hypocrisy around. That's not helpful. The one I find especially ridiculous is about the "foreign funded environmentalists." Pollution and climate change don't stop at borders, so why wouldn't like minded organizations support eachother? And can it even compare to how much oil companies throw around to promote and support their interests?
Why not, hypocrisy helps understand what people actually want vs. what they claim they want. I don't begrudge "foreign funded environmentalists." supporting initiatives that address their stated goals. I do take issue with groups that stage PR
events to raise funds, or where funds come from competitors (i.e. the objective is not to achieve better environmental outcomes, but to obstruct competitors)
And yes Kelly I know about our federation. I also know that AB is no longer the economic powerhouse it once was, and that in the spirit of "national interest" shouldn't complain about transfer payments, especially when they'll receive billions from the feds this year.
Alberta will receive $0 in equalization payments in 2018. Federal transfers for healthcare and social programs are part of the constitutional convention that allows the Federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the provincial governments. Alberta will receive the same per capita transfers as every other "have" province (BC, Alberta, Saskatewan, and Newfoundland)
I can't have much sympathy for the view that "it's never enough" for the opposition no matter what protections and guarantees are in place. The opposition is there because people realize this can't go on forever and they crave something new.
They crave something "new" while pursuing the behaviors that enable the status quo. It's like someone not wanting to watch what they eat, nor exercise, yet "craving" a new way to lose weight. We call the oil companies "evil" and complain how they "gouge" us, yet Canadian's line up to buy record numbers of Trucks and SUVs (passenger car sales are down to 1964 levels). It's not just rank and file Canadian's, even our most vocal crusaders made conscious lifestyle choices to increase their usage of fossil fuels. If you want to protest, protest outside your local Toyota dealership to convince people to buy a Yaris vs a Sequoia. Even this group, as backpackers, carry, wear and sleep under a pile of fossil fuels every time we hit the trail.
Its easy to call for something "new" without a plan for what that "new" is.
Personally I'd say wanting to reduce the number of higher risk tanker cars on the rails that wind through every single mountain National Park (except Kootenay) in favor of lower risk pipelines fits the bill. Or do you not "love" our national parks? I'll point out that each of those tanker cars is filled with 131,000 liters of crude (a greater amount than all but one of those spills listed). Besides if you want to go tit for tat on "which province loves their parks more", I'm happy to leave this here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...gers-1.3661583