[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

Now now CC, no need to be Berkian.

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

[Jacob]

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

I think the preferred term is "Morally Impeccable Unproblematic Energy Deposits" - or MIEUED for short.

[Barrister]

Now now CC, no need to be Berkian.

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

Why do you think the term is being pushed by environmental groups?  "Tar" has negative connotations as being dirty, whereas "oil" is useful.

[HVC]

As mentioned before by BB if you're still using oil Alberta is more morally justifiable then Arab oil, if that eases anyone conscious.

That being said I'm firmly on the side of moving further to renewable. Alberta should be moving towards adjusting their economy in that direction, but the province has shown a deep seated reluctance to plan for the future.

[HVC]

Now now CC, no need to be Berkian.

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

Why do you think the term is being pushed by environmental groups?  "Tar" has negative connotations as being dirty, whereas "oil" is useful.

As I mentioned above as far as I recall tar sands has been used all my life, so before the big environmental lobby push (at least as I understand the movement).

[crazy canuck]

Now now CC, no need to be Berkian.

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

It wasn't until after the attempt to rebrand it as oil sands.  After that the term tar sands was viewed as a pejorative.

It took me a couple of seconds to find a paper on the topic.  The bit related to what it was called prior to the 90s in in this passage:

It has been suggested in media coverage that supporters for the development of this resource use the label "oil sands", whereas critics deploy "tar sands". While this claim rings true, in the media sample reviewed it becomes evident that "tar sands" was used during the 1980s and 1990s in a completely neutral way, simply in reference to the "Athabasca Tar Sands."

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/e2e74e71-9160-4a5d-92c9-d06b00d08441

As for being like Berkut - I didn't call him a liar.  So don't smear me with that brush.  But I am calling BB out for taking an unreasonable position (saying that tar sands is Newspeak) which is inconsistent with the facts.

[Valmy]

Now now CC, no need to be Berkian.

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

Why do you think the term is being pushed by environmental groups?  "Tar" has negative connotations as being dirty, whereas "oil" is useful.

I don't like tar sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating... and it gets everywhere. Not like oil where everything is soft and smooth and useful.

[crazy canuck]

Now now CC, no need to be Berkian.

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

Why do you think the term is being pushed by environmental groups?  "Tar" has negative connotations as being dirty, whereas "oil" is useful.

I don't like tar sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating... and it gets everywhere. Not like oil where everything is soft and smooth and useful.

So you mean like bitumen? 

[HVC]

As for being like Berkut - I didn't call him a liar.  So don't smear me with that brush.  But I am calling BB out for taking an unreasonable position (saying that tar sands is Newspeak) which is inconsistent with the facts.

By that term I meant unnecessarily abrasive and argumentative. I didn't  intend to call you a liar.

[HVC]

Now now CC, no need to be Berkian.

Is tar sands really a negative term? Never thought of it as such.

Why do you think the term is being pushed by environmental groups?  "Tar" has negative connotations as being dirty, whereas "oil" is useful.

I don't like tar sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating... and it gets everywhere. Not like oil where everything is soft and smooth and useful.

So you mean like bitumen? 

*cough* Star Wars *cough*

[crazy canuck]

As for being like Berkut - I didn't call him a liar.  So don't smear me with that brush.  But I am calling BB out for taking an unreasonable position (saying that tar sands is Newspeak) which is inconsistent with the facts.

By that term I meant unnecessarily abrasive and argumentative. I don't intend to call you a liar.

How is calling out that BB is factually wrong, and labelling his insistence on a factually incorrect position as being motivated by his ideology abusive?

[HVC]

First paragraph was was factual, second was abrasive :shrug:

[Barrister]

As mentioned before by BB if you're still using oil Alberta is more morally justifiable then Arab oil, if that eases anyone conscious.

That being said I'm firmly on the side of moving further to renewable. Alberta should be moving towards adjusting their economy in that direction, but the province has shown a deep seated reluctance to plan for the future.

I think that is generally understood.

What is more widely opposed is the notion that we just need to shut down the oil sector and somehow magically we'll just transition to renewables.

Nobody is going around saying we need to shut down Ontario's automobile sector, despite its huge contribution to global warming.

[HVC]

As mentioned before by BB if you're still using oil Alberta is more morally justifiable then Arab oil, if that eases anyone conscious.

That being said I'm firmly on the side of moving further to renewable. Alberta should be moving towards adjusting their economy in that direction, but the province has shown a deep seated reluctance to plan for the future.

I think that is generally understood.

What is more widely opposed is the notion that we just need to shut down the oil sector and somehow magically we'll just transition to renewables.

Nobody is going around saying we need to shut down Ontario's automobile sector, despite its huge contribution to global warming.

Every province has its environmental failings, bc has clear cutting and the maritime over fishing (and I guess bludgeoning seals ) and their are many others, so in that I agree with you. Alberta has the extra bad PR of being more visually unappealing and appearing more harmful. But I think the main difference is that the other provinces are trying to reduce theirs (or at the very least pretending to, and in PR terms that's all you need), while Alberta seems to be trying to increase theirs.

[viper37]

So, it seems the Libs policies on immigration on based on McKinsey's consulting choices rather than anything more... ah, what's the word the left is using these days? Humane? Compassion? Non racist? 

Anyway.  It just proves how stupid those policies are designed.  As I said before, there ain't no logice behind them, except for the assimilation of the French speakers outside Quebec, which is totally disregarded.