Does Western Alienation exist, and how can we fix it?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A relative of mine has gone "full native" and preaches western alienation in a fire and brimstone kind of way on social media. He's originally from Central Canada with very recent roots in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, and AFAIK everyone in his immediate family except for him (and his wife and kids) lives east of Manitoba. I gather he's lived in the West for about 10 years or so.

His latest posting references this Maclean's study. Now I am not a big fan of StatsCan's crime severity index but it's still noteworthy that 20 out of 20 of the country's (allegedly) most dangerous places are in the West.
https://www.macleans.ca/society/canadas-20-most-dangerous-places-2020/

My relative says this is evidence that things are really, really bad in the West right now.

Of course, the West taken as a region has usually had higher violent crime than most of central-eastern Canada in the three decades or so I've been paying attention to this. It's nothing new.

Crime is also very low in the West's biggest metro, Vancouver, and is also pretty low (comparable to Ontario and Quebec cities) in Calgary which is ground zero for the oil bust.

But my relative (the guy who has 95% of his loved ones east of Winnipeg) still spouts off about this being another example of the "East" being ungrateful leeches, when the "West" pays for "everything" in Canada.

Looking forward to Christmas in that family I am sure!

I'm not sure about the crime severity index for the BC and AB cities on that list, but in MB and SK crime was high (relative to the ROC) in the listed cities
even when the economy was going great guns. The situation in North Battleford or Thompson really has nothing to do with what's going on in the oilpatch… it's completely different.

[misher]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not sure about the crime severity index for the BC and AB cities on that list, but in MB and SK crime was high (relative to the ROC) in the listed cities
even when the economy was going great guns. The situation in North Battleford or Thompson really has nothing to do with what's going on in the oilpatch… it's completely different.

Flood of drugs coming in from the coasts, weak on crime, and problems in First Nations Reserves I assume?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by misher

Flood of drugs coming in from the coasts, weak on crime, and problems in First Nations Reserves I assume?

Both of those cities (and others in MB and SK on the list, including the large cities) are basically where centuries of bad federal public policy mainly in relation to Indigenous people make their effects felt on a daily basis. Even if oil was 200 bucks a barrel and everyone in Alberta was earning six figures, the social problems in these places would still be raging.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

"Huh?!" is definitely the right response here:



You can spout a lot of initiatives they are doing, but it's clear Alberta has been massively increasing carbon emissions, while complaining the rest of Canada is holding them back from even more dramatic increases.

Huh?! is definitely another correct response to you… WarrenC12, I have already explained this to you… Canada produces, specifically in AB, a product which the entire country’s other economic sectors are dependent on. While the O&G sector in 2017 accounted for 195 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, the other economic sectors of Transportation, Buildings, Electricity, Heavy Industry, Agriculture, together account for 478 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, are all entirely dependent on the O&G sector. Exemplified by your great province of BC, Prince Horgan admitted that the BC economy would repairable come to a halt if AB implemented its “turn off the taps”. BC is dependent on Alberta. You are dependent on AB, making you an enabler of AB’s GHG emissions. Likewise, if AB wanted to appease you, and turned off its taps to the rest of the country, just to make AB’s GHG emissions look good, Canada’s entire economy would grind to a halt.

So yes, at the same time that the country NEEDS AB’s oil, AB is making huge strides in reducing its carbon footprint, whether you can admit it or not.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

So yes, at the same time that the country NEEDS AB’s oil, AB is making huge strides in reducing its carbon footprint, whether you can admit it or not.

Well, we already produce far more oil in Canada than we need. Maybe we should turn off exports then?

Face facts, Alberta's GHG emissions are a huge problem, one they are totally unwilling to admit even exists.

"Entirely dependent" is a stretch. Alberta, as usual, overestimates it's own importance.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's a lie.



https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/dat...a-analysis/energy-facts/coal-facts/20071

Perhaps you can provide a quote for me in your link that states the carbon footprint of coal that BC exports to Asia?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/y...-north-americas-largest-exporter-of-coal

Here is a link I got my "lie" from, that states:
"according to emissions formulas used by the Sierra Club, Vancouver’s 2017 coal exports will produce 99.8 million tonnes of CO2 over their lifetime"

to put that into some context, another quote from the same article:

"Depending on the kind of Alberta bitumen the pipeline will be moving at any one time, this means that total product shipped through the expansion will emit between 129 million and 158 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over its lifecycle"

Sooo, if I am reading that correctly, the CO2 emissions of what BC exports PER YEAR of coal, is 2/3 the total emissions of the product shipped through the Trans Mountain Piple over its lifecycle.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, we already produce far more oil in Canada than we need. Maybe we should turn off exports then?

Face facts, Alberta's GHG emissions are a huge problem, one they are totally unwilling to admit even exists.

"Entirely dependent" is a stretch. Alberta, as usual, overestimates it's own importance.

I never said they aren't a problem... did I ever say they aren't a problem? What I stated was AB is making big improvements to reduce its carbon footprint from its primary industry.

"Entirely dependent" is probably a good choice of words when BC admitted its economy would irreparably grind to a halt if AB shut off the taps. To me, that says BC is dependent on Alberta. You should face facts, WarrenC12

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Perhaps you can provide a quote for me in your link that states the carbon footprint of coal that BC exports to Asia?

Here is a link I got my "lie" from, that states:
"according to emissions formulas used by the Sierra Club, Vancouver’s 2017 coal exports will produce 99.8 million tonnes of CO2 over their lifetime"

That's not a link, that's you typing something. From my link:

Canada exported 34 million tonnes of coal and imported 7.6 million tonnes

Canada's exports are primarily metallurgical coal (97% in 2018).

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/dat...a-analysis/energy-facts/coal-facts/20071

1 ton of thermal coal produces 2.86 tons of CO2 equivalent. Even if 100% of out exports was thermal coal, it still wouldn't hit your number.

You taking the Sierra Club at face value is probably the funniest thing I've read in a while.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I never said they aren't a problem... did I ever say they aren't a problem? What I stated was AB is making big improvements to reduce its carbon footprint from its primary industry.

But that's not true. From 1990 to 2017, AB emissions have increased by 2 Quebecs. Let that sink in.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by travis3000

No. Quebec acknowledges they do indeed have pipelines already, they acknowledge they use and refine oil as we speak. Nobody is denying that. Quebec however has made it very clear that its their wishes to REDUCE their reliance on oil. They do not wish to further the production/use of it. The Quebec government has a long term plan to reduce reliance on oil use. Because of their big picture view on the environment, they don't want to continue down that road. This is why they are against more development/pipelines.

It's really not rocket science. I understand where they are coming from. Quebec's future is green, that's the direction they wish to go.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's not a link, that's you typing something. From my link:





https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/dat...a-analysis/energy-facts/coal-facts/20071

1 ton of thermal coal produces 2.86 tons of CO2 equivalent. Even if 100% of out exports was thermal coal, it still wouldn't hit your number.

You taking the Sierra Club at face value is probably the funniest thing I've read in a while.

Here's the link:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/y...-north-americas-largest-exporter-of-coal

Canada's exports of coal is mettalurgical… thing is though is Vancouver exports coal from the USA. According to that article, with multiple sources within, in 2017 29 million tonnes of coal was exported, and of that only 11 million tonnes can be considered metallurgical.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Here's the link:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/y...-north-americas-largest-exporter-of-coal

Here is the discrepancy:

In 2008, only 4.4 million tonnes of Vancouver’s coal exports could be called non-metallurgical. By 2017, this had more than doubled to 11.3 million tonnes.

Controversially, almost all of this thermal coal is coming from the United States. As lawmakers in Washington and Oregon have begun shutting down their own coal ports due to environmental concerns, thermal coal producers in Wyoming and Montana have simply diverted their product through Canada.

In August, then-premier Christy Clark called for a ban on Vancouver exports of U.S. thermal coal in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber.

“They are no longer good trading partners with Canada. So that means we’re free to ban filthy thermal coal from B.C. ports, and I hope the federal government will support us in doing that,” she said at the time.

It's US coal, but the total thermal export is still around 11M tons, so it's not going to produce the 100M tons of CO2 emissions you stated.

I support a complete ban of US coal exports from Canadian ports. I'm not sure how much NAFTA trouble that would get us into.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Here is the discrepancy:



It's US coal, but the total thermal export is still around 11M tons, so it's not going to produce the 100M tons of CO2 emissions you stated.

I support a complete ban of US coal exports from Canadian ports. I'm not sure how much NAFTA trouble that would get us into.

I totally understand that Canada's is for mettalurgical reasons, but BC is still exporting a massive amount of thermal coal, doesn't matter its source, and BC is being cmassively compensated to do so... nonetheless, from the 37 million tonnes of coal exported from BC, 29 million tonnes of that is thermal coal.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

"Huh?!" is definitely the right response here:



You can spout a lot of initiatives they are doing, but it's clear Alberta has been massively increasing carbon emissions, while complaining the rest of Canada is holding them back from even more dramatic increases.

Lets do some math.

Alberta population: 4.37 million.
Ontario's population: 14.57 million.

Alberta's carbon emissions: 275 mega tons
Ontario's carbon emissions: 160 mega tons.

Per person:
Alberta: 62 tons
Ontario: 12 tons.

So, when we start to reduce our carbon footprint, of course AB will feel it. They are producing the most.

Lets say we did not reduce carbon from oil sands production, bur did other things.

Here are some things the government/citizens could do:

1) Buy smaller, more efficient cars instead of trucks. I know, I know, your jacked up diesel, rolling coal truck is a status symbol. It is also raising your carbon footprint.

2) Invest in public transport. This does include the LRTs, but would also include intercity rail and commuter rail.

3) have newer industry have tighter standards. Starting a new oil sands project? Your emissions must be lower than the other old ones.

4) have existing industry standards slowly reduce the emissions. You put out x number of tons this year, next year you must lower it by y number of tons.

5) have a price on carbon that the consumer will feel. That low emissions car will cost less in "taxes" than your big truck. It may not make everyone switch, but it will slowly change things.

There are many more that can be done, but ignoring it will not make it go away.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, we already produce far more oil in Canada than we need. Maybe we should turn off exports then?

Face facts, Alberta's GHG emissions are a huge problem, one they are totally unwilling to admit even exists.

"Entirely dependent" is a stretch. Alberta, as usual, overestimates it's own importance.

Just turn off the refineries in eastern Canada? And cancel Quebec’s massive export terminal project.

And btw swimmer we could lower emissions tomorrow by requiring that all of Canada adopt lower carbon gas that’s better for the environment. All it takes is additional refinement which adds a couple cents to the cost. This is much better for the environment than a carbon tax.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by misher

Just turn off the refineries in eastern Canada? And cancel Quebec’s massive export terminal project.

Can you admit that refining Middle East oil has less of a carbon footprint that refining oil sands oil?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Just turn off the refineries in eastern Canada? And cancel Quebec’s massive export terminal project.

And btw swimmer we could lower emissions tomorrow by requiring that all of Canada adopt lower carbon gas that’s better for the environment. All it takes is additional refinement which adds a couple cents to the cost. This is much better for the environment than a carbon tax.

We should stop exporting US coal. Cap our other fossil fuel exports. Stop using coal for our own electricity. Convert as much vehicle transportation as possible to electricity, and keep cleaning our own electricity grid.

Alberta is interested in none of this.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by travis3000

No. Quebec acknowledges they do indeed have pipelines already, they acknowledge they use and refine oil as we speak. Nobody is denying that. Quebec however has made it very clear that its their wishes to REDUCE their reliance on oil. They do not wish to further the production/use of it. The Quebec government has a long term plan to reduce reliance on oil use. Because of their big picture view on the environment, they don't want to continue down that road. This is why they are against more development/pipelines.

It's really not rocket science. I understand where they are coming from. Quebec's future is green, that's the direction they wish to go.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can you admit that refining Middle East oil has less of a carbon footprint that refining oil sands oil?

Would that include the carbon emitted from the tankers that come from the other side of the world?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can you admit that refining Middle East oil has less of a carbon footprint that refining oil sands oil?

Are we at all concerned about Saudi meddling in the Yemeni civil war, Saudi state sponsorship of international terrorism or political corruption in Venezuela?

Those are the main sources of oil in eastern Canada. I consider it "blood oil".

This is the main reason why I am upset that Quebec put the kibosh on Energy East.

[misher]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can you admit that refining Middle East oil has less of a carbon footprint that refining oil sands oil?

Definitely. But also that supports dictatorships that pollute, hurt humanity, and destroy the environment. Looking at just the operations themselves is small picture. Also I don’t trust the environments stats coming from those nations. Given that bribes are common there I expect almost numbers to be off.

And as Moncton has pointed out we also pollute shipping it here.

I’d also point out that we could reduce Alberta’s emissions while we can’t control the middle East’s. If we invested in electrical power we could power Alberta’s turbines and extractions with nuclear power instead of using fossil fuels. BC is considering electrical power for its LNG extraction too but it doesn’t have enough power to do so. If we want to reduce pollution we need more power! We need to start construction on the plants to power the future today. How can we push electric cars without a plan to power electric cars. The West has no nuclear power plants while the East has 22 reactors in 5 plants. Just like the pipeline nuclear companies have given up building more plants due to constant government obstruction which has resulted in no new plants being built for the past 15 years. No wonder the East pollutes less they get all the best stuff.

[davidivivid]

In 2012, 92% of the oil ending up in Quebec refineries was mainly imported from Algeria, Kazakhstan and Angola. In 2017, about 82% of that oil came from North America and more specifically, 44% came from Canada. In other words, in 5 years, Quebec did a complete turnaround in its oil imports, turnaround which mainly benefitted canadian producers (9b Enbridge). Why is Saudi Arabia and Venezuela even mentioned I don't know.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/113...dge-dependance-canada-etats-unis-alberta