Foundation Money and declaration of conflicts.

I don't mean to be smart here, but shouldn't The Tyee let readers know if it is receiving financial support from any American Foundations such as Gordon and Betty Moore or Tides Canada.

Its very clear The Tyee is running a campaign. So the level of financial contribution should be declared and clarified.

I'm concerned because it would appear to me that American money is being used to finance and shape Canadian public opinion, Canadian geo-political policy and economic policy.

But what mostly concerns me is the tanker campaign being run by Wilderness, Dogwood, The Tyee is setting us up for one market for Tarsands oil. The USA! I want to know if The Tyee and these groups are knowingly acting as an arm of American interests? Or is the money just convenient?

"financial support"

To PeteL asking where the money comes from: the "Donate" button is at the top of The Tyee's web page.

PeteL

Foundations, including Tides Canada (which is not an American Foundation), help fund some of the reporting that appears on The Tyee but we are not dependent on such funding and they have no editorial control over what we research, report and publish.

It is false to say that The Tyee is 'running a campaign' or 'setting up' anyone for 'one market' for oil sands crude. We have sought to be a top source for in-depth journalism on the oil sands and as such have added balance to the general reporting on the oil sands, I think. We've done so by running many investigative and solutions stories looking at alternatives to developing the oil sands in the current way. And by tracking the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by oil sands firms lobbying, with the Alberta and federal government, other governments to soften their climate change laws to accommodate high carbon fuel. I'm very proud of the contribution we've chosen to make to this vital national conversation.

Beers splitting hairs?

Beers sez >>>Tides Canada (which is not an American Foundation),...<<<

Sort of like General Motors Canada is not technically a American Company?

If one was to read the 34 year history of Tides (USA) they would find;

>>> We also collaborated in the launching of Tides Canada Foundation. <<<

My question is; so how much control or collaboration is still in effect?

A Foundation

So does Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation fund stories in The Tyee?

And LeftSeater is correct, Tides Canada is simply a Canadian entity distributing American money.

I get the fact that corporations fund all kinds of campaigns and much of what Tides funds are causes that need assistance. Causes I personally support.

But if we look at a Foundation such as Gordon and Betty Moore, a Foundation that funds Tides Canada -- and if we also reference some of Moore Foundations goals, such as banning tankers, and look at stories being run by The Tyee, or positions taken by Mayor Robertson, well excuse me for feeling a sense of American foreign interest manipulation.

Have a look at how much money has flowed into BC. I understand over the past few years there's more Foundation money in BC than Oregon, Washington and Alaska combined.

I think this province needs a sustainable industrial policy. One that is beneficial to our citizens and I think we should be funding our own debates.

We are not talking about doorstep money here, but millions and millions of dollars flowing into Canada through these Foundations.

David, when that is happening we should all be asking uncomfortable questions.

PeteL

Perhaps a description of how we work at The Tyee would help. We do not employ campaigners, activists, etc. We are journalists who independently follow our interests and instincts as we survey the current landscape of what is being reported and then choose our topics. For good reporters, one news story broken often leads to more, and thus an expertise builds up. That's not a campaign -- rather, it hopefully becomes a valuable, award-winning series.

If a foundation wishes to help support such research and journalism published on The Tyee, and agrees that we retain full editorial control, I am pleased to consider accepting the help. Journalism like what you read here costs money.

If Gordon and Betty Moore foundations want to support journalism published in The Tyee under those conditions, I'd be happy to talk with them. We have not had any discussions, though, and receive no funding from them.

Source of financing is

Source of financing is irrelevant. What counts is the quality of the work --completeness, facts, arguments, and, yes, values. Readers can decide how these stack up. Tyee journalists do a good job on a shoe-string. (In the present case, the derivation of the A$31b figure is, at best, obscure, reducing perhaps the cogency of the piece. If readers have better info, i'd hope they'd share it.)

Solar wind claptrap and the greenie denier

Solar:
Germany gets almost no energy from solar despite having spent tens of billions on it. It has a score of new deadly coal plants and numerous more gas planst on the build to cover for its worthless renewable investment. Germany coal and gas kills tens of thousand of European citizens every year from air pollutions. Just like in World War II the German citizen doesn't seem to care.

While the installed cost of solar is $5 a watt the capacity factor is 10% for the average Canadian rooftop giving us cost of $50 a watt compared to $2 for clean and green Candu nuclear power.

The cost of solar PV is now less than a similarily built mass produced skylight from home depot without solar cells. Its current low price is due to the collapse of Europes solar market and the recession. It has nowhere go but up.

So rather than the stupid uneducated nonsensical 6,700 MW from Anderson the real number for our $30B solar investment buys is a maximum of 600 Mw avg compared to our 30000 Mw from mass produced Candu's. Beers needs to send Anderson back a grade school to learn basic science and arithmetic.

Wind:

While our $30B could create another 8000 MW of wind capacity by 2020 with the typical 25% capacity factor of wind it is equivalent to only 2000 MW compared to the 30000 MW available from mass produced nuclear. More back to school work on arithmetic and journalism ethics for Anderson.

Jobs:

Nuclear power produces 5 times as many jobs per kwh that wind and solar produce and those jobs are in Canada not in some Chinese factory.

There are no current nuclear subsidies while thousand year old solar and wind technologies are the recipients of hundreds of billions worldwide in subsidy.

Canada needs 150 new nukes ACR-1000 nukes to end fossil fuel use in Canada with 8 nukes required just to green up the Tar Sands. The mass produced nukes are so much cheaper than the fossil fuels they replace, that the payback period on the replacement is less than three years - a 40% rate of return of investment.

This national nuke conversion would overnight end unemployment end the global warming/peak oil menace, save the lives of thousands of Canadians every year and create the greatest construction boom in history.

Brimstone Harper efforts to destroy AECL in exchange for Big Oil campaign donations and other more personal favours are breeches of public trust so egregious that they are tantamount to treason. Hopefully jail time awaits him in the future.

The Greenie effort to thwart nuclear power results in the deaths of thousands of Canadians every year from air pollution and the sickening of hundreds of thousands more every year they can delay the fossil to nuclear conversion. By delaying the conversion past the climate/peak oil precipice they could cause the deaths of billions worldwide.

HeHeHe PeteL. Did they hit a nerve???

I am so happy that the Tyee is listening to the people and making the public aware of what is really going on in this province. As far as American funding, who cares. The Liberal government is taking our tax dollars and using the money to promote programs we don't want such as the HST. Once again the merchants in the north are getting hit twice as hard as anyone else. The Alberta border is just 40K from Dawson Creek so people from Ft. St. John, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge just drive across the border to shop. That is one reason why MLA Blair Lekstrom quit the caucus. That and I guess he didn't like working with a dictatorial bully.

No Worries Jackson

I'm certainly no Liberal, and no rightwinger. I'm just concerned that the debate isn't real. Both sides of the oil / carbon economy are full of shit. My hat is off to The Tyee for providing a forum, but it is also clear that the zine is not without a bias. That's all buddy.

In our entire history BC has never been more pristine. Its a fabulous park. I grew up on the coast fishing and working tugs since the seventies, its never been cleaner and more well kayaked than it is now. There ain't much work, but its sure clean.

Same goes for the mighty Fraser, heck you can drink out of it now. Its clean, not much work though.

Hows the work picture up North? Many real jobs up there. You know, the type that can sustain a family? I heard there's a Walmart opening in Terrace. More applications than you can shake a stick at.

PeteL

You said:

If I may draw your attention to the top of the page, you may notice a blue bar with a dark blue outline, spanning the page horizontally, placed between the article title below and the navigation bar above. If you look closely, within the centre of the blue bar is the word "OPINION" in white, and while it may seem meaningless at first, it in fact - ! - indicates to the reader the nature of the article below.

Opinion articles are written with the understanding that the reader will read them as reflective of a point of view held by the author or the organization releasing the article at large, and are of course, biased. When reading an opinion article, there is a presupposition that it reflects a subjective point of view, as opposed to a news article, which must reflect a balance of ideas and be subject to much more rigorous fact-checking, lest it be labeled "biased."

In other words, news articles (on the Tyee labeled "NEWS") should avoid bias, while opinion articles (on the Tyee labeled "OPINION") are always biased.

Therefore, attacking an opinion article for being reflective of bias would be rather silly. But no one would be so silly as to make such a mistake, as it would make them look rather foolish!

Of course, I'm sure you just failed to notice the bright blue bar with white lettering within.

I hope I've cleared things up for you :-)

PeteL, Terrace has had a Wal-Mart

since early 2004 ;)

As for both sides of the environmental economic debate being full of it, as long as maximum profit and market share are the rules, the truth will get buried when needed.

The economists will always conflate the 'sublime with the ridiculous' in concocting the economic forecast formulas used as its contribution to the simulacra that is reality.

PeteL

I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that The Tyee's reporting on energy issues in Alberta and BC presents a counter to job creation in the province. This piece and other Tyee stories have identified areas where jobs could grow in the green energy sector.

The Energy of Desire

If the people of BC want green energy they can have it but it will cost taxpayer dollars, as the solar in Spain and the US, the wind in Denmark and Germany's experiences can demonstrate.

Denmark pays perhaps the highest rates in the EU for electricity and when they do export their surplus it is often at zero monetary benefit because it goes out at the spot-market-rate. But, they do have lots of wind turbines that the taxpayers substantially helped build.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

The subsidies games in Spain, the US and Germany can be lavish for businesses. BC needs to ask if taxpayers are willing to cough up. Alternative green energy is not cheap and will not happen unless businesses are given an offer difficult to refuse. For government to subsidize alternative green energy and, in BC's case, for BC Hydro to build it, other questions arise. It'll cost us.

Remember too, Denmark exports energy into a high priced market. BC would not be getting high prices exporting in North America because energy prices are much lower here.

As other commenters have pointed out, nuclear is green and productive and far more efficient than solar, wind or any other yet conceived scheme.

As Glen Clark says, 'business knows best'. Perhaps someone would like to bounce some ideas off of Glen tomorrow. He's taking questions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/one-big-idea/glen-clark-business-knows-best/article1815861/

An interesting tidbit noticed in the Tides Canada annual report; Tides Canada receives funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. So one could say that some of the Tyee funding comes from the Standard Oil/Exxon/Chevron fortune. Interesting how globalization has swept the world in philanthropic causes as it has in commerce.

How Do You Make Your Money?

"And how do you make your money? " Sask.Resident.

I "made my living" being a labouring level working class person; farm labour, military, farming and ranching, hospital worker, transit driver. (It is all about "money" to the ruling class. To a working class person it is more actually about "making a living". And there are always exceptions, I grant.) But especially, wherever and whenever I could, and from where I got my political and economic education and current "modest" material retirement, I worked union and was a working class activist. It raised my level of understanding and saved my ass from the poverty of many who wouldn't, couldn't or were otherwise unable to unionize.

Nothing to apologize for, certainly to the likes of yourself Saskatchewan Resident.

Hang in there Beers. You and Tyee have nothing to apologize for either, around the issues you raise and provide, typically, first class "progressive" journalism on. Tyee has done more to raise the level of this discussion around such issues as this tar sands debacle, than any other single source known to me... and drawing in a diversity of opinion in the course of it.(Ergo, withness the above comment thread.)

If the means of existence of the present and future depend on such criminal economic activity and environmental destruction as this tar sands disaster, better the Empire and its oil dependency, and our own, fall right now, and we transform our economy and society in such a manner and ways as to make it unnecessary and more socially and environmentally responsible.

This kind of economic activity, regardless of how many it employs, and I consciously say this as a working class person, with a working class extended family, is unsustainable AND criminal. And it depends in the final analysis, first, on taking advantage of the need of working people for decent livelihoods, as well as on the broader, majority working class community providing it with the tax dollars Corporate Welfare upon which it depends and can only get going and function. (Besides, did it not make "profit sense" to the great corporations involved, they wouldn't give a rat's ass about the jobs. They would shut it down within the hour.) It is a prime example of the Socialism for The Rich and Private Enterprise for the Working Class morality that really underpins the real capitalist system.

On balance, it represents further "theft" from the majority working class masses pockets and future, for the relatively few jobs it creates. To say nothing of what it is doing to the very land and water upon which we all depend.

Time to find another way of living and making our livelihoods than this kind of criminal enterprise.

Let's think this through

One only has to read your first paragraph to conclude that the article is based on a misunderstanding of basic financial matters. You suggest that the oil companies are being subsidized by us because they are allowed to deduct their royalty payments before paying taxes.
I gather that you prefer this scenario. A company earns $100 and then pays $90 in royalties. According to you it should then pay taxes on the $100 instead of the $10 and, obviously go broke. Which, I suspect, is really your preferred objective.

Global Warming isn't in question?????

What is going to be done about it is the leading question of the day????

What "I" Would Prefer...

As if you or Big International Oil really gives a rat's ass...

My preferred option is that the big corporations certainly, like Big Oil, should be "democratized" (as distinct from "nationalized" in the social dem.socialist concept of old)... then made the property of their workers and the communities in which they function, and that they determine how they are managed together. Any monies going to current Big Global Oil in subsidies in any form, research and development grants, tax breaks, land usage rights etc. in the interim, be only given in the form of "buy in" voting share/ownership rights leading to worker/community/special ngo/environmental placements on boards of directors etc. With the result that these corporations be operated in a manner and result that serves the broadest community/worker interest.

That is my preference for Big Oil, for so long as their is an economic, community, and national interest need for oil, free of foreign ownership and diktats as to operating policy etc..

In the case of the tar sands specifically, that they be brought under "local operations/regional" worker/communities/Native/Environmental NGO influence and control. (In the immediate, their placement on Boards of Directors and Management as "observers", while the details of transfer are worked out and how.) This should go at least a long ways toward ensuring that whatever course is taken by way of tar sands development will at least not pollute the nest of the local area peoples, and that what reduced capacity or whatever results, will go to the local, provincial and national oil use interest over any other countries' preparedness to piss in our living space just so THEY can have/control the oil flow.

Clearly, what is absent from the tar sands development is, precisely, this kind of local, worker, community control over the consequences and whatever benefit may be salvaged yet by way of more sustainable and less colossally invasive oil production. The Big Corporate Internationals with their "separate" and "self-serving" globalized ruling class view of the world, and not the Canadian national and community interest, save in a PR way that ensures their cash flow, are The Problem... not the solution to any present or future "rational" tar sands development.

And that this latter conclusion is so and obvious, leaps off the evidence page and smacks everyone up the side of the head... or should be obvious. In my view. :-)

Jerry Munro

How about, in the interim, that the Tar Sands companies be required to put 25% of their gross income into escrow, until satisfactory evidence can be produced to ensure that "collateral damage" will not occur?

I was drawn back to Joe Bageant with your comment, RickW

talking about carbon trading, but the same mentality about money, profit and rights applies -- particularly when we know there is grave damage and we have no way of assessing its scope.

"Naturally they like carbon trading. To my mind at least, making a profit off the fact that you did not piss into the community drinking gourd is the kind of logic only obsessive, property based western world governments and corporations could come up with. It assumes that (A) poisoning everyone else in the human fishbowl is a right to start with, and (B) that right is a property which can be bought and sold between corporate poisoners." ~ Joe Bageant

Joe Baigent

"It assumes that (A) poisoning everyone else in the human fishbowl is a right to start with, and (B) that right is a property which can be bought and sold between corporate poisoners."

And you know -- he is right...........

The ironic part is, we the fish help them do it.

Such fairy tales

More chatter is right,,,there is no question "global warming" stopped in 1998 even though CO2 continued on its upward trend.....but please don't allow reality to intrude into your green pipe dreams.

"In 1988, Hansen forecast 1-3C warming for Antarctica by the “2010s.It better get warming fast. This month, Antarctica has been running as much as 15C below normal, with record sea ice."
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/hansen-forecasts-vs-current-temperatures/

Just what "industrial poison" is being referred to?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/27/californias-giant-redwoods-inconveniently-respond-to-increased-co2/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

Nobody is going to cry over organic spilt milk

1.8 billion litres of toxic chemicals that runs off from the extraction is creating rare cancers in a First Nation's community downstream from the sands.

Organic milk however is good for bones and teeth and will give you a smile sure to stand out.

It a far bigger political issue, not just for Canadians but the rest of the world and what this type of oil extraction means in terms of serious climate change.

What about getting the milk and tar sands to market what if one of them spills?

If the milk is mixed with water it can be real good for the skin. However spilt oil is going to give you something real bad to cry about its the nature of the product harmful to the environment.

Good for the economy you say I would have to disagree as the dollar sits at parity and the rest of the country is struggling to survive as %75 of Canada's manufacturing business was with the USA.

Should we be more like China? Did you know the government official involved in the tainted milk scandal received the death sentence?

Is Canada playing Russian Roulette with the environment?

Oil keeps dollar at parity Bloomberg is banking on it?

Bloomberg, the chameleon Jew takes the markets for a ride leaving it bear for the picking while Goldilocks and the fox head south for the winter.

Did you know 80% of the environments pollution is unaccounted for?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/climate-change-math-in-treaties-flawed-by-suspect-pollution-calculations.html

Coincidence?

mopled ~ there is no question "global warming" stopped in 1998

I wonder if this NYTimes April 26, 1998 article can shed a little light on the propaganda campaign?

April 26, 1998
INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS TO BATTLE CLIMATE TREATY
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
Correction Appended
WASHINGTON, April 25— Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science.

Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's heat near Earth.

An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute to put the plan together.

Joe Walker, a public relations representative of the petroleum institute who is leading the project, said in an interview that the plan had been under consideration for about two months and was ''very, very tentative.'' Mr. Walker said no industry executives had yet been approached to pay for it.

But an eight-page memorandum that he wrote shows in detail how some industry lobbyists are going about opposing the climate treaty.

It is a daunting public relations task. Whenever the treaty's advocates, including the Clinton Administration, discuss global warming, they present the science as essentially settled and unchallengeable, and they compare dissenting scientists to discredited apologists for the tobacco companies. That view has become widely accepted among reporters and the public.

(con't)

cont from above...

Although mainstream scientists do identify considerable uncertainties in their climate predictions, which are based on computer models, they are increasingly confident that global warming is a serious problem and often say that the uncertainties do not justify inaction.

Based on the latest science, most of the world's nations agreed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that industrial nations should cut emissions of greenhouse gases, and the treaty was modified last year to require further reductions in emissions to levels well below those of 1990, over the next 10 to 15 years. But the United States Senate has not yet agreed to that treaty provision, which could require deep reductions in American consumption of fossil fuels.

Documents describing the proposal to undermine the mainstream view were given to The New York Times by the National Environmental Trust, whose work in support of the global-warming treaty is financed by philanthropic organizations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the biggest of the nation's pro-environment grant makers.

Phil Clapp, the president of the environmental trust, said he obtained the papers from an industry official. Exposing the plan at this stage, Mr. Clapp said, would probably ruin the effort to raise money to carry out the plan.

Industry representatives confirmed that the documents were authentic, but emphasized that the plans had not been formally approved by participating organizations. The document listed representatives of the Exxon Corporation, the Chevron Corporation and the Southern Company as being involved. Representatives of Chevron and Southern acknowledged attending meetings on the project; the Exxon representative could not be reached for comment.

The draft plan calls for recruiting scientists to argue against the Administration, and suggests that they include ''individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate.''

cont from above

But among the plan's advocates are groups already linked to the best-known critics of global-warming science.

They include the Science and Environment Policy Project, founded by Fred Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate science. Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming, is involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C. Marshall Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board.

On Monday, the National Academy of Sciences disassociated itself from the most recent effort to drum up support among skeptical scientists. That effort came in the form of a statement and petition on global warming circulated by Dr. Seitz, a physicist who was president of the academy in the 1960's.

The petition, attacking the scientific conclusions underlying the treaty on climate change, was accompanied by an article that was formatted to resemble one that might have been published in the academy's prestigious peer-reviewed journal. It was not.

The draft plan, recently discussed at the oil industry offices, calls for giving such dissenters on climate science ''the logistical and moral support they have been lacking.''

It also calls for spending $5 million over two years to ''maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences.''

It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views.

The document says that industry's polling, conducted by Charlton Research, has found that while Americans see climate change as a serious threat, ''public opinion is open to change on climate science.''

Supporters of the plan want to raise money quickly to spend much of it between now and the November negotiating session in Buenos Aires, where important details of the international treaty are to be decided.

A proposed media-relations budget of $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 ''respected climate scientists'' recruited expressly ''to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' ''

cont, the end NYTimes article

Among the tasks, the petroleum institute's memorandum said, would be to ''identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.''

What the industry group wanted to provide, the memorandum said, was ''a one-stop resource on climate science for members of Congress, the media, industry and all others concerned.''

The industry group said it wanted to develop ''a sound scientific alternative'' to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a large group of scientists advising the United Nations that has published the most authoritative scientific assessments of global warming. That panel has predicted that the next century will bring widespread climatic disruptions if actions are not taken to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The draft plan suggests that despite industry efforts to convince the public that the climate treaty would be costly to carry out and unfair to the United States, the treaty remains popular partly because environmentalists are winning the debate on the science.

''Indeed, the public has been highly receptive to the Clinton Administration's plans,'' the memorandum said. ''There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those 'inside the Beltway' with vested interests.''

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Interesting article about 'the other' nuclear fuel:
"After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts."
And cheap. And no bomb-making byproducts. Of course it isn't off the drawing board yet but it certainly looks promising.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

Money and Pissing Into The Water Credits...

"I wonder if this NYTimes April 26, 1998 article can shed a little light on the propaganda campaign?

April 26, 1998 INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS TO BATTLE CLIMATE TREATY By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr. Correction Appended WASHINGTON, April 25— Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science." From samuidave and NY Times.

Except, of course, the likes of mopled will believe their corporatist propaganda anyway. There being none so blind as those who will not see, or simply just buy into it and objectives... being a conscious part of the problem.

My own essential view is, again, not really being an "expert" in "the science", is to do nothing to potentially exacerbate the environmental situation, accepting the majority scientific opinion world wide, while the science is perhaps more thoroughly sorted out. (And if in the end, the "deniers" miraculously turn out to be correct, at least no harm will have been done. But be they wrong...) And in the case of the "corporatist believer" likes of mopled, I know, total agreement will likely never be achieved, this side of the Apocalypse anyway. Even then... there will still be the likes of mopled, sinking into the Great Goodnight, proclaiming that he was right nonetheless. :-)

You'll have to excuse me mopled, if I give the planet and all its living things the benefit of the element of doubt, certainly over compromised money profits driven "corporatist science". Money after all, is really just green paper in my view of the world.

RickW, re your "cash deposit" suggestion. I have no real objection to it, and there will doubtless be many others with contributions to the "ideas pool"... likely ahead of my doubtlessly perceived "radical" ones. (And social dems are always anxiously looking to make a peace with capitalism. I accept that. :-)

That said, I agree with samuidave, that this is no real threat to them, the ruling class, unless it is really, really daunting money-wise. Otherwise, it will become really just like the trade in carbon credits to them... another means and cost of doing business and making money.

In the end I think, it really is going to take a "down to the bedrock" transformation of the economy and democracy to adequately "begin" to deal with these kinds of problems in the human relationship with nature. In the case of the fishes, the water is their "natural" habitat, and their "waste" an integral part of its PH and composition, and our own, highly unlikely to overwhelm the water or us... Quite unlike the highly toxic ways we, our overwhelming numbers and advanced technological/chemical means and compositions are capable of pissing into the water.

JM

I can agree with mopled on the notion that hucksters are taking advantage of the money to be made off carbon credits, and have no interest at all in anything except immediate profits. But that happens with every aspect of life and is no reason to not do something.

But his notion that unlimited CO2 is nothing but good cannot be substantiated in the context of human existence.

Out In The Cold...

"I can agree with mopled on the notion that hucksters are taking advantage of the money to be made off carbon credits, and have no interest at all in anything except immediate profits. But that happens with every aspect of life and is no reason to not do something." RickW

This is the nature of the socio-economic order in which we live, no doubt. And there will be "profiteer" interests working all sides of the demarcation lines... oil and deadly chemical and coal interests on one side and solar and wind turbine manufacturers on the other. And the consultants that serve both. This is capitalism.

And for sure, it makes sorting through the "scientific date", claims and counter claims a daunting task. For even "science" as we know it is not immune to political and "profit", AND ideological influences.

All that said however, it comes down to accepting the evidence of your eyes and over time experience with the natural world, and connecting those dots as best and objectively as one can, with the evidence of the most objective "science" available to you. Which one has to determine for one's self as well, in the final analysis.

And for me, as I say, conceding that I am not an "expert" in environmental sciences by any means, this has led to the conclusion that the "majority science opinion" on global warming makes the most sence, and jibes with my experience of it all. And I am an active in nature person, with an extensive work history in many areas of economic activity.

Plus I distrust mopled and the obviously corporatist think tanks on which he draws, based on my personal examination of his sources. And yes, I know, much "science", like Tyee's journalism, accepts funding from "questionable sources". But again, that's capitalism. They, the ruling class, control the money flow, if you are going to successfully do anything... but amongst themselves still, are not all and always or everywhere agreed. :-) (Dems and Republicans. Conservative and Liberal.) And sometimes, one can take advantage of these internal class view differences within the ruling class.

Everything said and done, we each have to arrive at our own best "objective assessment", which I work very hard at, for me, and act on it. Which puts mopled out in the cold with the Holocaust deniers, in my books. :-)

Have I just been sleeping, or ...

When did the Tar Sands become the Oil Sands? It was easily understood when they were the Tar Sands, that any oil which could be extracted from them could only be done so at great expense, and wouldn't be worthwhile unless oil became ludicrously expensive. With this Marketing Motivational name change, we're quietly but fervently admonished to forget how expensive, and not just financially, this whole shenanigan is.

Husky & BP

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/bp-husky-start-work-on-sunrise-canadian-oil-sands-project.html
I guess we've hit the luicrously expensive....

cw

"Tar is modified pitch (resin) produced primarily from the wood and roots of pine by destructive distillation under pyrolysis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar

What we have in Alberta is actually petroleum or bitumen mixed in with sand and rock.

"Bitumen is a mixture of organic liquids that are highly viscous, black, sticky, entirely soluble in carbon disulfide, and composed primarily of highly condensed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Naturally occurring or crude bitumen is a sticky, tar-like form of petroleum."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen

You may correctly call them bituminous sands if you wish. It's tar-like, hence the misnomer. Both what it is scientifically and the resulting product is commonly called oil, not tar.

Mitchell Anderson is obviously confused

He's clearly under the impression that "capitalism" is something other than a guise for giving out corporate welfare. If he had any sense he'd stop protesting and get on the corporate gravy train.