America's 2nd Most Important Election Was Held Today
The 2nd most important election for Americans (after Obama/McCain) was held today. And I just voted.
More important than the North Carolina or Minnesota Senate race, or who is Governor of California or Mayor of New York, more important than runs Britain, France or Germany. Today's election will have more influence on how a President Obama tackles energy use, foreign trade, health care or climate change than any of these. So I just know that - political junkies all - you're on the edge of your seat, family (and dogs) huddled over the shortwave, gnawing on your fingernails (leave the dog alone), awaiting the results...
... from Canada.
I'd normally avoid any serious discussion of Canada by cracking semi-smart on moose/wolf/beaver, David Frum & William Shatner & Celine Dion, or just doing the usual Canadian duck & dive. But I can't be bothered with that schtick today. Because, though barely anyone in the US media (populace?) is aware of it, I meant what I said about the importance of this election. To Obama.
Here's
the deal. Canada & the US are no longer textbook versions of
"sovereign" nations. We're already heavily-integrated. Now, no American politician is gonna talk
about this, and it's not in any Canadian's interest to emphasize it either, but
Canada-US has quietly become one of America's most important relationships.
Yes, China & Russia are more important, but we're talking democratic elections here,
and last I saw, Putin losing the Presidency didn't really seem to matter much. Here's
why this election is important to an Obama Administration.
More excitement, apres le deluge...
1. Trade. The US - i.e. an Obama Administration - has to pump up exports & cut imports to stop the $700 Billion annual trade deficit bleed-out. And who's the largest trading partner of the US? Yeah, the Canucks. Larger than China. US trade with Canada is larger than Japan, the UK, Germany, France & Saudi Arabia's. Combined. Please re-read that last word. And that trade imbalance? Yes, China is important. But who's the #2 US trade deficit with? The "People of the Toque." Obama will need to "fix" this & respond to a deep recession, but without triggering a protectionist war. NAFTA is central here.
2. Energy. Who's the #1 supplier of oil to the US? The Saudis, right? Errrr, no. It's dear ole Canuckistan. The US gets more petroleum from Canada than from the Saudis, the Iraqis & the Russians combined. And long-term? That "Drill, baby, drill" thing? Nobody in the energy industry seriously thinks the US is going to make it from domestic sources. The only way it has a chance to replace Middle Eastern oil is by drilling the hell out of Canada. More precisely, the oilsands of Alberta. The oilsands have been toured, repeatedly, by the major American political, military & business leaders... because there's more oil there than in Saudi Arabia. Right now, a $100 billion plus building boom is rolling out there, which might be fine, if it weren't for the fact that the oil produced is filthy. It requires incredible quantities of water & natural gas to extract the goo, and refine it. Oilsands oil also produces CO2 like crazy. Which means, from Arnie to Obama to Ottawa, there's gonna have to be a massive joint effort to reduce those emissions, if the oil is to be tapped.
I'd keep going, but I suspect you're asleep already. I suspect you really don't want to hear about: 3. How Ontario produces more vehicles than Michigan - so the retooling of the Big 3 has to be done bi-nationally. 4. How Canada is set to bridge the Kyoto signatories & the new Obama Admin. 5. How Canadian troops have taken the highest casualties proportionally of any nation in Afghanistan. 6. How Canada now has the strongest banking system in the G7, and its banks are looking to buy-out large American banks.
No, eh? Good. Me neither.
7. Health Care. One last issue. In 1970, both nations spent ~7% of their GDP on health. Today, the US spends ~16%, and Canada, ~10%. Yet Canada's health outcomes are better. That's 6% of GDP we've freed up. In the US, this would equal $700 billion each year in free cash. So for a comparable populace with a relevant system, look North.
Ok, the sharp edge. An Obama Administration has committed to eliminating oil imports from the Middle East, to transform the Big Three, reduce health care costs, fix Afghanistan, cut CO2 emissions, recapitalize the banks, slash the trade deficit, etc.
He's gonna need a friend amongst the Moose.
So I voted. Pretty easy. You get a card in the mail, take along a piece of ID (driver's license, utility bill) and... vote. If you're not registered, you bring a bill, and a friend. You vote just for the Federal candidate. No "down ticket." Paper ballots. Done. Other than the old ladies in their walkers, pretty smooth overall.
Hardest part is that there are 5 real parties. The likely winner of a Minority Government tonight will get that with 34%-36% of the vote (the Conservatives.) Why? Because the other 4 parties are ALL center-left. (Sigh.) The Conservatives are headed by a mean-spirited ex-think tank ideologue of the New Right, based in the oil patch - and whose closest advisors are New Right/Republicans from the US. In short, the guy's a prick. (Can I say prick here?) The Liberals (likely finishing 2nd), are headed by a Quebecois intellectual, brilliant, but who can barely speak English. (Really.) An equally intellectual member of the New Democratic Party (think British Labour), will come 3rd, his stridency having been sanded off by media training. The Bloc Quebecois, former separatists, now offering much weaker tea. And the rapidly-rising Greens, spoilers likely to take 6%-8% of the vote (and thus drive the liberals & NDP insane.)
What I'm asking from you is just this. First, your prayers. (Visa, Mastercard & other powerful cosmic forces are also accepted.) Because above all, we cannot handle a Conservative majority. (Really, I can't. I may have to move to Texas. And yes, that's a threat.) But because of the vote-splitting, we may well get that. So just enough cosmic force to keep a Minority Government please. And second, I'm asking for your Rec, because there are many Canadians on this site. And many who have family & friends in Canada. And many who understand that our two nations are basically joined at the neck. But also because it would do all of us a lot of good if Senator Obama was inaugurated in January with some solid, progressive friends standing guard nearby.
Ones from just to his North.
And besides. In case of a bad November result down South, we may all want to consider this potential strategy.
So please consider this an open-thread for any/all Canucks who wander through TPM tonight, or others who wish to poke their noses into the igloo to see what near-audible rumblings of discontent are about.
UPDATE: Looks like the Conservatives won around 145 seats (up 20), enough to form a Minority Government - with 37% of the vote (up ~1%.)
The 2nd-largest party (Canada's traditional winners) the Liberals, fell badly, losing ~25 seats. They are likely to spend the next 6 mos. changing leaders.
This could be bad news for the Center-Left, as the Conservatives can likely rule rule with less risk of being defeated in Parliament.
The NDP gained 8-10 seats, and the Greens rose to nearly 7% - but no seats.
Look for Michael Ignatieff (author, and ex-Harvard/Cambridge) or Bob Rae (Rhodes Scholar) as next Liberal leader.
Pierre Trudeau's well-spoken & photogenic son Justin won election in Quebec. Charisma seems to have carried over as well.
Canadian politics would be interesting, but the rules are too hard.
October 14, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Canadian politics is simple enough - it's just hockey. No kicking, spitting or spearing. If a guy wants to go, he drops his gloves - if you agree, you drop yours. Then you sit down for 5 minutes, feel shame, come back on and at the end of the game - shake hands.
It's the scoring that's messy. While your 3rd Benarski is worth 11 seats in Parliament, your 4th Bernarski (two R's for the 4th) actually cuts your caucus in half (for Historic reasons involving the Cree.) UNLESS, of course, you perform a Schnarppy from the Dispatch box. Which is damned hard with your fingers shoved down your Practimox.
My God. EVERY Canadian remembers the time Prime Minister Diefenbarker did his Practimox - he bled for weeks. Oh how we laughed.
October 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if they waited til after election season, it would get more attention. Just sayin.
October 14, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, a major reason the Conservatives called the election now was so the campaign could be concluded well before the American election. They feared a big Obama victory would carry over, and lead to a continent-wide sweep of the Right.
October 15, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to move north (well, west at this point). Sounds extremely unpainful compared to the eXtreme proctology of the US campaigns.
October 15, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why, that sounds no more complicated than Mornington Crescent!
October 15, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great game, better station. China Mieville's "King Rat" - great book, uses it, as does Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman, I think. Spent more than a few late Camden nights weaving past it as well. But from now on, when you want to shut me up DF, just come on and shout MORNINGTON CRESCENT!
October 15, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Canada is like that student in class - the quiet, bright one, that gets forgotten because of all the attention goes to the loud and disruptive kids who can't get their act together. ;)
October 14, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you left out good-looking.
And modest.
October 14, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Cialis junkies.
October 15, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the Lemon Pledge.
Canadians don't leave home without it.
October 15, 2008 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm, Karl Malden doing promos for Lemon Pledge? Snorrrrtttttt....
October 15, 2008 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Conservatives have a minority government, and the other parties either to the left or separatists, what can be expected from the Candian parliament over the next few years?
October 14, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the Conservatives didn't win an absolute majority, they'll have a functional one. That will mean:
-- No deficits (bad for Obama, as all nations putting forward anti-recessionary policies at once is best)
-- More Afghan Troops (good for Obama, if he wishes to strengthen the US role in Afghanistan with allies)
-- Weak on Climate Change (bad for Obama, as Canada will now play more of a pro-coal/oil role)
-- Very Pro-Oil Exports (good for Obama in terms of getting maximum continental oil supplies)
-- Trade (bad for Obama as Canada won't be helpful in renegotiating trade deals/conditions)
-- Health Care (bad for Obama as the Cons. will happily leak any downsides to opponents)
-- International cooperation (bad for Obama, as he'll have another nasty right-wing ideologue to deal with)
So, Obama will get more oil, more Afghan troops. But he'll lose getting a constructive ally on major international agreements, whether on trade or climate or fiscal stance.
October 15, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
On a less serious note, I don't know if I can trust a country that has a Governor General and a picture of a foreign woman on its currency.
Plus, if there's one thing I've learned from South Park, it's Blame Canada.
October 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Women on currency? Governor General? Imagine combining the two. Take a gander. ;-)
October 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not women, foreign women.
I thought Queen Elizabeth II was still on the 20 dollar bill and some of the coinage. Isn't she a a foreigner for Canadian purposes, even if she is the head of state?
For that matter, how could she be Queen Elizabeth II from the Canadian perspective? Was the original Queen Elizabeth ever styled Queen of Canada?
Something very fishy about this.
October 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be so sure about the lack of cooperation on fiscal stuff Quinn. The Republican party was just forced by circumstances to follow Gordon Brown's lead and half nationalize 9 huge US banks or face a catastrophic run on them. Brown's electoral prospects which were about as happy as McCain's a month ago have soared on his leadership.
Meanwhile know nothing Republican/Libertarian types in the US are wondering how and why Bush and McCain became communists. The rest of us are just hoping it works.
It's in no nation's interest to stick out like a sore thumb or try and game this disaster for individual gain. The resulting distortions would jeopardize a recovery for everyone.
October 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Deficits. Canada had a big debt problem 15 years ago, and the Liberals out it in order. Everyone's very proud now of the string of surpluses. The Conservatives do NOT want to be seen as wrecking that. So it's not really about them seeking "individual gain" so much as holding to their commitments.
But make no mistake. When the Conservatives can get away with something to make life harder for Obama, they will. In fact, they already have. A taste.... Back in May, my 1st post was on how they did this with NAFTA-gate. "The leak of the NAFTA-Gate memo alleging that Obama was merely "playing politics" by questioning NAFTA, is now being tied back to the son of Wisc. Rep. Congressman James Sensenbrenner - the man who introduced the Patriot Act. Investigations by the Toronto Star fingered U.S. Republican sources working within the Canadian embassy as having leaked the document. "This was a very deliberate piece of business for political purposes," one source says. The Star named Frank Sensenbrenner (27) - a former Republican fund-raiser & the man identified as the "conduit" who leaked the memo to the AP - as working in the Canadian embassy to the U.S. at the time, against the wishes of many of the diplomats there, including the Canadian Ambassador himself. The Star states that "The diplomatic corps on Pennsylvania Ave. didn't want him there and were so distrustful of the son of a right-wing Republican congressman, they muttered that they wanted his door left open so they could hear who he was talking to." The hard-right Canadian Conservative gov't forced his placement in the Embassy, against these wishes. Sensenbrenner was brought to Canadian Embassy staff by Gerry Chipeur, a lawyer "who headed the Republicans Abroad Canada," who "has deep ties to the evangelical movement" and to Kansas Senator Sam Brownbeck. PM Harper has long been an admirer of the Republicans, and has an inner circle of advisors & friends drawn heavily from them.
October 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are Canadian policies of no deficits bad for Obama? McSame is the real big spender as a possibility here?
October 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Quinn. I've already thanked my friends in the Maritimes, because all of you were on the job today, voting to make the United States of Canada a safer and better place. Oh, I know y'all get uncomfortable with compliments, much less sentiment, but never mind. Good people just have to learn to take praise, even though it may be more of a challenge that dealing with satire.
October 14, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Maritimes & Nfld did a good job, only giving the Tories 10 of 32 seats. Your poor Islanders though, lost one seat, by 62 votes.
Argh.
October 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bloody hell. I couldn't bring myself to look until now.
Texas, here I come.
Conservative Minority - but increased by 15-20 seats. the other parties (i.e. "we") may be able to hold them in check, but the Liberals did so badly they'll probably behead their leader (and replace him with Michael Ignatieff, the academic/talking-head.)
The problem with this is they'll be loathe to bring the Cons. down, even if they propose lousy policy/budgets. Which gives the nasties a hell of a lot of room to bully things their way.
Oh God. Austin. I think Austin maybe.
October 14, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Austin's pretty nice ("weird" folks, hill country, three local breweries), although--and this is true for all of Texas--it was gerrymandered to death in 2003. We still haven't fixed that.
Thanks for the thoroughly informative and personal post, by the way.
October 14, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, you beat me to it, Quinn. I foolishly thought I'd wait till the final results were in but you jumped the gun.
Gotta disagree on two points: that "more" Canadian troops will head to Afghanistan. There'll be regular rotations, of course, but all federal parties agree our forces will come home by 2011. And if the Tories hope to ever win a majority, they have to suck up to Quebec's antiwar leanings.
I also doubt Ignatieff is the obvious heir-apparent to Liberal leader Stephane Dion. His rival Bob Rae has looked more competent, and I think Ontarians have gotten over their grudge about his time as premier.
And Rootman is so wrong about Canadian politics being complicated. It's the height of simplicity, not to mention frugality.
No two-year primary and election campaigns; just 36 days from election call to voting day. Bam, thank you, ma'am.
And none of this confusion about Democrats honoring the republic and Republicans pushing worldwide democracy.
Our two leading parties are called, quite logically, the Conservatives and the Liberals. One slight twist: Liberal seats are red, Conservative ones are blue.
Aside from that, it's exactly like your system, only less exciting. That's why we get our elections over with in 36 days.
October 15, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I posted the above, I hadn't seen your update, which gives Ignatieff and Rae more or less equal chances at the Liberal leadership.
Wow! We can actually update blogs as events dictate. Wonder of wonders.
October 15, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a thorough Ignatieff-hater - having listened to the pompous bastard drone on for years as a UK talking head - I'm Anyone-But-Iggy. Sadly however, I was also in Toronto when Rae was in. One word - No F'in' Way. Lovely guy, no killer instinct. (In person, he walks like Joe Clark - he'd be our National Duck.)
Shame Justin Trudeau's not 10 years older, though.
As for Afghanistan, Harper has the room he needs to maneuver. i.e. If Obama goes in, what legs are the other parties gonna have to stand on to "bring our boys home?"
But yeah, the updates ARE cool.... My one bright side on a sad, sad day.
October 15, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The oil sands are like fusion: it's the energy of the future -- forever.
Already attempts to make these fields truly economical have failed -- not that will stop people from trying, especially when you know $150/barrel oil will soon be at hand again. By the way, part of the cost is the damange to the environment via greenhouse gases.
Some basic facts:
US production of oil is about 7.46 million bbl/day(a 2007 estimate) while the oil sands are producing a mere 1.126 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2006. In other words, these things that will "save" the US, are only at 15% of our current (paltry) production. And, by the way, oil sand oil is very expensive as it requires significant amount of refining. At some point, the energy returned on energy invested won't even be worth it.
Remember, too, that the peak oil situation which we currently face is not about the end of oil, just that we took out the easiest half. The oil sands represent a painful descent down the other side of the curve -- more difficult product at higher cost. In other words, it's not like the oil sands are going to lower the oil cost from triple digit numbers -- while providing oil, it won't be cheap. Oh, and by the way, Canada isn't just going to ship this oil to the US only.
Oh, we will fight over fluid with Canada for sure, but it will probably be over water, not oil. Humans have lived for thousands of years without oil, but not more than a few days without water.
October 15, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were several other references I would have liked to included in this comment, but TPM still doesn't seem to allow more than 2 refs/comment.
October 15, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, weren't you going on about the importance of dealing with unhappy facts earlier today? Please, DO try and live by your own admonitions will you? Now please understand me. I work to make sure we never have to haul one more bucket out of those pits. i.e. I fully understand WHY we don't want to. BUT.....
1. There are more 1.7 TRILLION barrels sitting there. Think about that, not billion, but TRILLION. With AT LEAST 170 Billion barrels considered recoverable reserves today. The article you linked to says it's 20%, not 10% of potential. This doesn't make me happy, it just IS.
2. Your claim that it's like fusion is just plain loopy. There are tens of billions of dollars being poured in there. Think these companies are joking? Production out of there has doubled since 2001, and is expected - just on the basis of present investment - to rise another 2.5 million barrels within a decade. That puts them at a level at least 4 TIMES the 2006 level you quote. This stuff isn't instant, nor clean, nor free, nor fast CT, I KNOW that. But it just IS there, at a price, and CAN be harnessed.
3. As for your claim that these fields aren't economical, these plants PRINT money if global oil prices are more than $60. Got that? They don't need "triple digit oil prices." Now, you tell me. What is YOUR prediction for future oil prices?
4. Now, they need lots of water & natural gas, yes. But imagine this. Nuclear power. Which they are racing on. Imagine they generate all that heat to use, on-site. The uranium is from the Province next door. That's a lot of forces wanting top push that way. Water? Hell yeah, it's a problem. But they're mostly fighting Native Bands for it. Predict the winner please.
5. They take huge amounts of capital as well. Problem? The world has hundreds of billions of $$$ kicking around CT, that no longer has housing investments to sink into, and T-Bills that pay 0.1%. Think they'll be interested in 10%-20% ROR's?
6. YOU put the word "save" in quotations marks regarding US oil needs - not me. I'm saying, the US hasn't a chance of doing it at home. Therefore, they WILL dig all they can out of Alberta. NO, it won't magically/instantly fill the gap. That's not the point. The point is that it will be desired, and obtained. At $60-$80, you'll get 2-3 million more barrels/day. Want to give me a prediction as to how many bbls we'd get if oil went to $150-$200/barrel?
In short, pay attention to the specifics, CT. What frustrates me about arguing with you is that I believe we SHARE a chosen direction. I also believe we both UNDERSTAND the problems the existing system produces. But we HAVE to know the specifics of the technologies, the prices, the reserves, the progress being made, if we are to make this change with as little loss of life and human suffering as possible.
THIS is what I'm always debating with you. Get down into the specifics more, and I believe you'll see both that the existing system has more room for maneuver than the high-level coverage shows us... and that's bad. But ALSO that the new systems, the possible/practical changes, are far more rapidly entering the economic-doable zone than we might have thought. In short, what if THEY have more/cheaper oil than we'd like... BUT we have more/cheaper wind/solar/geo than we thought? We can get to the same place, perhaps within the same time period. But we need to reorder some of our strategies, adjust some of our perspectives.
Reality requires it.
October 15, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
What on earth are you talking about???
I quoted "oil sands are producing a mere 1.126 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2006."
4 x 1.126 = 4.5 million bbl/d
You claim 2.5+1.126 = 3.63 million bbl/d is "at least 4 times the 2006 level". Actually it's barely 3 times.
So much for your math.
The key fact is that the oil sands are only producing 15% of that of the US today. And that's paltry. As in not enough -- even for today.
That's why discussing numbers is so much fun -- it shows hyperbolic statements to be what they are.
October 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, you were commenting at various places on the site about Republicans & Democrats & the need for people to be open to unhappy facts about their side and their beliefs. That was my reference - to request that YOU TOO try these practices out.
Please reread what I wrote, right to the end. It was aiming to help you find a way to make a better case against these plants, because the economic argument just doesn't work. And even the scalability one, and the environmental constraints ones, don't give us much more than 50/50 traction.
For instance, just a walk over to Wikipedia will show you 2006 and 2007 production costs for oilsands projects. They're under $30 at some of these plants. Shell's profits at its plant is DOUBLE what it is on their conventional systems. Now, I expect with the huge labour shortages they're facing, that that will soar for the next plants. But my problem - and it's YOURS also - is that if we don't like these plants, it's still probably a reality that they can do just fine at oil prices of $60 up to $70/barrel. You predict oil prices will soon be back at $150/bbl. So when you say, "Already attempts to make these plants truly economical have failed" - I'm just suggesting you give up that line of argument. It's just simply disproven. I don't give a shit about scoring points on this, as I said, that fact makes me unhappy. But we need another way to make the case that this has to stop.
You other comment was just beneath you, and you really need to stop doing this kind of thing. The 2.5 million bbls is - and I should have specific, but I was not trying to turn this whole post into a technical debate about the oilsands- the potential net exports which might be available to then US. Actual production will likely be 4.8-5.0 million bbls/day, from what I've seen. which is, in fact, at least 4 times the 2006 level, ok?
Now, I'm just back from the dentist CT, another 6 fillings & some major work done, so please.... let's drop the argument just for today, and maybe find a nice video or joke link ok? Fair? ;-)
October 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn,
You completely missed the point of my earlier posts... hence the wrong characterization of them, but your zig zag thinking seems prevalent elsewhere as well.
You are good at cherry picking facts. *Some* places are $30/barrel? A reference? Do the work please... because when you come up with numbers, we can stay grounded in reality. Of course, you don't want to get technical -- it would ground things and prevent wild arguments. And *some*? What about the others?
Care to explain why when oil was hovering at $60/barrel for months on end, we didn't see more oil sands at $30/barrel? Yes, I know, it's a vast oil company conspiracy, right?
Venezuelan oil is heavy and sour and isn't even a bargain compared to the light, sweet stuff (we use it because we have no choice). And your oil sands are *tar* -- an order of magnitude worse!
I've talked to plenty of working geophysicists who are convinced we aren't even at peak oil. And why not? They have an emotional interest in the outcome. Similar to your vague statements.
And when someone says they aren't looking to score points -- they are.
Bottom line: we will drill everywhere, we will use the huge-need-for-refinement-product from the oil sands, we will do it all: but the age of cheap energy is over. A restructuring of our society is coming.
How fast? Who knows. But consider that Iceland is near country *bankruptcy* -- and asking *Russia* for help.
That's already a restructuring in terms of geopolitics. And it happened mighty fast.
See you at $5/gal gas -- it is coming back. Whether via price, or the fact that your money can't buy enough because of dollar devaluation.
October 16, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT. I can see you just don't want to engage at any level other than repeating your talking points. The reference for the $30 production cost is sitting right there in the Wikipedia article I specifically mentioned. The reason there's a range of costs is that the plants' technologies cost different amounts. Zig-zag thinking....cherry-picking facts.... do the work please.... wild arguments.... these are just insults CT. No content. Some of the plants DID get started at $60. They take years to come on-stream. there's more coming. Nope, no conspiracy, and I've never mentioned anything along those lines. YOU'RE now trying to slap that term on me. Oil sand are NOT an order of magnitude worse. They ARE worse, but by %'s.... not orders. I have an emotional investment.... hmmmm, seems to me I've said repeatedly I DON'T LIKE the facts of the oilsands, but apparently, that doesn't work for you. Vague statements.... more insults. Bottomline, cheap energy is over you say. I'd agree. But your conviction that automatically means "$5 gas" is just an assertion you can't possibly back up with facts. Why? Because, ummmm, we're not at $5. And ICELAND???? ? Come on dude. Iceland is one of the most energy-RICH nations in the world. Remember?
Absolutely nothing to be gained, at least on energy, from discussing with you CT. That's yet another round in which you've peeled off insult after insult, avoided any questions, produced no substantive facts, and firmly clenched your eyes shut. Wasted time.
October 16, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your emotional investment comes from trying to be an expert in something without the necessary experience or background. Your reading comprehension is rather poor (e.g. the sarcastic statement about conspiracy, your reading of my Icelandic comments, and many, many others). You can take that as an "insult" -- but it's a fact at least in terms of our exchange in this blog.
You have no references in any of your statements, and as soon as we get dirty with numbers, you complain about keeping it "non-technical", etc. And when you show any numbers at all, it's quickly apparent you can't do simple mathematical analysis.
I believe you are sincere in your efforts here. You are just in over your head. You can get away with this type of thing on the Internet, but if we were talking face to face, your vague arguments and imprecision wouldn't by able to fly.
But keep hitting the "insult" meme, quinn. It's apparently the only rhetorical device you have left. When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger... just like McCain does to Obama.
October 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm lacking in the "necessary experience or background, my "reading comprehension is rather poor" and I'm "In over my head" eh? You really are feeling threatened now, aren't you CT? No other explanation for how you pile on the insults.
Here's some of my creds, CT. Where's yours? Let's start with this. Business Week's list of the top achievers in the world on climate change. First individuals here.
And then regional & city governments. They're here.
Now check the names. Nicky Gavron & Gary Doer from the list of individuals. Go ahead, give 'em a call and see if they know some Canadian-British guy who works on Energy & Climate Change. I'll leave the others on that list aside for now. Then go to the list on Regional Governments and see who finished 1st in the world. Whoops - Manitoba. Then go down the list of cities and check numbers 5 and 7 - London & Toronto. Go ahead. Let's see if you can think clearly enough to connect those dots.
What an insulting buffoon you've become.
October 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've always said, anyone can be anyone on the Internet. If you have real credentials and feel a need to put them out there, then put them out there. Just be prepared to back them up. Of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger is also on that list. Given his involvement with Enron, kinda makes you wonder about just who can make the list.
And, you also don't know whom you are talking to.
Something to think about, eh?
October 16, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I actually think we have a fairly close view on which way all the important arrows are going; why there's a great shift/crash coming/begun; and the key elements of what must be put in place for a new system.
What the substantive arguments seem to boil down to are questions of timing (i.e. are we necessarily going to face - today - the full consequences of what we've done, or might it be staved off for a bit longer)... the existing system's ability to put in place remedial measures (often with major downsides, such as the oilsands)... how rapidly the positive alternatives are coming forward... and the ability, from our side, to adjust the pieces within the system so that our pieces can grow faster & extend further (e.g. the addition of batteries to plug-in's provides not only electrified, and thus potentially cleaner, power for cars, but also greatly boosts the ability of electrical grids to incorporate the more "intermittent/variable" new renewables.)
In short, and as we so often see, the most bitter fights are often between those who are - objectively - closest to each other in position. What I'm suggesting here is that my motivation is NOT to attack the thrust of your arguments, ok? It's simply that in the modern global process of change, some people are closer to some particulars than others. By wiring our information and perspectives together, we may well find that someone else, working somewhere else, has found a way around an obstacle, or noticed that a trench we thought would hold, has actually been over-run.
For me personally, what I'm saying is that I don't mind refinements or different perspectives. I just want you to understand that my intention is NOT to tackle your major theses head on, and shut them down. Like with the oilsands. It's NOT that they'll somehow "save" us from oil shortages. Rather, they may delay the decline... but at a significant carbon, water, natural gas input, capital & sticker price cost. Which then suggests the line, moving forward, that, "Since the oilco's are engaged in such massive investments, which can only recoup themselves at $60/bbl prices, then that in itself shows us that an era of $15-$60 oil is forever over." And though in itself that doesn't mean permanent & irretrievable collapse of the system, it DOES mean the system has shifted to a whole new cost level.
Other factors, such as the inevitable rise in consumption by the BRIC nations, as well as within the Middle-East, will almost certainly raise that price again. The oilsands will again see further investment, more millions of bbls dug out... but again, the price of the old world will have ratcheted up further, and made more of OUR alternatives cost-effective, more quickly.
Anyway. Whether you'll read this or not, I don't know. I hope at least it clarifies my motivation, and where I'm going with most of my arguments. I hope you're having a good day, CT.
October 16, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about baby harp seals? Isn't that our top trans-border issue?
Tar sands? Overrated. Once oil prices come down (any day now), it'll be way too uneconomic to extract. (Meaning we're already working on ways to extract remotely from under Alaskan permafrost. Scratch that, green luscious tropical tundra).
Imports? NAFTA? You missed the bulletin - we're building a highway corridor straight through the US of A so illegal terrorist Mexicans with dangerous trucks can cannonball to your shores causing accidents and undermining union drivers and disrupting our economy anyway they can (except for the scores of Middle Eastern terrorists disguised as Pedro and Luisa drop their shmaghs (yeah, that's not from Lord of the Rings, these're those little funny head scarves Arafat made so popular) in the desert while border patrol and black helicopter types scour the river banks for traces.
I think of Canada listening to U2 - "I Will Follow" - and wonder how they missed the "year of the liberal Democratic Congress" meme. Talk about out of step. I'm not sure you're ready to be our 51st state (though if that extraction process doesn't work, we may be willing to take Alberta, though we'd have to change its name to something we can remember, like Banff).
But thanks for trying to keep us interested in Canadian politics. And take a tip - Margaret Trudeau did more for cross-border relations - and I mean that in all respects - and Canadian prestige than anything Pierre did. Do they have any available daughters?
October 15, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I take that back about the slow proctology - I think that's better than the liver transplant without anaesthesia.
October 15, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of step. No kidding. the Anglo-American world tends to move IN step, and it's usually only a complete barf-up that can screw it. Like Kinnock exploding in '92 or whatever. This time we found that a guy with a 160 IQ (Dion) hadn't bothered to learn ENGLISH. Oops. Thanks dude.
Justin Trudeau's a kid to watch though. He's got it. Part Pierre, part Margaret. Funny, he and his brother, both born on Christmas. The 3rd brother died in an avalanche. Anyway, Justin got elected to Parliament Tonight.
Oilsands. Not economic. I fuckin' wish. Meanwhile, I'm sharpening the ole hakapik. Got work to do. Tomorrow maybe.
October 15, 2008 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in a safe Liberal riding, Quinn, so I voted New Democrat to send Dion & Co. a message.
Dion speaks perfectly grammatical English most of the time, having come a long way from being completely unilingual before his first election.
But his pronunciation makes his speeches and interviews unlistenable. Anglo Joe Sixpacks tune him out, and his message never gets through.
Any halfway decent adviser would have told Dion that was a problem he had to address. But most of the Liberal establishment were perfectly willing to let him go down in flames.
I'm not so sure young Justin has the royal jelly.
He certainly lacks his father's way with words. But I do give him credit for spunk, stealing a riding that the Bloc might easily have kept.
Look on the bright side: we managed to deny Harper the majority he so desperately craved.
October 15, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just say if Justin wants to make it big, I recommend he start hanging out with Paris Hilton. I know he's a big fish in a little pond now, but that international cred will do him well in coming years.
October 15, 2008 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, I loathe the coward Ignatieff. This wasn't supposed to happen. Whatever his presentation flaws, I loved your geeky Stephane Dion. :-(
October 15, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree Gasket. He's a nightmare. The only good thing that's happened up here was that when he ran for Liberal leader, he spoke so badly people asked if he'd been medicated, and referred to him as Lurch. The best rip-up I've seen anyone do of him was by David Rees the gywo guy.
That one made me cry. As does Rees' new video.
I'm hoping the whole country puts Iggy on Iggy.
October 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love David Rees. (Funny, Rees refers to the NYT Mag article I was actually looking for but didn't find because I couldn't stand to keep Googling for it; everything Iggy writes makes me want to throw things.)
I'm frankly stunned at Harper's success given the mood about Afghanistan, but then again, I thought George Bush couldn't possibly be elected in 2004, so what do I know. I'm told the evangelical Canadians have gotten busloads of help from U.S. evangelicals in how to win elections. I'm very sorry, quinn.
Greens went down in flames. I like May, but I'm biased.
You're being a good sport, quinnie (stiff upper lip and all), but you should feel free to hate America. Given the results of your election, I'm even more suspicious of the timing of the U.S. financial "crisis."
October 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the weird side of Parliamentary systems. The actual votes totals changed VERY little. The Conservatives only gained 1.3%. that's it. And only won 37.6% overall. Yet gained 19 seats. Big. The thing is, your vote totals don't matter much til you get just close enough to win a seat - say 30%. But THEN, even a minor shift gives dramatic effects. This time, it was the Liberal fall - of 4% - that changed the game. Both the Tories and the NDP picked up seats as a result of the Liberal slippage.
Afghanistan really a non-issue. Everybody wants out, but everybody also feels it would be good to try and help the Afghanis rebuild. It was very heavily sold here as an almost peace-keeping and rebuilding mission, not actually fighting. So now everyone's torn.
BTW, the Greens did well. Too well. Getting from 4.5% to 6.8% nationally means that in dozens of seats, they moved well up into contention. Which is painful as hell for me, because you could not find two greener guys - or party platforms - than the Liberals and the NDP. Dion has a dog named Kyoto and ran on a Green Shift (carbon tax) platform, while Layton WORKED as a green consultant for many years. So the Green rise actually took DOZENS of seats from the Liberals and NDP. A merger has to happen.
October 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that makes me a little more hopeful. I admittedly don't really understand how your system works, but I like the coalition-out-of-necessity idea. I like Layton. Loved this headline. :-)
October 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel for you. I have a friend in Canada who's filled me in on the Harper government, and while he doesn't sound quite as bad as Bush, I wouldn't want him to be my leader either.
October 15, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. No whining from people who have health care.
October 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
As "a person of the toque," thanks for sharing the Canuckistani perspective here on TPM.
Yes, thank god there was no Con majority vote last night.
I think the 'NAFTAgate' leak controversy back during the primary season (google it) shows that a Harper gov't would not hesitate to stab an Obama admin. in the back. Maybe doesn't bode well for future relations.
Don't trust the Cons, Obama!
October 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn - thank you for the election update.
A couple of questions.
(1) Was this big a win expected for the Conservatives? I didn't think Harper was THAT popular.
(2) What US banks would your Canuckistan banking friends be looking to buy? (Might affect some investing decisions.)
October 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd:
1) The results were within the range of what was expected, albeit on the high end. Everyone expected a Tory minority govt.
2) I'd read about this as well, from the angle that preliminary inquiries along these lines had been made (initiated by U.S. banks!), but I don't recall whether specific names were mentioned.
October 15, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waaaaaii...Wait. You mean there's politics outside the United States? Like, in other countries and stuff? No way!
October 15, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink