Canada Govt to Speak Its Piece on Trans Mountain in June

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Ottawa should be ready to make Trans Mountain decision in June: Garneau

"Federal Transportation Minister Marc Garneau said Tuesday he expects his government to be in a position by mid-June to make a decision on whether to proceed with the $9.3-billion Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion."

That's news to me. Didn't know they were considering dropping the whole thing. Way to go, Trudeau.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Done. https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/federal-cabinet-to-again-decide-future-of-trans-mountain-pipeline

Wonder what B.C. will do now if the Supreme Court rules against it.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Someone's very unhappy. Very, very unhappy. 

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Canada. Trans Mountain Pipeline Profits To Fund Green Energy Projects

This comparison impressed me:

"What was not, however, is the statement by the government that the profits generated by the Trans Mountain pipeline will be used to boost renewable energy projects and support clean tech research within the country.

Isn’t that like saying child pornography is OK as long as the money it brings in is put into a college fund for the children involved? Could Canada possibly be any more hypocritical?"

[Marcin + 519]

2 things: 1 geopolitical , 1 ecology.

1. EcologyBritish Columbia is doing a great favour to Albertaby opposing the pipeline.

Real destruction would be in Alberta if the pipeline is accepted, as oil sand have big ecological footpring, Canada should simply not extract them as it is not economical if you take under consideration externalities.

2. Geopolitical: Canada do not need extraction in Alberta, only 2 superpowers need this oil: United States and China.

United States opposes pipeline on geopolitical reasons so no matter what is said, what cover is used it will never be built.

United States bans exports of Canadian oil to foreign countries, especially China.

China would love to buy 2 or 3 mln bbl/d of Canadian oil.

So Alberta at the moment destroys its nature for the United States thirst of oil.

With China it would be twice as bad.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Marcin said:

2 things: 1 geopolitical , 1 ecology.

1. EcologyBritish Columbia is doing a great favour to Albertaby opposing the pipeline.

Real destruction would be in Alberta if the pipeline is accepted, as oil sand have big ecological footpring, Canada should simply not extract them as it is not economical if you take under consideration externalities.

2. Geopolitical: Canada do not need extraction in Alberta, only 2 superpowers need this oil: United States and China.

United States opposes pipeline on geopolitical reasons so no matter what is said, what cover is used it will never be built.

United States bans exports of Canadian oil to foreign countries, especially China.

China would love to buy 2 or 3 mln bbl/d of Canadian oil.

So Alberta at the moment destroys its nature for the United States thirst of oil.

With China it would be twice as bad.

You seem to be making nothing but unsupported assertions. Try backing them up. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/no-canada-redux-an-election-autopsy/

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Won’t happen Ron, that would require effort and thinking for himself.

[Boat + 1,315]

I do like the idea of Canada keeping the risk of transporting pollution for profit in their own country and bypassing the US. We import, getting close to 4 mbpd while we need 1 mbpd from Canada for consumption. 
Just like I love Trumps trade wars slowing our agricultural products to China which sells our water and land capacity for profit. The Chinese can feed themselves.

Overpopulation is humanities biggest threat. The smarter decisions should be geared towards less pollution and less resource sales due to trade.