Wednesday, September 18, 2013 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Hansen: Europe standing tall against rogue state of Canada

It seems that no other climate skeptic is paying any attention to James Hansen and his home page anymore. The guy has retired and he's irrelevant, the underlying assumption probably says.

Well, I sometimes follow the page because in some sense, I still consider him the most important single person of the climate alarmist movement. Al Gore has sold his soul to Arab oil sheikhs for hundreds of millions of dollars and well before he did so, his climate alarmist empire incredibly shrank by 80% or so.

Pachauri is widely viewed as a politically appointed engine driver of a sort who is perhaps OK at writing porn novels while Michaels Männer, Gavins Schmidten, Ben Santers, and similar folks must spend most of their time by pretending that they're not the scientific fraudsters that they are. While it's annoying that these people are harbored by places such as Penn State rather than the State Penn, there are millions of other people in the world who enjoy something that they shouldn't in an ideal world.

But if you're thinking about the kind of threat to the modern industrial capitalist civilization that the climate alarmism arguably represented several years ago and you want to keep this movement genuinely dangerous for the modern civilization as we know it, you need someone who isn't an obviously obsessed simple-minded activist, who isn't a mediocre researcher self-evidently fighting for his or her grants and manifestly obscuring his previous predictions that have failed, who isn't an opportunist like the unknown folks in the IPCC today (they will change their tune as soon as it will look profitable to them), who isn't a politically appointed engine driver or porn writer, who isn't a failed politician and failed manager of a TV station, who isn't a conspiracy theorist who has joined too many similar but already failed hysterical movements (like Paul Ehrlich). Instead, you need someone who has been a genuine OK scientist at some point of his life, who seems to believe what he says, who is ready to undergo some sacrifices (e.g. be arrested), and who just "feels" like an independent enough person. Hansen was it.

He's completely crazy, too.

On Friday 13th, he interrupted 3.5 months of silence and posted two new PDF files on his home page:

Tar Sands And Dirty Tricks

Europe Standing Tall Against a Rogue State
Both tirades are directed against the Keystone XL pipeline. The first text "corrects" some "errors" in an article in the New Yorker. But it's the second article that is really yummy.

Hansen describes his visit to 5 important Western European cities – Brussels, the Hague, Berlin, London, and Paris – where he met a couple of climate/EU apparatchiks to be sure that he's kept isolated from the real world.

Unlike this blog entry, his text has no name of a country in the title. I was very intrigued by the headline and curious who is the "rogue state". A similar term was first used by Ronald Reagan in 1985 for countries run by criminals and/or resembling the Third Reich. But Bill Clinton's aide Anthony Lake was the first one who received the power to define the term more accurately. His rogue states were North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Libya.

Note that since the birth of this terminology in 1994, Iraq has been fixed and befriended, Cuba has somewhat softened its criminal and communist soul, Libya has undergone the Arab Spring which was really a winter but many Westerners haven't noticed (it's in the state of chaos now), while North Korea and Iran remained largely unchanged rogue states. North Korea is threatening the West by nuclear weapons like an exhibitionist criminal. Iran claims not to build nuclear weapons but it's constantly threatening Israel with eradication and so on.

These are the normal rogue states. That's why I had laugh out loud when I learned that James Hansen's rogue state is Canada.

These are not Canadian flags. They're flags of the HC Škoda Pilsen, the latest champion of the Czech ice-hockey league. Note the colors.

Imagine that. The superfriendly Canada with its legendary hospitable people who represent the political correctness with a human face, who live in that superb clean environment, and who don't harm the wild life around them (which is not hard, given the low population density in much of Canada). These poor folks have become a rogue state!

Hansen must be truly obsessed with the pipeline.

Because of the latest elections, it could easily be Australia that is the rogue state. The climate change ministry was already abolished there and they are working efficiently to abolish the rest as soon as possible. Moreover, Australia's CO2 emissions per capita exceed Canada's CO2 emissions by a few percent.

For Hansen, an ordinary pipeline somewhere in Canada – a trivial piece of engineering that is found at hundreds of places of the globe – is enough to place Canada above Iran and North Korea in his list of rogue states. The "confession" of their sin is that they expect the CO2 emissions to increase by 7-10 percent by 2020. What a catastrophe. This may add a positive correction to the temperature of order 0.0001 °C. For Hansen, that's clearly worse than Kim of North Korea bombing the New York City.

His tirade is full of would-be authoritative comments about his allies, unelected and stupid EU apparatchiks such as Commie Hedegaard, and the usual repeated slogans about the evil oil industry and the "scandal" that the oil industry in Canada dares to influence the political decisions about energy. Unthinkable! I am sure that the projects of oil companies should be controlled by the blue Smurfs, the Greenpeace, and Danny the Red, if you insist on the equal representation of all major colors. ;-)

James Hansen makes it very clear that he wouldn't hesitate to declare the war – or at least a trade war – against Canada just because it builds a completely peaceful pipeline on its territory, a pipeline that he just happens to dislike. He also makes it clear that he's detached from any idea what people think – he believes that almost all Canadians oppose the fossil fuel industry because he gets 10 times more supportive letters from Canada than the critical ones. For some reason, he doesn't want to realize that people who think that he's not worthy their time aren't sending him letters so he is getting letters almost exclusively from people who worship him, i.e. from idiots.

Hansen is a psychopath and he's the most credible single person of the alarmist movement, too. This is no contradiction and no coincidence: the climate alarmism as such is a movement of psychopaths. If you're not a psychopath, you just don't belong there.

Meanwhile, Canada is extremely far from being the only "rogue state". I have already mentioned Australia but the erroneous climate-hysteria-inspired "green" industries and institutions are already being dismantled in many European countries, too. James Hansen clearly can't reconcile himself with the fact the he is not the dictator who decides about the future of energy production on the whole blue, not green planet. It's hard to guess whether his desires will be getting increasingly unrealistic or whether he will be able to open his eyes and see how unbelievably insane his position has become.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (33) :

reader paul said...

I really like the flag of your ice-hockey champions! it looks like a good amalgamation of the Quebec and the Canadian flag, it just misses a fleur-de-lys...

But more seriously, calling Canada a rogue state is pure insanity, even I don't subscribe to most of the changes Harper as brought to the country.

reader Luboš Motl said...

LOL. They use several purely blue-and-white (hockey team's colors) flags, including the blue-and-white-only reduction of the U.S. flag. This is because our team has the largest number of North American players - Martin Straka turned it into the only truly international team.

On the other hand, the soccer team FC Viktoria Pilsen is pretty much purely Czech-and-Slovak in composition. Its colors and blue-and-red and they've been combined into certain interesting flags as well, especially these two:

Note that both variations with the blue-and-red colors' being permuted are present. When Manchester City was giving us a spank (3-to-0) last night, the hooligans had to feel like at home because the FC Viktoria Pilsen's flags look like cropped pieces of the British flags.

reader lucretius said...

Sports teams flags (particularly those used by supporters) can contain surprising symbols that cab by hard to understand for those not familiar with their history. For example, here is a flag of fans of Ajax of AMsterdam:

and here of London's Tottenham Hotspur:

As for Canada, I am such a great fan of Stephen Harper (I do approve of every single thing he has done as prime minister of Canada) I don't think I will even bother to comment on this post.

reader Sparafucile said...

Lost 95%?

I suppose that depends on how you measure it.

If you compare the Dollar to other monetary analogues -- things not particularly price-sensitive to their production cost, like gold and silver -- you get different devaluation ratios.

Compared to gold, the US Dollar has lost about 98.6% of its value. Compared to silver, the Dollar has lost 'only' 97%.

reader chris y said...

Maybe Hansen finally realized that his kids have each added 9441 tons of CO2 sewage to his own carbon skidmark. This may have pushed him over a cognitive dissonance tipping point, resulting in severe mental issues.

It is peer-reviewed science, so it must be correct.

To reduce CO2 emissions, no-one must have children. It's for the children.

reader nightspore said...

Canada as a rogue state ... I can't see this guy as Captain Dangerous when he's overflowing with rhetorical excesses like that one. I worry more about the general insularity and self-perpetuating character of the AGW movement, together with how well-placed many of these people are. E.g. in official positions in many major scientific organizations. Unfortunately, these people have seized the high ground across much of the social order.

reader HenryBowman419 said...

I am quite embarrassed, as a long-time AGU member, to note that James Hansen is giving the "Frontiers in Geophysics" lecture at the annual Fall Meeting of the AGU in San Francisco. I truly think that he is a certified nutcase, and should never be honored by any person or organization. I can understand political hacks such as the Goran: they are professional liars, after all. But, to treat Hansen as a sane person is disturbing to me.

reader Gordon said...

"That's why I had laugh out loud when I learned that James Hansen's rogue state is Canada."
Yes, the rogue state, Canada, rampaging around the world attacking countries, despoiling the environment at every turn, threatening to add a pipeline to the thousands of existing pipelines criss-crossing the US,

daring to supply a reliable energy source to an ally, making them less dependent on Arab states---the bloody nerve! :)
Hansen should be committed---soon.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Well, perhaps, one can't be Captain Dangerous with these excesses. But one can't be Captain Dangerous without them, either - because the movement's very purpose is an excessive reorganization of the world economy and the society. You can't achieve this with people who only make pronouncements keeping them in the average.

reader papertiger0 said...

the cheese slipped off his cracker.

reader JackSavage said...

An interesting insight into the nature of a descent into obsession and the corrosive effects of uncritical adulation.

reader NikFromNYC said...

James Hansen's web page ( lists the location of The Earth Institute as 475 Riverside Drive up the street from me, which is actually The Interchurch Center building!

"Located on the Upper West Side of New York City, The Interchurch Center
is a 19-story building which houses offices and agencies of various
religions, and of ecumenical and interreligious organizations."

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. (Columbia) whose alumni e-mail address is also an old school "1" since the Internet appeared when I was in graduate school.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Right, he had to move there from 2880 Broadway, see his former office

which was right above Tom's Diner where Suzanne Vega shot the video for the first song converted to MP3 ever. ;-)

reader woodnfish said...

"Hansen should be committed"

No, because we'd have to pay for it. I'd prefer he just off himself and put him out of our misery.

reader NikFromNYC said...

I live two blocks away. The area is full of frozen yogurt and bubble tea shops, not exactly end of the world worthy.

reader Bogs_Dollocks said...

It is the beginning of the end of Hansenkoism.

reader Vangel said...

"..I will only limit myself to pointing out the peculiar mixture of “formal correctness” and fanatical utopianism that one can characterise practically every statement you make."

There is nothing utopian about my statements. I do not claim that I know what the best system is and what should be used as the circulating monetary media. I am simply arguing that the markets are better able to make that choice than central planners that have been given a monopoly over the creation of money.

"But so what? Since Hitler was determined on war that was the course he was going to choose and to say that this was not “legitimate” is, to say the least, futile. It’s like arguing that the solution to “the problem of war” is pacifism. It is indeed, as long as everybody is a pacifist, but it is enough that just one side isn’t the whole argument collapses. Experience shows that this sort of thing will always happen."

Now who is being utopian? You conveniently ignore the fact that Hitler would never have come to power came to power unless Germany and the rest of the world had not abandoned the gold standard. Hitler, (and Stalin) came to power because Western Europe and Russia choose to abandon the gold standard to fight WWI.

"The whole point is that maintaing the gold standard was only the means to something that became a relatively minor consideration compared to the ones that were driving the events of the day."

So? What matters was the outcome. You can't have long protracted wars without going off the gold standard, and you can never have a sound economy without a sound currency.

reader lucretius said...

"You conveniently ignore the fact that Hitler would never have come to power came to power unless Germany and the rest of the world had not abandoned the gold standard. "

Yes, and we could go on like this all the way back to Adam, Eve and the apple. I agree, he definitely should not have eaten it.
That statement is at about the same level of realism as all your comments about the gold standard.

reader Vangel said...

We don't have to go anywhere but history. You and a few others seem to favour central planning and a monopoly on the creation of fiat money to a free market in money. I point to history and show that has never worked because those that are given such power always wind up abusing it.

Men are not angels. And until we are ruled by angels I prefer to trust the markets.

reader lucretius said...

Sorry but it is you who not only does not know basic history but also can’t think logically and , in particular, confuses cause with effect.

The adoption of the gold standard in the 19th century followed the end of the Napoleonic wars and ended with the onset of World War I. It was not the cause of the long period of relative peace but its consequence (and in particular of the so called “Concert of Europe”). When that broke down so did the gold standard. The “gold standard” does not command armies, police forces, the press or even “public opinion” and therefore is completely powerless when the forces that really matter decide that it is inconvenient. This will never change unless the world becomes dominated by one superpower in whose interest it will be to maintain it. (The British Empire did play this role for a while.) Even if that happened, there would be the problem, pointed out by Lubos, concerning the total amount of gold available compared to the total wealth, but this would presumably be solve by drastically reducing he latter.

Also, if you really knew any history, you would know that in the 17 and 18 centuries, even though there was no gold standard, gold was the main form of money, bullionism and mercantilism were the dominant economic doctrines and the world was in a constant state of warfare, to a large extent caused by that. Under a fiat money regime it does not make sense to export unless you also import for otherwise you would be collecting piles of worthless paper. But when the total quantity of money is limited and all armies are mercenary, it makes perfect sense to expand exports, limit imports and “suck out” all the available coinage. When that happens only one country will be able to afford an army and thus will be able to impose its terms of trade on all the others (as well as impose borders of its choice etc.).

That was exactly the policy of Louis XIX, Colbert and Lavouis and was successful until the War of the Spanish succession, where Louis faced the coalition of all the remaining powers of Europe and had the bad lack that his great generals Turenne, Conde and Luxemburg had by then all died while the allies found Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy.

reader Eugene S said...

Under a fiat money regime it does not make sense to export unless you
also import for otherwise you would be collecting piles of worthless
Please write this on two postcards and address it to the German people :)

reader Eugene S said...

What you two jokers don't understand is that the dollar losing value every year is a good thing. It's called inflation and an annual rate of two percent is as close to the optimum as you're going to get.

Even if it were possible for money to never lose value, the consequences would be bad. People would hoard their money, remove it from circulation. That would set in motion a deflationary spiral. Products would drop in price every week. And every week people would postpone their purchases because that iPad will cost less tomorrow. The economy would contract, people would lose their jobs, etc.

By making it so that money loses about two percent of its value every year, you force people to keep it in circulation. They spend it on consumer goods, keeping the wheels of the economy in motion. Or they invest it by buying assets or lending it out, likewise keeping the wheels of the economy in motion.

The idea that you should be able to put a hundred dollar bill under your mattress for your grand children to find and they can still buy as many apples with it as you could is insane. Possibly a holdover from the "anal" phase developed by Sigmund Freud though I don't generally believe in his theories.

reader lucretius said...

“Under a fiat money regime it does not make sense to export unless you

also import for otherwise you would be collecting piles of worthless


Please write this on a postcard and address it to the German people ☺”

Indeed, I was assuming trade between countries with independent currencies. Bankrupting all your customers never makes sense unless you see trade as a form of warfare.

You are a little unfair on the Germans. They do import some things. For example: in 2012 Poland’s exports to Germany were worth 35,6 billions of euros and imported 32 billions. Germany also spent 87 billion euros on energy imports.

I agree with most of your other points, although I don’t think it would be a great idea for Europe in the Germans turned into Greeks ☺.

reader Vangel said...

Really? Do you mean to tell me that the world was on a fiat standard throughout history? Where is the evidence for that?

From what I see, along with silver, gold has been the monetary media of choice for thousands of years. The gold standard was not adopted by governments. It was created by the market because market participants did not trust governments. Gold is the enemy of expansive governments, which is the reason why governments tried to suppress its rise during the London Gold Pool period in the 1960s and are doing all that they can to prevent gold's rise today. In the end the markets will prevail and fiat currencies will do what they normally do, lose all of their purchasing power until they are replaced by something new.

reader Eugene S said...

Agreeing with most of my points is not good enough, you must agree 100 percent. At minimum!

So let mel try again. Having national currencies that are allowed to float against one another is the simplest and most efficient corrective to the imbalances inevitable in international trade.

Before the euro, an economy saw its currency rise against other economies with whom it was trading at a surplus. This worked as a negative feedback, dampening demand from the "importer countries" who found some products becoming simply too expensive for them. The surplus could also be used by the "champion exporter" to import more at cheaper prices from those countries: again, a negative feedback. Or it could be spent by citizens visiting those countries for tourism, again correcting the imbalance. Finally the "champion exporter" could lower its productivity by shortening the workweek, mandating longer vacations, etc.

When the disparate economies were forced into currency union, initially capital flowed from richer states to poorer states who offered investors better returns on their sovereign debt. That capital inflow should have been spent to draw down existing debt and invest wisely in infrastructure and education. Instead, it was spent on consumption. Living standards in the southern periphery rose sharply while the northern countries were suffering from the capital outflows.

But then the northerners buckled down, cut benefits, upped productivity, made themselves more competitive. By now their currencies should have appreciated but that was prevented from happening by the euro. So their domestic economy did not improve but they racked up higher exports. In the south, the underdeveloped manufacturing sector found it even more difficult to export as their products had become more expensive and thus harder to sell abroad.

But their citizens loved the money pouring in, money lent to them by northern countries which they spent to buy Volkswagens, Nokia phones, and Philips televisions. VW etc. loved that they were selling so many units to the south. What they got in return was real cash but that cash was based on collateral that would prove to be empty scrip: the "piles of worthless paper" that you were talking about. A feedback mechanism via appreciating/depreciating currencies could have dampened the imbalances but it was no longer available.

VW, Nokia and Philips must have known that their exports were being purchased with hollow money but they didn't care. It wasn't going to be them who would be left holding the bag but the taxpayers in their countries of domicile.

And after all this madness, eurocrats are insisting that there must be more of the same: fiscal union, banking union, liability union, transfer union. I'm sure they're right and Europeans will live happily ever after as one big harmonious family :/

reader lucretius said...

OK, I agree 100% with the economic analysis but not necessarily with the implied political conclusions. This is because I am (probably) the most "reactionary" person here and as such not such a great fan of the nation state as, for example, John Archer. Of course I agree that the EU is a disaster but I also think it need not have been so and might still be saved (though I find it hard to be optimistic about the future). Anyway, I am too busy to expand on this now, but my views are quite similar to those expressed by Ferguson in "The Pity of War" and also here:

reader Luboš Motl said...

LOL, Lucretius, you made me laugh by the comment "it makes no sense to [have trade surpluses] under fiat money".

It not only makes sense and Germany is thriving this way. There has been a whole school of thought called mercantalism

that says that exactly this is what makes a national economy healthy. Or as Connally said independently of mercantilism, "[dollar] is our currency but your problem".

The key wrong thing in your reasoning is the opinion that the money is worthless. It is *not* worthless. It's what moves almost everyone and everything in a fiat money system. And if someone weakens his currency, he makes it move even more!

reader lucretius said...

I am curious Lubos whether you read any of my posts and ion this topic and if so which ones. Just to show what I mean:

1. I did not say that under fiat money it makes no sense to runs surpluses, I meant that the foreign currency you get will have to be spent eventually or it will become worthless. This is not true with gold.
2. I devoted a whole post to describing mercantilism and, in particular, its most famous version called "colbertism", whose purpose was specifically to store gold in order to weaken rival powers and finance wars. The purpose of this argument was to show that bullion based economies (and mercantilism) far from enhancing peace, were one of the main causes of wars from the 16 to the 18 th century (of course the Napoleonic regime, which largely abandoned colbertian mercantillism was not particularly more peaceful, but the reasons were different).
3. Every single one of my arguments was essentially against the "gold standard" and it was understood as such by Vangel. How you managed to find the opposite sense in them beats me.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Lucretius, your position is more subtle, I read most of it, but I still disagree with the latest comment that I read carefully.

The word "eventually" really makes no difference because it doesn't mean anything particular that could affect the current decisions. Germany is running surpluses and it may say that it will sometimes spend the U.S. dollars but because there's no deadline, it may easily keep them indefinitely - up to the moment when the U.S. dollar or the U.S. as a country cease to exist. Mercantilism says - and the German experience seems to confirm - that the strategy of piling the foreign currency is making the economy healthier already now, well before the hypothetical spending.

It's possible that the gold standard was causing wars. Well, I would say that the greed was causing wars. Any other material assets may have the same effect, don't you agree? Oil, land, coal, buildings, arable land. One doesn't need to use them as units for payment but they may still cause wars. So I don't really understand why you would link the payment system to wars whose actual cause was greed.

reader lucretius said...

Sorry, I really don't have the time to answer this in detail as I have to prepare a conference talk on a completely different subject and it is now quite late. But a few comments.

Nobody has ever claimed Germany as an example of mercantilism (which is the opposite of "free trade" and whose main characteristics is the use of high tariffs).
Germany runs trade deficits with a number of countries including Poland and is an energy dependent economy (it spends more than 80 billion dollars per year of energy imports). It does not hoard dollars. China is a better example, but even this has been overstressed. Hoarding foreign currency is a risky and loosing policy. ( One reason why Germany has recently repatriated all its gold from the US. )

There is a big difference between using gold as currency and using the gold standard. Traditional mercantilism was only relevant to the first situation. It's aim was really to get as much bullion as possible so that other countries would not have it and it was also directly related to the constant warfare in the period 16-18 century. Gold was needed to pay the mercenary armies and counties and princes that had no gold could not wage war. I gave this example not to show that using gold as medium of exchange inevitably causes war but to show that the opposite was not true (as was claimed by Vangel).

The gold standard worked completely differently because it only worked as long as all the major powers cooperated. When a country wanted to wage war it went off the gold standard and forced the others to follow. That's exactly how World War I ended the gold standard.

Again, I used this to counter a specific argument - I don't want to repeat it all here.

reader Eugene S said...

Lucretius wins this particular joust and our host takes a rare hit on an even more intense than usual timeslicing, multiprocessing, multitasking day, compounded by trouble with an obstinate bicycle chain.

However, I must chide Lucretius for endorsing the ludicrous suggestion given by Niall Ferguson to have Germany make all the euro troubles go away by the simple expedient of having the fabulously rich Germans taking over Europe "peacefully" -- by assuming the outstanding national debt of the PIIGS states.

This "proposal" -- the word really does too much honor to a harebrained notion -- is of course an instant fail. First, the Greeks have shown themselves very willing to nod and smile in response to every demand made of them in return for the guarantees extended by the troika of European Commission, ECB, and IMF. Implementing is another matter, although they actually managed to announce last week that government employees will no longer receive an extra six vacation days per year if they work using a computer for at least five hours a day.

Second, if a pauper has two shoes to his name while his colleague has none, does that make him rich? Germany's national debt officially stands at 2.1 trillion euro or 82 percent of GDP, 22 percent above the criterion of the EU's Stability and Growth Pact which the politicians would like you to forget ever existed. (The Czech Republic and Poland are each comfortably below the limit, at 41 and 56 percent, respectively.)

The 2.1 trillion figure, however, does not include bonds issued by municipal and regional jurisdictions or a host of other liabilities, esp. pensions promised to civil servants. In particular, it does not include 574 billion euro[1] in lendings which Germany's central bank made via the European central banking system to banks in bankrupt member states so that their customers could order spanking new Volkswagens.

This last figure will never be repaid, thus, contra Luboš, it is empty, worthless, hollow "money".

In spite of all this debt, Germany will not go bankrupt. But the country simply does not have the werewithal to rescue the euro and the bankrupt member states. Nor are the harsh, even brutal measures that it would take to actually bring Greece et al. up to an acceptable level of fiscal responsibility something that can be practically done. Imagine a German overseer breathing down the neck of every tax collector to see that they do their job right!

I rather suspect, Lucretius, that you do not actually subscribe to the pipe dream of a Germanic federal Europe but that you feel nostalgia for .... the Austro-Hungarian monarchy? Why not. It was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious thriving and bustling entity that was "open for business" and in which everyone managed to get along with everyone else, most of the time. However, as I understand it the last heir to the Habsburg throne died a few years ago. Therefore I propose that a new dynasty be founded starting with the first Emperor. This individual must not come from a populous country lest riival countries feel jealous. I therefore propose the ruler of a small country in Mitteleuropa named Latveria. His name is Dr. Victor von Doom (sometimes he uses a pseudonym), a bit of a prickly character sometimes but a man with a heart of gold who can be counted on to have the best interests of the realm at heart.

[1]Not to be confused with Germany's commitments under the European Stability Mechanism and its predecessor EFSF, which in a worst-case scenario could mean a write-off of 379 billion euros.

reader CodeTech said...

As a Canadian I'm shocked and outraged.
Ok, no I'm not. As someone who lives in Calgary and has worked in the oil industry (everyone here does at some point, and even if not directly they service the people who do) I am truly amazed that the US's most useless president ever has decided to block a normal, previously approved pipeline.

Luboš, I'm glad to see fans of Harper. I shook his hand about 5 minutes after he was first elected. Yes, I was in the room for the election results. I've supported him. campaigned for him, and have very few complaints about anything he's done. The left try very hard to trip him up or make "scandals", but really they have nothing. The few things that have even surfaced have absolutely nothing to do with the man, and he's quick to dig out and eject "his own" if they are doing something wrong.

Since he became PM the global warming / climate change rhetoric in Canada has pretty much dropped out of sight. Except, apparently, on the CBC, but I have yet to meet anyone who has ever watched or heard anything from that particular bastion of liberalism.

Keystone XL, or its successor, WILL be built. We can outlast the surge of stupid that resulted in the big zero being elected. We WILL develop the oilsands. In fact, it's our goal here in Alberta: clean up that horrible, nasty, polluted region that nature created, and replace it with clean, refurbished, petroleum-free reclaimed land. If along the way we find a market for that pollution, even better.

I hear China is buying...

reader Luboš Motl said...

Thanks for your upbeat message from Canada, Codetech.