Social license can't be bought

[Anonymous]

Since coming to office, Premier Notley has expressed the idea that if she imposed just enough new regulatory barriers and costs on Albertans she could gain so-called "social licence" for energy projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline.



"We're not going to get the social licence we need to get pipelines built unless we take action on responsible climate change," explained Premier Notley back in November 2015.



Yet here we are more than two years later and the protestors at the Burnaby Trans Mountain pipeline site couldn't seem to care less about Premier Notley's new carbon tax or other new regulatory decisions.



Hopefully it's now clear to the premier – you can't buy social licence if it's not for sale.



Even if the premier sat down with the protestors and properly briefed them on all her policy changes, it's difficult to imagine them packing up their tents, bowing courteously and then fading off into the night to resume discussing Karl Marx's work in underground cafés.



But Premier Notley has not just struck out with protestors, she has also failed to gain social licence from her NDP colleagues at the federal level and in other provinces.



For example, her federal NDP cousins are still very much a collection of anti-oil obstructionists. Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has indicated he's 100 per cent opposed to the Trans Mountain pipeline project while B.C. NDP MP Nathan Cullen seemed to tweet with glee about a miniscule spill by the Trans Mountain pipeline of about 100 litres (a bit more than what a Ford F150's gas tank holds).



Premier Notley's provincial NDP cousins in B.C. are obviously opposed to the project, but so is [size=150]the Alberta government's hand-picked radical environmentalist she appointed to Alberta's Oil Sands Advisory Group – Tzeporah Berman. After hearing about Prime Minister Trudeau's decision to nationalize the pipeline, Berman joyfully predicted, "All hell is about to break loose in British Columbia."

[/size]

So what should happen going forward? Here are two thoughts.



First, if [size=150]the government hasn't realized it yet, it needs to abandon the idea of obtaining so-called social licence[/size]. By design, it's an abstract concept that can't be achieved. [size=150]Radical activists leverage the idea to get incremental concessions without agreeing to support approved projects.[/size]



Second, the government should scrap its carbon tax. Alberta taxpayers have now paid well over $1 billion in carbon taxes and yet it hasn't bought us anything. If social licence can't be bought for a billion dollars, it can't be bought for any price.



Instead of making Albertans poorer, the government should pursue policies that help our economy while reducing carbon dioxide emissions at the same time.



For example, [size=150]if Canada could develop its natural gas resources even further, and increase exports to China, China could use the gas to replace its coal-powered electricity. This move would help create jobs and opportunities in Canada while helping China reduce its smog problem and CO2 emissions at the same time.

[/size]

One thing should be clear: the premier needs to stop vying for social licence and focus more on taxpayer-friendly policies.



Colin Craig is the Alberta director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.



Social license was destined to fail.

[Bricktop]

Any "licence" that expects the Left to abandon or compromise its insane policies is a fraud.



You cannot negotiate with stone or ideology. Both are uncompromising, deaf to reason and have no interest in YOUR outcomes. But at least the stone will listen.



Incidentally, any program based on the premise that China will reduce its emissions is farcical. China will do what is best for China. If using coal and oil develops their economy and creates a stronger nation, China will use coal and oil.



Remember, this is the same country that told the US it will support US sanctions against North Korea, whilst its cargo ships were still loading NK coal. Trusting a communist country is a sure path to betrayal and disappointment.

[Anonymous]

Since coming to office, Premier Notley has expressed the idea that if she imposed just enough new regulatory barriers and costs on Albertans she could gain so-called "social licence" for energy projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline.



"We're not going to get the social licence we need to get pipelines built unless we take action on responsible climate change," explained Premier Notley back in November 2015.



Yet here we are more than two years later and the protestors at the Burnaby Trans Mountain pipeline site couldn't seem to care less about Premier Notley's new carbon tax or other new regulatory decisions.



Hopefully it's now clear to the premier – you can't buy social licence if it's not for sale.



Even if the premier sat down with the protestors and properly briefed them on all her policy changes, it's difficult to imagine them packing up their tents, bowing courteously and then fading off into the night to resume discussing Karl Marx's work in underground cafés.



But Premier Notley has not just struck out with protestors, she has also failed to gain social licence from her NDP colleagues at the federal level and in other provinces.



For example, her federal NDP cousins are still very much a collection of anti-oil obstructionists. Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has indicated he's 100 per cent opposed to the Trans Mountain pipeline project while B.C. NDP MP Nathan Cullen seemed to tweet with glee about a miniscule spill by the Trans Mountain pipeline of about 100 litres (a bit more than what a Ford F150's gas tank holds).



Premier Notley's provincial NDP cousins in B.C. are obviously opposed to the project, but so is
The premier of Alberta and Justine are out to lunch. It hasn't worked and it will never work. Taxpayers just bought a frickin pipeline that may never get built for fuck sakes.

[Anonymous]

Social license in Alberta means taking money away from families who need it.

[Anonymous]

Social license in Alberta means taking money away from families who need it.

I am glad our provincial government is having none of it.

[Anonymous]

Since coming to office, Premier Notley has expressed the idea that if she imposed just enough new regulatory barriers and costs on Albertans she could gain so-called "social licence" for energy projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline.



"We're not going to get the social licence we need to get pipelines built unless we take action on responsible climate change," explained Premier Notley back in November 2015.



Yet here we are more than two years later and the protestors at the Burnaby Trans Mountain pipeline site couldn't seem to care less about Premier Notley's new carbon tax or other new regulatory decisions.



Hopefully it's now clear to the premier – you can't buy social licence if it's not for sale.



Even if the premier sat down with the protestors and properly briefed them on all her policy changes, it's difficult to imagine them packing up their tents, bowing courteously and then fading off into the night to resume discussing Karl Marx's work in underground cafés.



But Premier Notley has not just struck out with protestors, she has also failed to gain social licence from her NDP colleagues at the federal level and in other provinces.



For example, her federal NDP cousins are still very much a collection of anti-oil obstructionists. Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has indicated he's 100 per cent opposed to the Trans Mountain pipeline project while B.C. NDP MP Nathan Cullen seemed to tweet with glee about a miniscule spill by the Trans Mountain pipeline of about 100 litres (a bit more than what a Ford F150's gas tank holds).



Premier Notley's provincial NDP cousins in B.C. are obviously opposed to the project, but so is
I knew it wouldn't work. Notley knew it wouldn't work either. It was an excuse to rip people off and put a cap on oilsands development.

[Anonymous]

Since coming to office, Premier Notley has expressed the idea that if she imposed just enough new regulatory barriers and costs on Albertans she could gain so-called "social licence" for energy projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline.



"We're not going to get the social licence we need to get pipelines built unless we take action on responsible climate change," explained Premier Notley back in November 2015.



Yet here we are more than two years later and the protestors at the Burnaby Trans Mountain pipeline site couldn't seem to care less about Premier Notley's new carbon tax or other new regulatory decisions.



Hopefully it's now clear to the premier – you can't buy social licence if it's not for sale.



Even if the premier sat down with the protestors and properly briefed them on all her policy changes, it's difficult to imagine them packing up their tents, bowing courteously and then fading off into the night to resume discussing Karl Marx's work in underground cafés.



But Premier Notley has not just struck out with protestors, she has also failed to gain social licence from her NDP colleagues at the federal level and in other provinces.



For example, her federal NDP cousins are still very much a collection of anti-oil obstructionists. Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has indicated he's 100 per cent opposed to the Trans Mountain pipeline project while B.C. NDP MP Nathan Cullen seemed to tweet with glee about a miniscule spill by the Trans Mountain pipeline of about 100 litres (a bit more than what a Ford F150's gas tank holds).



Premier Notley's provincial NDP cousins in B.C. are obviously opposed to the project, but so is
It's all a pathetic excuse to get more money out of the people.

[Anonymous]

https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36696379_1713943661993023_2919221260284067840_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&oh=5bbabfc0a52f210717b833baa72a3f2b&oe=5C2548B0">

[Anonymous]

By Ricky Leong of Sun News Media



New pipeline battle, same old naiveté



The newest front in the war being waged against pipeline construction has opened in the United States.



Environmental groups have set their sight on work surrounding the replacement of Line 3, the largest infrastructure project in the history of Calgary-based Enbridge Inc.



The company had successfully argued before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission its half-century-old pipeline should be replaced using modern construction techniques while adding the latest safety features for spill monitoring and protection.



This would allow Enbridge to restore the flow of the pipeline — which originates in Hardisty, Alta., and whose U.S. portion runs from Clearbrook, Minn., to Superior, Wis. — to its original capacity.



Enbridge got the go-ahead for its project back in June 2018. But on Dec. 22, the state of Minnesota announced it was joining a court battle against its own utilities commission in an attempt to stop construction.



The Minnesota Department of Commerce argued the commission erred because Enbridge did not introduce long-range oil demand forecast required by state law, nor did the commission evaluate such information.



The legal fight was started earlier the same week by U.S. environmental and Indigenous groups.



According to The Associated Press, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, who leaves office Jan. 7, said in a statement Enbridge "failed to demonstrate that Minnesota needs this pipeline to meet our future oil demand. In fact, most of the product would flow through our state to supply other states and countries."



Groups fighting the project argued the replacement will speed up climate change because the oilsands crude it will carry generates more carbon emissions during production than regular oil. They also said the pipeline will increase the risk of oil spills in the headwaters of the Mississippi River.



(Also, you'll always see the term "tar sands" to describe Alberta oil. Because tar ... Icky! Eww!)



Activists continue to conveniently ignore the fact Canada's energy sector only accounts for a tiny fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions. They don't want to hear about how oilsands producers keep working to reduce their GHG footprint from resource extraction. And never mind the idea that most of the greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels happens at the consumer's end of the equation, when they use it to power their vehicles, heat their homes or whatever.



The fight against replacing Line 3 is especially silly when it comes to spill protection.



The fact environmental activists would rather force Enbridge to keep operating its older, technically problematic pipeline is the height of hypocrisy. It puts residents along the pipeline's route at risk of spills if the aging infrastructure were to fail.



And because Enbridge is limiting capacity on the existing network to prevent such problems, more energy is being delivered to customers other means including trains and trucks, which are arguably far less safe and energy-efficient.



This is playing itself out in Canada, where activist opposition to pipelines has led to a new surge in oil trains.



It is the clearest demonstration of how pipeline opponents continue to ignore the fact restricting supply does absolutely nothing to change demand.



Of course, they keep targeting pipelines because it serves the groups well on the public relations front.



There is nothing sexy about lobbying governments for better policies on renewable energy and more reasonable pricing for consumers. But there is so much sexy in going pedal to the metal to wage a battle against big, bad oil.



This, sadly, continually puts Alberta and its energy industry in activists' cross-hairs while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the world's growing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Anonymous]

By Ricky Leong of Sun News Media



New pipeline battle, same old naiveté



The newest front in the war being waged against pipeline construction has opened in the United States.



Environmental groups have set their sight on work surrounding the replacement of Line 3, the largest infrastructure project in the history of Calgary-based Enbridge Inc.



The company had successfully argued before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission its half-century-old pipeline should be replaced using modern construction techniques while adding the latest safety features for spill monitoring and protection.



This would allow Enbridge to restore the flow of the pipeline — which originates in Hardisty, Alta., and whose U.S. portion runs from Clearbrook, Minn., to Superior, Wis. — to its original capacity.



Enbridge got the go-ahead for its project back in June 2018. But on Dec. 22, the state of Minnesota announced it was joining a court battle against its own utilities commission in an attempt to stop construction.



The Minnesota Department of Commerce argued the commission erred because Enbridge did not introduce long-range oil demand forecast required by state law, nor did the commission evaluate such information.



The legal fight was started earlier the same week by U.S. environmental and Indigenous groups.



According to The Associated Press, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, who leaves office Jan. 7, said in a statement Enbridge "failed to demonstrate that Minnesota needs this pipeline to meet our future oil demand. In fact, most of the product would flow through our state to supply other states and countries."



Groups fighting the project argued the replacement will speed up climate change because the oilsands crude it will carry generates more carbon emissions during production than regular oil. They also said the pipeline will increase the risk of oil spills in the headwaters of the Mississippi River.



(Also, you'll always see the term "oil sands" to describe Alberta oil. Because tar ... Icky! Eww!)



Activists continue to conveniently ignore the fact Canada's energy sector only accounts for a tiny fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions. They don't want to hear about how oilsands producers keep working to reduce their GHG footprint from resource extraction. And never mind the idea that most of the greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels happens at the consumer's end of the equation, when they use it to power their vehicles, heat their homes or whatever.



The fight against replacing Line 3 is especially silly when it comes to spill protection.



The fact environmental activists would rather force Enbridge to keep operating its older, technically problematic pipeline is the height of hypocrisy. It puts residents along the pipeline's route at risk of spills if the aging infrastructure were to fail.



And because Enbridge is limiting capacity on the existing network to prevent such problems, more energy is being delivered to customers other means including trains and trucks, which are arguably far less safe and energy-efficient.



This is playing itself out in Canada, where activist opposition to pipelines has led to a new surge in oil trains.



It is the clearest demonstration of how pipeline opponents continue to ignore the fact restricting supply does absolutely nothing to change demand.



Of course, they keep targeting pipelines because it serves the groups well on the public relations front.



There is nothing sexy about lobbying governments for better policies on renewable energy and more reasonable pricing for consumers. But there is so much sexy in going pedal to the metal to wage a battle against big, bad oil.



This, sadly, continually puts Alberta and its energy industry in activists' cross-hairs while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the world's growing greenhouse gas emissions.

These progtards and their billionaire backers create more environmental problems fighting Enbridge Line 3 replacement than letting it get built. It was the same with Dakota Access.