As for what we heat our homes with, one of those things is natural gas, which is being wasted in ridiculous quantities in the tar sands because the tar is crap that needs huge amounts of additional hydrogen to be good for anything.

Albertans don’t deserve the boreal forest anymore. They’ve squandered they’re rights as caretakers of the land they occupy.

I’m always interested in reading statistics on the problems associated with extracting oil from the Alberta tar sands. The numerous consequences associated with extracting oil include tremendous environmental damage, specifically to our water resources. Producing oil from the tar sands takes on average three barrels of freshwater to make one barrel of oil. It remains important for our Canadian oil industry to heed the call of environmentalists and approach our collective resources with respect.

By current estimates Canada contains the second largest oil reserves in the world. Given the world demand and tremendous income potential, Canada has a vested interest in developing this resource to it’s full potential. Like many Canadians, I remain interested in technology that will assist industry in recovering oil, while also minimizing the environmental impact.

Some years ago, as a Ph.D. student, I built and tested equipment specifically designed to re-circulate water following an extraction process. I believe there are many experimental designs which could assist with applications in the oil industry and would like to share and discuss any applications with any interested stakeholders. I don’t believe a complete STOP is a viable strategy given our present energy needs.

First, though, let’s look at Labor’s determination to repeat that chorus, as captured by Hansard: “All are familiar with the fact that the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change” (Rudd, June 26).

“This government does understand that the cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the cost of action” (Swan, June 26).

It is the case that the economic costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action” (Swan, June 24).

“Those of us on this side of the chamber understand that the economic costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of responsible action now” (Wong, June 24).

“On the question of emissions trading, we on this side of the House know a simple fact and it is this: the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change” (Rudd, June 23).

“Australians recognise that tackling climate change will not be painless, but I think the Australian people have a very clear understanding that, as I said, the cost of inaction would be greater than the cost of responsible action now” (Wong, March 18).

“The fact of the matter is that it is the costs of inaction that outweigh the costs of action” (Garrett, March 17).

“And overall our view has long been, put in simple terms, that the costs of inaction on climate change are much greater than the costs of action” (Rudd, February 21).

“We on this side of the House recognise the costs of climate change and that the costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action”(Swan, February 14).

But a comparison of tables taken from Professor Garnaut’s July report and the paper he released on Friday shows that this is not so.

In his July 4 draft, he stated that the cost of no mitigation - that is, if no action were taken on so-called greenhouse gases - would be minus 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2020.

In his new paper he presents three scenarios for carbon-emission reductions by 2020.
At an “as-soon-as-possible” level of 450 ppm (parts per million) he says the cost would be minus 1.6 per cent of GDP.

At the “first best” conditional offer of 550 ppm the cost would be minus 1.1 per cent of GDP.
If a second-best “Copenhagen compromise” was followed, the cost would be minus 1.3 per cent of GDP.

It is highly revealing that in presenting his first specific trajectories and estimated costs of emissions reduction, Professor Garnaut has found that the cost of reducing emissions is greater than the cost of doing nothing - although that is not how he sold his paper.

It is Rudd who is the denialist on the economics of climate change, if Professor Garnaut is to be believed.

The costs of action outweigh the costs of inaction.

Rudd and Swan have already warned Australians they face increasing unemployment.

To that must be added the costs of Labor’s as-yet unspecific plans to deal with its over-hyped catastrophic view of climate change.

Professor Garnaut’s report indicates Labor’s mantra on climate change to be false.

Why does the ALP want to sacrifice the economy for a lie?
Let see what the Quebec Voters would say if they knew what they are doing is a negative result.

http://www.sboltd.com/

Thanks for your work and together we can fight the good fight!