canuckistani
Members-
Posts
2,769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by canuckistani
-
Those showing Exxon Valdez disaster, are simply fear-mongering. They won't tell you the real facts: The real facts are, shipping disasters are super-rare in the field of tanker disasters. This is simply because the net worth of the oil in the tankers for the host customer leads to the most advanced navigational and weather related course plotting outside of the military. If my objective was to cross any sea with the safest possible course only, outside of the militry, i will ride the tankers. Period. That being said, nothing is perfect and due to the human element, tanker disasters do happen. The 'breaking at sea' model is virtually N/A to Vancouver,because since Exxon Valdez, most tanker hulls have been designed to not break up due to rough seas ( the problem is caused by the sheer mass of the oil sloshing inside a tanker, leading to stress fractures all over the frame of the ship. This has been subsequently solved by more advanced design of tanker holds and dampning effects). A tanker can still get caught out in extremely rough seas and drown (thus breaking apart during descent, due to pressure related issues) or it can still get blown into a coastline and break open that way. However, these things almost never happen close to the shore or in straits. These things are rare-case open seas problem largely because of two reasons: a) open ocean is required to generate the type of waves that can truely drown an oil tanker b ) strict enforcement of traffic lanes + pilot tugs ensure that there are no accidents in a strait. This can also be objectively confirmed - 35% of the world's oil tanker passes through the St. of Hormuz. Tankers lost : 0 approx 20% of the world's oil passes through Malacca Straits (servicing China,Japan and east asia). Tankers lost: 0. This means, to have an oil spill in St. of Georgia, we will have to fail very hard and fail harder than any Omani, Irani and Emirati coastal authority ever has, along with a mosaic of worldly sea-captains.
-
Because preservation of world's resources and life requires recognizing where life is at its most vulnerable, diverse, etc. Its not an even sprinking of life hotspots on this planet. How can you even call yourself an environmentalist, if you don't know the basics of science behind environmentalism ?!? Ofcourse, if the priority is to protect flora and fauna diversity of the planet, the Sula sea and its surrounding islands are objectively much, much more important than BC coast-line. This is not to say BC-coastline is not worth protecting ( it is, which is why i am pro-tanker traffic, as it doesn't represent a realistic threat) - this is simply an answer to those NIMBYS who think they are fighting to protect the most pristine and important eco-hotspot of the planet (which dove-tails nicely with their anti-industry stance as well).
-
It is not too big of a risk, its hardly a risk. This can be objectively proven. Case study: Strait of Hormuz. A strait that is shallower than St. of Georgia, its shipping lane is only 4 miles wide. Its shorter than St. of Georgia. Ships 35% of the entire world's oil shipment. 0 tanker related disaster. Only disasters are caused by war (which is N/A in the case of St. of Georgia). There's your risk - minimal.
-
Sorry, you are not part of the solution. You are just part of the bigger problem of vancouver and leading to greater suffering in world poverty. I want no part of that, especially when its based on false narrative of oil spill risk (which is negligible- mathematically can be determined so as well) or fake concern of ecology by a city that is in the world's top 5% for worst carbon foot-print ever. I am calling Vancouver's bluff for what it really is - a NIMBY protest to keep industry and development away from lower mainland, so people who own properties here can sell it to retirees and investors world-wide and turn the local population into serfs.
-
No, they are not pointless. There is a scientific basis to this, since if ecological concern is the issue, then biomass, bio-diversity, etc. all are of vital importance. I love BC, i love how it looks, this is why i live here. But if you think BC is even in the top 20 most bilogically diverse, biologically dense hotspots on the planet, it just shows quantific ignorance in topics of zoology and botany.
-
Sorry, this is nonsense and has zero basis in actual reality. BC is one of the world's highest per capita consumer of all those dirty products i mentioned. It is objective, empirical fact that BC people are in the top 5% of the world's carbon footprint. Yet you are going to oppose carbon access to the poor in the world. As i said, nothing more than imperialism masking as ecological concern. No, not many. And none of those changes even begin to scratch the surface of the real issue either. Because hardly anyone has a really good education on the topic. Driving a car is the least of your problems when it comes to carbon footprint. What you eat, what you buy, what you do, where you go all have carbon costs that makes the average Vancouverite one of the top 5-10% of the world's culprits.
-
If you've been to Bali and you think BC's coastline has higher ecological value, you are deluded. This can be objectively proven by biodiveristy and biomass comparison.
-
As a BC-ite and a Canadian first, i am under no obligation to make people of BC happy or accede to their NIMBY demands that are grounded in propaganda and against national interest. Simple.
-
Then stop driving your car, before you protest oil. Or atleast, stop eating avocados, almonds, lettuce, etc - these things cost a metric ton of oil to ride in oil based trucks 100s of kms to get to your table. I have no problems when people who live in a society that lives the change, takes a moral stance. We are just hypocrites - each and every one of the protesters there use more oil in their life, than the poor it &^@#s over for not shipping the oil. That is a fact. So these 'i can have it, but YOU change' folks can go f-themselves.
-
I dont think you've been around the world much, if you say that. BC's coastlines are nothing special, amongst a few dozen special biomes globally. I can think of several in the tropics, just as beautiful, with much, much more biomass (meaning far greater diversity and density of life) than whats in BC. And many of them are just fine with shipping oil and people in ships over them. BC just wants to pretend oil shipping is sure-catastrophy, which it isn't.
-
And shipping oil over them in tankers kills this just as 'fast' or 'slowly' as shipping people in cruise ships over these pristine waters. Stop fearmongering over propaganda.
-
If those environmentalists wanted to end climate change, they'd not be using 1000x the oil per capita than the poor folks, whom it ultimately impacts when you picket against oil in today's world. Most of them are not true environmentalists, most of them are simple NIMBYS who want to maintain Vancouver as it is trending over the last 20 years - a place for super-rich foreigners and a few lucky old timers who's homes will be worth a zillion, because they've created a pristine living environment for the rich in a super-beautiful part of the world, with good climate. But the locals are nothing more than serfs, because hey whenever you talk of ANY INDUSTRY in the lower mainland, these NIMBYS use environmentalism as their cover, then go back to using 1000x more oil per capita practically than the people who get screwed the most by this kind of oil denial.
-
tankers are doing nothing more to your beach, except maybe putting an ugly ship in the background by the sunset of it (the tanker itself).
-
Sure. But unless you practice what you preach and ride bikes as much as possible, use cars only on road trips and such, your opposition to the pipeline, at THIS JUNCTURE, translates simply to poorer people than you getting shafted in the name of climate change, but you yourself will not sacrifice your own guzzling of oil. There is a word for that: imperialism.
-
Those who are pointing out what happens when an oil ship goes blam,near a coastline, would you prefer i posted what happens when a plane crashes into a bog ? Because by same parameter, we should also shut down/relocate the YVR. Planes have gone down 3-10km radius from airports before - and still do. The bio-loss to beautiful BC would be incredible when a bog-like environment (MUCH higher density of biome than average BC coastline) would be immense...Ergo, Vancouver should not have an airport either.....
-
oh one more thing - as a BC-ite, i don't give two flying f-cks about what BC profits from it or loses out on it. We are Canada. Thats our passport. Our law. Our rights. Does Canada benefit overall from it, overrides NIMBY-ism in my books. Period. BC is nothing more than a logistical division- ease of governance etc., an over-glorified mayoral council. So is (or atleast, should be) the status of any and all province/state/district of a nation. And if BC-ites start making Quebec-esque 'pesudo-nationalistic arguments', i will FULLY SUPPORT Ottawa in spending my money (aka tax payer money) via intelligence agencies and quashing the hell out of such psuedo-nationalistic garbage from a province.
-
fearmongering nonsense. Let me point out a simple fact. There is another part of the world, which ships about 100x the oil tankers vancouver will EVER ship, that is less average depth than St.of Georgia. This place also contains far greater military traffic, thus tonnage shipped anyways. (Plus Dubai dist. hub is > Vancouver, so container traffic is also heavier. Guess how many tankers have gone glub-glub there (unless they were deliberately sunk by other morons, aka acts of war,etc) ? Zero in the last 50 years that i know of. Besides, if our risk is 1 in 200 years, thats a risk i will take every single day of the week and twice on sundays re: oil shipping. If we do fulfill the risk and suffer a spill in the next 200 years, or heck, achieve the probabilistic mean and have one go glub-glub in 100 years from now, it means 100 years from now, we are still massively reliant on oil.If that is true 100 years from now, we have far bigger things to worry about than bituminous coast and a bunch of (by then extinct already) animals.
-
that possibility is largely a fart in the wind. The math behind it, is also suspect.
-
where does this nonsense, that oil tankers represent a hazard for BC coastline, is really comming from ? Is it from the tourism industry supporters, who dont want to see an ugly oil tanker while selling whale-watching tickets ? or is it the home owners who want to see no development but international retirement park, so that they can cash in big ? Because its utter nonsense that oil tankers represent a threat to BC coastline.
-
Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?
canuckistani replied to Rob_Zepp's topic in Off-Topic General
Thank you, but centrists and centrism has existed before 'young voters' - maybe not in this part of the world but the world is a big place (my name should be an indicator that i am not born and raised here). -
Not disagreeing with you- we do need to stop thinking of Tryamkin- for atleast another 2 years. Should our D-corps be a lot more competitive for 2020 ? Yep. But Tryamkin is one of the better 'left D who can play the right side' i've seen. He can be potentially an 'upgrage' on Guddy down the road, especially due to his age. So he may end up in the mix, atleast as fighting for 3LD position/2-3RD position when he returns. Yes, the 'Russian rust' can be a bad thing, but it can also give players certain skills due to its nature: such as defencemen passing better and shooting more. He may end up getting 'lazy' and just rely on throwing his weight around like a Pylon in the smaller rink- possible. But at the end of the day, a man with his size + skillset will get a serious look at any NHL club, atleast in terms of PTOs.
-
Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?
canuckistani replied to Rob_Zepp's topic in Off-Topic General
Late entry, but i will say a resounding YES to the OP. The western world, in the last decade and half or so, has lot centrist ideals. I describe myself as a liberal person, with center-left political, social and economic idea. I believe in helping those who are underprivileged, based on economic criteria ( other criterias are mostly made up nonsense) but also rewarding the innovative, high-risk, high reward ideals of capitalism. The eastern in me aspires to the balance/harmony/yin-yang principles, which pretty much is encapsulated by the principle of 'everything(almost), in moderation, except perhaps (with rare exception), moderation itself'. Same applies to politics/economics for me. And as a non-white person, i will say that the left is fast losing many,many regular folks by their new version of institutional racism, aka anti-white racism. This is why we see the rise of far-right in the western world, primarily because the far-left is too busy trying to portray itself as some sort of goody-goody history-reverser ( as if that is even feasible) saviour of non-white, non-cis-gendered people and many regular caucasian people are feeling similarly disenfranchised. The fact that this is a major malaise in western leftist-ism, can be decisively confirmed by me ( via anecdotes, social control experiments, etc), since i can say the exact same thing and not get a hostile reaction from overwelming majority of the left here, yet if a white person says it, they get called racist before one can say 'danger will robinson'. -
If Jake was 1/10th the player Kane was right from the get-go, his antics wouldn't have mattered. Nobody cares that Jagr sleeps with girls half his age randomly either. Why ? Because he is Jagr. Jake, is a nobody right now and high picks who are nobodies in any sport, will forever get the evil eye for having fun, instead of working their tails off to justify their selection as high. Long may the criticism of Jake continue as long as he pots 10 goals and 20 points/year and as soon as he starts getting (if he gets there) to the 50 point plateau, it will disappear/be a non-factor.
-
Gaudette has a long, long, long way to go to be considered elite centre-man prospect. Bo is not elite and he is like 10x more developed than Adam.
-
You are not getting my point. I will say this one last time : having 5-6 top flight wingers and 1 solid centre between them, is a bad idea. Which means if Peterson doesnt pan out at C, we are most likely trading one of Peterson,Dahlen,Baertschi or Lind to get a centreman.