This is also how I feel about Energy East and similar pipeline projects. In the national discussion about our energy and transportation network future, if you don’t put chemistry before a constructed economy, the economy will fail.
You can either lose your mind and your perspective:
It’s not your imagination — gasoline prices in Canada should be a lot lower than they are right now.
That’s according to Benjamin Reitzes, an economist at Bank of Montreal, who said the price Canadians pay at the pump should be a lot lower than it currently is based on the plunging price of a barrel of crude.
Or you can cool your jets and the overheating planet.
The latest round of interest in prices at the pump originated with some analysis yesterday from Bank of Montreal senior economist Benjamin Reitzes. While standing by the gas pumps this past weekend, Reitzes got to thinking. And so he ran the numbers and produced an eloquent graph.
“Simply,” concludes Reitzes, “consumers don’t appear to be reaping the full benefit of lower oil prices.”
Cue outrage in the comments section. Though, amusingly, some turned on the whistleblower, asking why the report didn’t do a similar job on bank fees.
“Certainly I, too, am unreasonably enticed by low pump prices.”
So, why do people who know better have brains that work this way?
“For the several minutes that I stand at the pump, all I do is stare at the growing total on the meter — there is nothing else to do,” wrote Ariely in Psychology Today in 2008. Watching the tank fill was an up-close-and-personal experience. It was repeated daily or weekly. It gave him a false sense of its importance to his life.
Wednesday’s Twitter feeds were jammed with the body of a young corpse of a boy facing down in the sand as an authority stood over the body and soon picked him up to carry his body away. I realized the boy was from a refugee family that didn’t make a boat crossing. He was a Syrian attempting to leave Turkey. His family had sought refuge in Canada. Regrettably, the Canadian Government did not make it possible, and the family fled Turkey by boat and most of them died.
CBC is a funny beast now. Along with their story parroting what the latest Canadian Energy Research Initiative report says, is RBC/tarsands shill Amanda Lang staring at you from the sidebar. Also we learn about “Dollarama’s winning formula” of selling Chinese mass produced garbage to Canadians, a “retail success story”, and again with “Amanda Lang takes you inside the world of business.”
Back to the oil train story. Outpacing oil trains apparently are wheat and coal. Coal shouldn’t even be burned anymore, now that we know how deadly and damaging it is. The report makes no mention of the unsafe DOT-111 cars used to ship petroleum. It doesn’t mention climate change, instead calling it “climate concerns”.
Coal currently is the most commonly moved commodity across Canada, accounting for nearly a quarter of rail traffic in some parts of the country, but that number is likely to fall as coal falls out of use because of climate concerns.
In the good old days, Canada’s spy agencies were not supposed to spy on Canadians. Government departments are also supposed to benefit from their research into vulnerabilities in computer systems, because holes can be closed. CSE was, according to The CBC, and The Intercept, intentionally not filling holes it found in the Google App Store and a popular web browser, in order to infect targets of spying. The result is that hostile governments and hackers could also use these holes if they independently discovered them.
The unethical fools at the Broadcast Consortium will probably gladly keep Elizabeth May away from the debates this year too.
Especially amusing is the Conservative spokes-tool saying more participants would make it a gong show. Mulcair wanting a debate focused on women, while angling to keep the only female leader out of the room, is special too.
What’s wrong with the Star and Robert Benzie to write an article about debate controversy and not even mention the Consortium considering blocking the Green Party again because they got away with it last election?
Why would it be up to the Conservatives to decide how many televised debates there are? Clearly, the Broadcast Consortium isn’t actually in charge here. It’s known that Layton and Harper conspired to keep May from debating previously.