Debate partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek
Please visit the debate frequently! The winner of last weeks debate is @salmanbukhari54 with a respectable vote tally of 10 and @ailenepm has won the steem for contributing a vote to that winning post! Congratulations.
As a note of interest to see if our intent is working, I totaled up the amount of SBD and Steem that has been paid out to the winners over the last 7 weeks (first three I could not find data for without a lot of digging). The Debate Forum has paid out 53.33 SBD and 10.369 Steem, NOT including all the SBD and steem that people earned with the huge upvotes that I was giving out for the participants. One participant already shared that his first win made a huge difference for him and got him going. I think this is making a difference, so let's debate on my friends!
Week 11 debate topic - Pipe Lines
This week Canada's Prime Minister threw down the gauntlet by saying that the pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast will be built.
This will in turn produce a lot of resistance from indigenous and other groups who are working hard to protect the land, water, air, plants and animals from pollution, oil spills, disruption due to construction, etc. But this also gets into murky areas such as indigenous sovereignty, land claims, boundaries, duty to consult, etc.
This weeks Debate Forum question: Does the Federal Government have a valid claim, did their due diligence and have the support and authority in order to push this pipeline through or will it come down to violence, force and coercion?
The rules of this debate:
- Keep comments on topic.
- No personal attacks, name calling or yelling.
- Be respectful, thoughtful and articulate with your thoughts and views.
- Participants can ask questions but lets limit the discussion threads to three deep. That means the individual can respond to the question posed and then the thread must stop.
- The post with the highest vote count will win the debate. Highest value will not be used to determine the winner but will naturally reward commenters who make excellent points. That way everyone's vote counts the same when it comes to the final prize. I will break any ties.
- Debate deadline is 10pm MST February 10, 2018. At which point I will then tabulate the results and send the prize to the winner.
- Curators are encourage to vote as well, giving higher percentage upvotes for well thought out and written responses, lower or no vote for anybody who breaks the rules or fails to articulate their position.
- Winner will receive all the SBD that I receive from this post, complements of the curators who are participating and partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek.
- Out of the winning post, the voter on the bottom of the list with 100% upvote will receive all the Steem from the debate post, to encourage more voting!
- I am the moderator and as such I disqualify myself from winning. My decisions are final. I will not tolerate covert or overt violence in this debate. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
- For this debate, I will disqualify those who fail to follow the spirit of the debate.
The spirit of this contest is to engage the readers with thoughtful debate and to explore ideas that are not commonly made available to the average Jane and Joe. I also want to see if this is a good way to get low steem users participating and being rewarded with steem to help them build influence on this platform. Readers are reminded that all comments are the opinions of those who are posting and as such it is your responsibility to do your own research and make up your own mind on these topics. There is no write or wrong answer. Let us debate this issue with respect, honour, dignity, heart and intelligence. I am now on steemit.chat, user id @wwf. and discord (WWF#2870) If you want to private chat, you can contact me there.
Past debates
Week 10 - Trade Agreements - won by salmanbukhari54
Week 9 - Legitimacy of Government - won by @dubem-eu
Week 8 - Guaranteed Income - won by @salmanbukhari54
Week 7 - Sectarianism & Dogma - won by @shai-hulud
Week 6 - Spirit vs Letter of the law - won by @shai-hulud
Week 5 - Indigenous Reconciliation - won by @dubem-eu
Week 4 - Net Neutrality - won by @skycae
Week 3 - Geoengineering - won by @cheneats
Week 2 - Government sponsored vaccination programs - won by @cheneats
Week 1 - Fixing government vs self-governance - won by @yulem
I see the two-sidedness of this occurring more and more lately. On one side you have these environmental summits where all these people are concerned with changing the environment and reversing "global warming." They will say things like, "We have to make the hard choices, we have to get tough on global warming, we have to tax you for your own protection, etc."
And then the other side where it's more important to grow the economy and create jobs at the risk of seriously hurting the environment. They'll be sure to add in something to say they also have environment issues in mind, but to pump this much oil across the country is just a recipe for distaster. There is plenty of incidents to point to the risks involved and having things in place to clean up any distaster that might occur afterwards does nothing to prevent it.
I think both of these views by these people are bullshit and they only care about one thing: money. They are carbon taxing everything they can when it suits them for the environment side, and taking lobbying money and more taxing from the people who want to make money from the pipelines.
We're being played on both sides and people are falling for it. There are examples around the world where the economy has continued just fine without government interference, so I guess I'm on the side of the environment, but I'm not for any sort of carbon tax. If governments are going to get involved, they should be there to simply say, "No, you can't do that because it is harmful, or has the potential to harm the environment. And any harm to the environment is ultimately harm to the people that need it to survive."
Nice debate. I've seen the 'economy' used as a justification for years as people need jobs to pay their bills and live. However, when we realize that those bills are a dependency, which then forces us to work jobs, are we not really suggesting that the 'economy' is to support our own slavery? After all, all our needs can be met through a direct one-on-one relationship with Mother Earth. So would a justification for the project based on 'economic' arguments ring hollow once people realized the true nature of their relationship with the corporate and government enterprises that depend on people being dependent upon them? If that is indeed the case, does the governments argument all of a sudden evaporate and put the whole project into jeopardy as the project is only needed to encourage and support slavery?
Very well put. Most people need the job, to buy the gas, to put in the car, to get to work and keep the job, to buy the gas, etc, etc.
I was also just thinking that oil spills would be good for the economy as well. It could create jobs for years to come. So..... should we have some spills on purpose every now and then when we need an economic boost? No, of course not. But I bet a politician could convince a number of people otherwise, tax them to do it, and then tax them to clean it up.
Chilling thought eh! Yikes
10 weeks of the debate has been completed, a huge round of applause for two greats @fulltimegeek and @wwf <3
Well in my point of view from the extraction of natural resources including natural gas or oil everything benefits this feudal system. Different national and international policies are made just to control the masses and natural resources for the sake of power. They (strategists) has nothing to do with the lives of masses rather they focus how can they please the controlling powers of the world. Under all these circumstances the value of environment protection is too small in their eyes. There is no doubt that nitrogenous matters and excess of toxic gaseous agents are harming the ozone layer as whole. The depletion of ozone layer is ultimately harming the lives of human beings and yes this thing also making all the weathers more intensified.
Fertility of soil has been decreased than past due the misuse of extracted natural reservoirs. As whole such activities not only harmful for the environment but also going to effect the generations to come. So, this is the most severe form of violence because it is harming the masses of the world on macro level.
Are you serious, pipe lines and the ozone layer? There are more direct and immediate cause and effect of pipe lines on things other than the ozone. Can one of those 7 voters please provide your rationale in support of the argument here, because I have a hard time understanding it? Thank you.
Well @magicmage thanks for pointing out the valid point :)
Let me explain this to you, actually pipeline and policy of international politics is not harmful for the ozone depletion rather the misuse of the dug natural resources are definitely causing to deplete the blanket of ozone around the globe. Misuse in the sense of blasts through the leakage of oil pipes.
While I agree with your statement, I don't think you answered the question. Does the government have a valid claim to be able to push the pipeline through? ;) I agree that it benefits them, but do they have the authority to do it?
Well Rob, this is true that i am not that familiar with the political scenario of Canada but i do believe the situation is quite similar all over. So, in this regard i would like to say that the government does not have any right to harm the environment and the public properties.
Our current way of life is absolutely dependant on black gold and without it we would stave in a matter of weeks.
It is everyone's responsibility to ensure the oil is extracted and transported in the least harmful manner.(I believe pipelines are safer than trucking or rail although I admit I don't know this for sure)
As with anything that will be so disruptive to those living near it, there will be resistance. I wouldn't like I pipeline in my backyard or through my water source.
I believe the solution to be 2 fold
1 - Choose the route that has the least possible harm (both immediate and potential)
2 -People who can't agree to the route coming through them would have to be "bought out"
.
While I agree that "compulsory purchase" should be the absolute last measure to be taken, in cross country projects there will be inevitable holdouts with very valid concerns.
The pipeline companies will stand to be handsomely paid for use of the pipeline and we should all stand together to make sure those people who stand to be inconvenience are fairly rewarded/compensated from the profits earned.
Transit fees or relocation fees for the landowners should be agreed at the national level not on an individual basis.
We are stronger together
These are some wonderful solutions to avoid such harms. My friend, actually we are the core reason behind the such harmful activities because we chose the governments through our votes, and in our education system we are taught in such a way that we become robots just to serve this system, feudal system.
Nice post. I think that is the current method that the government uses to push a pipe line through. What do you propose should be done when the government runs into people who:
Do you feel the state has a valid claim on the land to force their way through for these national projects? Do you advocate the use of violence, force, relocation and other methods to ensure project success?
I do not want to miss @wwf debate so even if I'm late this time and I am not very familiar with Canadian politics, I am still writing my stand here.
I am not really familiar with the Constitution of British Columbia but if it is similar with our country that the Federal government as well as the national government is tasked to create policies for the protection and advancement of the people's right to a balance and healthful ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature, then the federal government has no valid claim to push this pipeline through as it will surely be contrary to the interest of the people that will be affected by this pipeline construction as well as the possible pollution and disruption of the natural ecology. However, since the government is very good at conditioning the minds of the people who will be affected, this pipeline will surely push through. Even in my country with our clear policies of the state on ecological protection engraved in our constitution, when it comes to development and exploit of natural resources, indigenous groups protests never win. So, it will always boil down to the government's will winning the game. I guess the people who will be affected by this construction should brace themselves for the possible harm of this construction to their environment if they will just sit back and relax and will not put up a fight and assert their right for a balance ecology which they can clearly attach with their basic and fundamental right which is their right to life, liberty and their property.
Despite you being unfamiliar with Canadian politics, you are very close to describing what goes on here too. I think the story is the same all over the world. Here in Canada, the province controls the land, but there are some federal land too, reserves and national parks. But the federal government also has environmental legislation which a few years ago removed protection from the vast majority of the lakes, streams and ponds in this country. That is in the millions! The current government did not reverse that change. All governments also have a duty to consult with the Indigenous peoples, but that is watered down as they always consult, but there is no duty to listen or give them any weight in the decisions.
Now it is getting easier and easier for industry to push through.
I don't think people realize that the Queen claims the land. It is hers and she can do what ever she wants with it. I disagree with that claim, but that is how government functions.
That is really a dangerous set-up when the Queen claims the land and the people do not realize it. But, I believe, constitutional conventions of democracy is engraved in Canadian political system, in that case, the Crown has the duty to safeguard the rights and freedom of the people. So, the people still have the power to assert these rights, in this case their right to their balanced ecology which they can clearly relate to their basic democratic rights such as their right to life, liberty and property. But, as we all know, in the way how government functions nowadays, they always win the game and make it appear beneficial to the majority of the population. Such a sad story really.
When it comes to pipelines, in my opinion, it depends on where the individuals’ values lie with the economy or the environment. Pipelines are important for economic growth as they are the essential infrastructure for the oil and gas industry. For countries that rely on the export of natural resources for revenue, such as Canada (especially the province of Alberta in Canada) and, to some extent, the USA, pipelines is a critical to the transportation of oil and gas. The oil and gas industry has advocated that transport by pipelines is safer and cleaner than by other means, such as by ships or rail. Arguably, the spills would be better and effectively contained in pipelines, if it happened, than had it occurred on land or in water during transport. Massive spills in the past have occurred, such as the BP Oil spills and large clean-up operations were conducted to clean up as much of the oil spills and contamination as possible in the ocean. Building pipeline infrastructure is a one-time cost, whereas shipping and rail transport will be a continuous, large operational cost to the oil and gas companies. Moreover, rail accidents have happened in the past and in some instances, have resulted in serious injuries or death. Moreover, the oil and gas sector is a large employer and has created many jobs to boost the economy.
On the other hand, if you are an environmentalist, the reasoning would be to make sure the environment be as clean and unpolluted as possible for future generations. Anything that has a huge potential of causing pollution or contamination to the air and environment is a very bad thing and needs to be heavily regulated. At least, that’s the environmentalists lobbying the government use as their arguments to prevent pipeline constructions and to impede progress in the oil and gas industry. This in turn, will stall economic growth and prevent job creation. Look at the Obama years when Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota pipeline projects were stalled and prohibited from moving forward. The USA economy was made worse. More people on food stamps and companies became stagnant due to the heavy burdens of environmental regulations, and all of this had resulted in massive job loss and low GDP over Obama’s 8 years of government. However, the reasons behind these disruptive decisions to the economy were related to political and financial gains, rather than just for the sake of the environment, which was used mostly as a smokescreen for environmentalist to advance their climate change agenda.
A similar situation is now faced by the company, TransCanada, that wants to expand their oil pipeline between Alberta and British Columbia, as the focus of their Trans Mountain pipeline project. Though on the face of the argument against the pipeline project is due to environmental concerns however, reports have shown that the B.C. Premier actually wanted a bigger piece of the pie (money). This pipeline project is interprovincial, and affects the Canadian economy and revenues as whole. As well, the federal government should have jurisdiction as the pipeline crosses provincial borders and would not likely be governed by one set of provincial rules versus the other. Therefore, the federal government may very well play the referee role.
In my opinion, pipelines are essential to economic growth and job creation. Massive spills are preventable by keeping them contained in the pipelines. A portion of the oil and gas revenue may be used to do further safety research to prevent future spills. Individuals must examine the benefits and costs of pipelines on the economy and environment objectively with good research data, as well determine the impact pipelines have on their livelihood versus the environment.
I think the independent nations of tribes in BC will have something to say about this pipeline!
So I think that if you are asking about whether or not the federal government has a valid claim, we ought to be asking whether they even have sovereignty over the land in question that will be used for the pipeline.
That is the premise that I was looking for from this debate. Care to expand on it further?
I'm not sure how Canada is structured, but within the provinces, are there not powerful local tribes that assert claim to their sovereignty? If Trudeau is saying this is good for all Canadians, then the Indians who own that land and have sovereignty over that land can ask him... is this good for all our people? Then if the answer is no to this simple question, you cannot in good conscience continue with the project. Sunk cost be damned!
To sustain the land, water, plants and animals from pollution of indigenous peoples will do anything to defend him, because every citizen have the right retains its land, though the attack was coming from the Government on its own though.
Oil pipeline development will only benefit a few Parties in the Government while the indigenous peoples had to be suppressed due to the pollution in the impact.
I think it ought to be in the preserve
If our bodies came from the land, require land to sustain it, cloth it and shelter it would it not make sense to then suggest that our bodies are the land? If that is the case, then by pushing pipelines through which will result in environmental contamination through construction and leaks, would that not be harm and an attack against the people as well?
I agree with you @wwf we all come from the land and will end up being ground,
Soil is the Foundation for us to sustain life, so that indigenous people have to defend their land from the environmental pollution will damage the life in the following generation,
The pollution would be fatal for life, can also be da maging nature that is the source of livelihood of the community.
I think the local people are entitled to vote or a proposal, if there is something to be built in their residence. Because it is all about the disruption of their neighborhood and they are entitled to protect the land, water, air, plants and animals from pollution, oil spills, construction disruptions, and so on. But if all the disturbances can be handled by the party responsible for a job, I think it will not be a big problem, to make a job there. And we also have to give work to the locals, let them all feel the happiness of the result of the establishment of a company in their place of residence. thank you
The government continues to push the idea that they must do this for the good of all Canadians, so the majority mob will push through despite the objections of the minority. How do you propose that a balance be struck when the majority uses coercion and force against the minority?
Actually we do not know what is being planned by the government, but I think the government has its own plan to membagun a country to develop. But we as a society must also have a politics so we know what is being planned by the government. Because we do not directly believe in the government. But in my opinion, if an oil company is built and can make the community have a permanent job, and can have a source of income for them. I am sure the public will agree, although it has some impact on the environment they live in and there will be no resistance with the local community. I've seen in my country things like that.
Just to clarify then, are you saying it is justified to engage in these activities because of the jobs or should we be finding ways for people to support themselves without the need for jobs, which would then take away their argument for such projects?
The debate to solve the government problem should also see the profit and loss for the community hopefully the line pipe can find a bright spot
Are you advocating that the oil companies then share the profits with the locals along the pipeline as a way to appease them and gain their compliance? I do know that has been tried in the past and many groups have refused the payments out of principle. So what do you suggest the corporations and governments do with those who refuse to cooperate?
If people say pollution occurs how to provide other land for them and habitable home
Excellent job @wwf and many congrats @salmanbukhari54. Steemit pays! I visited @fulltimegeek and cehck his video about #stewardsofgondor and why he adopted several Steemians and believe me, I am very happy at what he and all his adoptees are doing. Hats off to you man. The chain reaction will keep spreading the very much needed positive energy. Steem On!
thank you. Care to participate in the debate?
thanks for update about debate contest , this very nice and good article for followers, i appreciate to contest @salmanbukhari54 , may God succeed him,
my supports and following always with your great blogs @wwf.
stay blessed and steem on
Are you going to engage with the post? In case you weren’t aware, comments like this are considered spam. The purpose of this post was for debate, can you please say something about the debate topic? Otherwise you are wasting your time and space on the blockchain.
sir , its really interesting and good work steeming @wwf.
congrats to contest , be happy and stay blessed
Your work is so great ..thanks for sharing your information.. @wwf
i like this one..
1st one is the best one!!
its too good!!
I like your blog.thanks for your new blog
Damn these spammers are taking over. I’m going to start flagging, this is not the space to spam.
I'm going to ignore them and just upvote people so that they end up near the bottom and out of the way of the real intent for this post ... solid debate.
That’s generally the best strategy. But anyone of these spam comments that get upvoted, I’ll be sure to downvote back to 0.
So why not downvote them now, that way only their reputation is impacted. If you wait until somebody upvotes them and gifts them some currency from the reward pool, now you are taking away something that was given to them, which is harmful and violent.
Technically it’s not gifted until the payout, prior to this point it’s voting on the payout. Most upvotes coming from the spammers are them voting on themselves. But I understand your point. If you’d rather not downvote, I’ll respect your philosophy here. My personal take is we should all be using our downvotes more often to moderate the platform and keep the spammers and bots from over flooding the system.
I agree. We can do that before any payments or upvotes have been made. However, once somebody upvotes them, then we have crossed the line, in my view. Thank you for speaking up though. It is important that we voice our concerns and set the standards upon which we want people to behave. Speaking up and voicing that is an important step.
you are the best @wwf
Fantastic post