5 ms·
Quebec also would have been worse off as an independent state, but threatening sovereignty gave (and continues to give) them important bargaining leverage. Addi
by nickff 1y ago
Quebec also would have been worse off as an independent state, but threatening sovereignty gave (and continues to give) them important bargaining leverage. Additionally, Alberta has long-standing grievances, and ignoring those in favor of a strictly economic analysis is quite... limiting. Albertan sovereignty advocates might also argue that Canada has more to lose in Alberta than it ever did in the case of Quebec.
- jszymborski 1y agoThere are different degrees of "worse off", however. Quebec is a major port city, while Alberta is sandwiched between BC, Saskatchewan, Montana, and the North West Territories.
- abdullahkhalids 1y agoThey have US border on the South. If they were independent, they can strike a deal with the US for their oil pipeline, without Ottawa blocking them.
- slashdev 1y agoOttawa has supported the keystone XL pipeline south. I don’t see what changes there. The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- TimorousBestie 1y agoOil companies have proven time and time again when their pipelines leak or their ships sink or their fracking liquid gets into the groundwater, they’re not liable for it. Payouts have historically been a tiny, minuscule fraction of damage done. And that’s when there was an EPA attempting to regulate them; that’s not going to happen moving forward. So why should I trust one to build in my backyard?
- dylan604 1y agoBefore being neutered, was the EPA so powerful that it could regulate what happened in the great white north? While I get your sentiments about bigOil getting way with poisoning the land/seas, we can at least keep the government agencies from one country straight.
- unsnap_biceps 1y agoThe topic was "The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason", so it makes sense that they were talking about a US agency to me
- slashdev 1y agoThat’s not the reason. The oil goes by train which is more polluting and has the same consequences when trains derail.
- pfannkuchen 1y agoCan’t a pipe spill a lot more oil than a train though?
- smegger001 1y agoIf the shutoffs dont close maybe but that is not likely But if the train derails and every tanker can on the train is going over and trains are reaching over a mile in length, it will probably be bigger
- pfannkuchen 1y agoThere are active shutoffs in the pipe more frequently than the length of a train? If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
- b112 1y ago
- DFHippie 1y ago> The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason. It's not just God. I also know! The Democrats believe climate change is real, the externalities of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and consumption are real, the injured parties in pipeline construction are their constituents, and the fossil fuel companies fund Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations. It's a really deep mystery, but I've sussed it out. Me and God.
- slashdev 1y agoThe oil doesn’t stay in the ground, it gets shipped via diesel trains without the pipeline. I’m guessing climate change is the reason, but it’s hard to see how the current state of affairs is better for the environment. Diesel trains are a lot less carbon friendly than pipelines.
- DFHippie 1y agoHere's a thought experiment: if the diesel train works as well as the pipeline, why build the pipeline?
- robertlagrant 1y agoHere's another: if a diesel train produces no pollution, why not use it everywhere?
- DFHippie 1y agoHere's another observation (not a thought experiment): To figure out which scenario pollutes more, one could add up the various inputs and outputs. A producer is limited by the volume and cost of different means of transportation. It isn't apodictically true that the same volume of tar is delivered regardless of the means, so preventing a pipeline from being built does not necessarily increase net pollution. That being nebulous, the Democrats' motivations are less nebulous.
- slashdev 1y ago
- smegger001 1y ago>The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason. It would necessarily pass through Native land and the native tribes dont want it on their land. Forcing it through is a tribal sovereignty issue.
- slashdev 1y agoThat wasn’t the issue
- smegger001 1y ago"In a new bid to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, two Native American communities are suing the Trump administration, saying it failed to adhere to historical treaty boundaries and circumvented environmental impact analysis. As a result, they are asking a federal judge in Montana to rescind the 2017 permit and block any further construction or use of the controversial pipeline. The Fort Belknap Indian Community of Montana and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota contend there was no effort to study how the 1,200-mile pipeline project through their respective territories would affect their water systems and sacred lands." ---https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tribes-file-lawsuit-seeking-to-invalidate-keystone-xl-pipeline-p https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tri...
- slashdev 1y agoIt didn’t stop it. The Biden administration stopped it citing climate change as the reason. Do you mean to propose this was the real reason behind the scenes? I find it hard to believe.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoA little more than a month ago. https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-operating-after-oil-spill-in-north-dakota/ https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-oper...
- evidencetamper 1y agoAnd how hard would you expect the Americans to drive the negotiation when they know they are the only possible customer for Alberta? Trade deals are not made with generosity towards oil producers in mind.
- jszymborski 1y agoI find it hard not to imagine a scenario in which the USA would strangle an independent Alberta economically with designs to, at the minimum get oil for bottom dollar, or maximally to absorb it as a territory. It's what they're doing to Canada right now. We have a fighting chance, I don't imagine Alberta (or any other province) alone does.
- Tiktaalik 1y agoQuebec would be worse off independent of Canada absolutely, but having access to the ocean not landlocked and remarkably more viable as an independent state. There are other landlocked countries throughout the world so it's not like it's impossible, but Alberta would be creating an uphill to climb. Bottom line is that none of Alberta's longstanding limited market oil pipeline grievances are solved by becoming a landlocked independent state.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> having access to the ocean not landlocked and remarkably more viable as an independent state And a natural foreign ally.
- drewcoo 1y ago> Quebec would be worse off independent of Canada absolutely Writes someone in English. I don't think everyone would agree.
- goosedragons 1y agoEveryone might not agree but it wouldn't be true. Quebec shot itself in the foot just threatening separatism. Separating would be like Brexit but worse. A smaller, less powerful nation would need to make a bunch of trade deals and companies would likely be even less inclined to enter QC.
- snapplebobapple 1y agono, they are solved by becoming an American state , or by taking BC with us (close enough to zero chance to just say zero chance) or taking Saskatchewan and Manitoba (not zero chance but pretty darn close). Becoming an American state is the least unlikely of several extremely unlikely outcomes. My personal preference would be for Alberta to stay in Canada and Canada to stop pretending it doesn't need natural resource extraction as a leading part of creating a strong middle class (along with being a cheaper second option for multinational tech company/medical research/etc satellite offices). instead of the current idiotic crushing of natural resources and trying to pick and grow winners in high tech, medical,etc. which is impossible to turn into a pipeline of companies/jobs here (you can get lucky and have one offs that eventually get eaten like RIM and salesforce but that's not an economy.) There is not enough rich people here (and taxes are too high to make enough rich people even if our population was equal to the USA instead of a tenth of its size) to drive the whole finance ecosystem necessary to create an innovation company pipeline. It's all just wasted federal money, most of it was financed by money transferred out of Alberta at the margin.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoExcept of course the elephant in the room for why that is. You know, an entire population at odds with the Canadian government for trying to do to quebec and their culture what the American government successfully did to native americans and their culture. You don’t really have that unified us vs them mentality in english speaking canada.
- MeIam 1y agoSo you believe threatening to separate is a strategy and that they get more by making threats. Alberta has oil majority of it foreign owed and wants free pipelines paid by the rest of Canada as subsidy and they got one for free and they believe they get more for free...