# How to end global warming for $250 million.



## Rusty O'Toole

This comes from the book Super Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. The relevant section goes from page 191 to page 222.

To summarize, we know sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere cools the climate. Scientists have calculated that a very small increase of 1/20th of 1% would do the trick provided it was put into the upper atmosphere. The best place to do this would be in the far north and far south since that is where the warming is worst.

The effects would be felt immediately with complete reversal of the temp increase in 1 year.

The best place to do this would be northern Alberta near the Athabasca tar sands. Oil companies have stockpiled a mountain of sulfur there, as a byproduct of oil refining. It would be necessary to build a pipe suspended by gas balloons to reach the upper atmosphere. This would cost about $20 million. After that it would cost about $10 million a year to pump the sulfur dioxide.

Another such station in Australia would take care of the southern hemisphere. Worst case, we would need a total of 5 such stations with 3 pipes each for a total cost of $150 million and annual operating expense of $100 million.

This is $50 million less than Al Gore is spending just to increase public awareness of global warming.

They got this idea from Intellectual Ventures, a research company owned by Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer at Microsoft. Bill Gates said of him " I don't know anyone I would say is smarter than Nathan". His climate guy is Ken Caldeira, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world, whose work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won him a Nobel Peace Prize certificate in 2007.


----------



## Spidey

Today is May 1st and driving home my car thermometer showed an exterior temperature of 2 degrees. We've had one of the coldest longest and snowiest winters on record. How much colder do we want it?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

You said it. Spidey I am with you. As a Canadian I could use some global warming and frankly I am getting tired of waiting. We were supposed to be sunning ourselves on the beaches of Baffin Island by now. But, you know this is a minority opinion that will most likely get us fined or thrown in the hoosegow as "climate deniers" any day now.

However, there are millions tossing and turning in their beds every night worried about climate change and I thought it would comfort them to know that there is an easy, cheap solution.


----------



## Spidey

I agree Rusty. I will try my best to keep my comments in this thread non-argumentative as I appreciate that the moderators are trying to calm things down a bit. I think this video fits that objective and this fellow just seems to make so much sense on the topic. I think we need more perspectives than the common narrative that we only seem to hear.


----------



## Prairie Guy

But if we really are heading to another ice age/mini ice age as many credible scientists have stated, then wouldn't inducing cooling be the worst thing to do? It wasn't that long ago that most of Canada was under a mile of ice.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

The good thing is, the sulfur disperses quickly and it would be easy to control it as necessary. Experts say that shutting down high altitude airline flights for a few days after 9/11 made a noticeable change just from the jet exhaust that was not going into the atmosphere.


----------



## sags

It is an old idea that treats the symptoms of climate change without addressing the cause and scientists have no idea what the unintended consequences would be.


----------



## james4beach

I think I'll trust the guidance of scientists who specialize in climate studies, as well as policy makers with expertise in the area. This means looking at consensus opinions among the experts, not just the opinion of one or two people.

One place to look for guidance is at NASA, an institution which has considerable expertise in this field. See:
NASA - Global Climate Change site
NASA - Responding to Climate Change

Luckily, there are experts in the world who have dedicated many years of study to this problem. As a voter in a democracy, I want politicians to (a) consult with trusted experts, not industrial lobbyists representing corporations, (b) listen to expert guidance, and (c) implement the best solution known at this time, or the most workable solution under current circumstances.



Rusty O'Toole said:


> Bill Gates said of him " I don't know anyone I would say is smarter than Nathan". His climate guy is Ken Caldeira, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world


Policy decisions must be based on consensus or generally agreed upon advice, and generally conservative advice when there's high risk of harm. We don't live in a world where government decisions are made on a single "smart" person's ideas. Nor should we.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

That is an interesting viewpoint. If governments made their decisions by consensus there would have never been an atomic bomb or atomic energy. All the experts said it was an unproven idea and probably impossible. But President Roosevelt consulted Albert Einstein who told him it was possible and so he went ahead with the Manhattan Project.

I could name a hundred scientific advances that went against the consensus of the times. Fortunately this isn't one of them. Anyone familiar with climate science knows about the effects of sulfur dioxide on climate, it has been studied many times. Every time a volcano like Pinatubo or Mount St. Helens throws dust and sulfur into the atmosphere they get the chance to study it again. We are only talking about an increase of 1/20th of 1 percent of what is already there. And if there turns out to be unintended consequences the project can be shut down at any time.
If you are going to wait until someone comes up with a solution that has no unintended consequences you are going to wait forever. There is nothing that does not have side effects of some kind, and many of the proposed solutions have much worse effects and accomplish much less.
I suspect some people are not interested in solving a problem so much as milking it for all they can get.


----------



## m3s

Sounds like kicking the can down the road

If the human population continues to grow we will still have major issues eventually

I read the original Freakonomics but I don't remember this one


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

It's not in the original Freakonomics, it's in the new Super Freakonomics.

James seems to think that if someone invents a new solution to a problem they should be ignored and possibly denounced until everyone else comes around to the same way of thinking. In other words he wants to be the last person to accept something new. I'm sure I can't account for this. I am always ready to entertain a new idea and at least consider it. I find it's the only way to learn anything new.

If you think it is a poor solution I would love to hear a better one. So far even the most ardent advocates admit that their remedies won't actually solve anything. This is the first thing I have heard of that will fix the problem and is simple and economical. Besides, there is no reason it couldn't be abandoned if something better comes along.


----------



## Prairie Guy

The real issue Rusty, is that no one has proven that there is a problem that needs fixing. Temperatures are more or less flat, and hurricanes and tornadoes are down. The weather is no more severe than it has been in the past. although fear mongering reporting has misled people.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.


----------



## andrewf

I thought there was no such thing as global warming?

I thought there was no way humans could influence something so massive as the climate?

I thought we have no way of knowing what the impact on climate would be of such interventions. The science isn't settled. For all we know, putting sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere will cause a nuclear winter or make the atmosphere spontaneously combust.


----------



## andrewf

Rusty O'Toole said:


> It's not in the original Freakonomics, it's in the new Super Freakonomics.
> 
> James seems to think that if someone invents a new solution to a problem they should be ignored and possibly denounced until everyone else comes around to the same way of thinking. In other words he wants to be the last person to accept something new. I'm sure I can't account for this. I am always ready to entertain a new idea and at least consider it. I find it's the only way to learn anything new.
> 
> If you think it is a poor solution I would love to hear a better one. So far even the most ardent advocates admit that their remedies won't actually solve anything. This is the first thing I have heard of that will fix the problem and is simple and economical. Besides, there is no reason it couldn't be abandoned if something better comes along.


FYI, geo-engineering is not a new idea nor was this idea developed by the authors of this book. There are downsides to many geo-engineering approaches.


----------



## sags

I think the decision has already been made by most governments.

Lower emissions while simultaneously preparing to avoid damage where possible.

Alternative technology is advancing very quickly but it will take time.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> I think the decision has already been made by most governments.


About the only response I have seen so far from governments is to create another tax with the word carbon attached to it.

ltr


----------



## lonewolf :)

like_to_retire said:


> About the only response I have seen so far from governments is to create another tax with the word carbon attached to it.
> 
> ltr


 I recently read that 19 states have or are going to tax electric cars since their thinking is they are not paying their fair share of the taxes. Government never think they are the problem they only look @ ways to tax more


----------



## Spidey

I just wonder what a realistic plan to meet global CO2 targets would look like? Please remember that Canada is on.y 1.8% of total emissions. What would be the process to get countries like China and India to cooperate? I think realistically the very best we could manage would be status quo on the CO2 front without some marvelous technological advancement. (And even status quo would be a stretch when we consider an increasing global population and growing economies in China and India.) 

So what would be a realistic plan that would make any difference globally?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

From what I have heard China, India and other developing economies are not interested in fighting pollution or carbon emissions. The initials F. U. come to mind. These countries contribute the majority of pollution and carbon.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Rusty O'Toole said:


> ... To summarize, we know sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere cools the climate. Scientists have calculated that a very small increase of 1/20th of 1% would do the trick provided it was put into the upper atmosphere. The best place to do this would be in the far north and far south since that is where the warming is worst.
> 
> The effects would be felt immediately with complete reversal of the temp increase in 1 year....


Oh, this is a novel idea. To solve global warming, let's deliberately throw a toxic substance into the upper atmosphere: a substance which also contributes to acid rain, which we thought we had solved in the 20th century. That way we won't live long enough to worry about global warming.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

OhGreatGuru said:


> Oh, this is a novel idea. To solve global warming, let's deliberately throw a toxic substance into the upper atmosphere: a substance which also contributes to acid rain, which we thought we had solved in the 20th century. That way we won't live long enough to worry about global warming.


I don't want to scare the living **** out of you but the sulfur dioxide is already up there. We are talking about adding one pound for every 2000 pounds that is in the atmosphere now. Most of it came from the ocean and from volcanic eruptions.


----------



## Spidey

I was driving my car home last evening and the outside temperature registered 2 degrees C. The first of May and it is this cold!!!

Just for some comparisons the climate records show it was 17.2 degrees in 1948 (the year from which our warming rate was double the rest of the world). It was 26.1 degree in 1930. It was 18.3 degrees in 1911. But of course, the unusual cold we are experiencing is also "climate change". :distrust:


----------



## james4beach

Spidey said:


> I was driving my car home last evening and the outside temperature registered 2 degrees C. The first of May and it is this cold!!!


Individual measurements in specific locations in specific years does not matter much. Climate change and global warming is a story of averages over long periods. NASA shows the long term trends on their web site, here's 1880 to 2019
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You will also notice on that page that temperature changes are not uniform across the earth. There are pockets that are colder, and pockets that are warmer. So it is perfectly possible that you had a colder April than what your town saw decades ago. This does not mean there is no earth-wide climate change.

Another major trend that NASA highlights is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, shown here going back 400,000 years
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Please take a look at those pages. Notice that the global *average* temperatures started trending upward at the same time that CO2 levels in the air increased very sharply. Because CO2 is known to be a gas that traps heat, and human emissions have increased dramatically due to fossil fuel use, it is very likely that human activity is causing this global warming. It's the most logical conclusion given the data that we have.

Big increase in CO2 emissions --> big increase in CO2 found in air --> global average temperatures increase

And the effect is not just seen in global temperatures. It's also seen in ocean temperature and ice cap coverage of the planet. There are several different measurements which are all consistent.



Spidey said:


> But of course, the unusual cold we are experiencing is also "climate change". :distrust:


I think you might be misunderstanding what scientists mean by climate change. They are referring to long term trends (averages) observed in CO2 levels, global temperatures, and ocean temperatures. This has absolutely nothing to do with one winter versus a past winter. It's about global averages across many measurements, and as far back as hundreds of thousands of years when it comes to CO2.


----------



## Prairie Guy

like_to_retire said:


> About the only response I have seen so far from governments is to create another tax with the word carbon attached to it.
> 
> ltr


Yup...even though the fact that it's just another punishing tax, it's heartedly embraced by progressives and socialists who love government control over every aspect of their lives.

They are cult members who can't be reasoned with.


----------



## Spidey

james4beach said:


> Individual measurements in specific locations in specific years does not matter much. Climate change and global warming is a story of averages over long periods. NASA shows the long term trends on their web site, here's 1880 to 2019


I do get that James. But you would think after almost 150 years of "climate change", we would be experiencing warmer Mays than in 1911. And it seems that the AGW crowd has it their own way no matter which way things go. Every flood, every wildfire, every hurricane is more evidence of "climate change". But every unusual cold temperatures well out of sync with what was happening in the early 1900s is "just weather". Or even worse, even further evidence of "climate change". As for the 0.8 degrees average warming - it just doesn't strike me as that alarming. 0.8 degrees is hardly perceptible - can you actually perceive when the temperature changes 0.8 degrees? I once heard a scientist explain that one of the most difficult variable to control in the laboratory is temperature and it is very difficult to keep temperature within tenths of degrees of stability. If this is difficult in a highly controlled environment like a scientific laboratory how do we expect the entire atmosphere of the earth to have stability within a few tenths of a degree over almost a century and a half? That being said, I fully understand that many educated people find this absolutely alarming. I respect professionals but I've learned not to set aside my skepticism. As one example, the medical profession has a history of having a consensus regarding many procedures and surgeries, that we now know caused much more harm than good. Listen to what the experts say but never let go of your critical thinking. If after thinking through it critically you believe the scientists, well fine. I just kind of cringe when I hear someone say, "I believe this because the scientists say it is so". (Not implying that this is what you are saying.)


----------



## lonewolf :)

Chatham Ontario on May 18 the area had zero crops in ground from the cold weather. In 4 years went from 70% of crops planted by the end of April to zero. Soil temp is 23 degrees below the 25 year average.Source Howe Street Martin Armstrong blog May 20th.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I had an old friend, now dead, who was born near Colborne Ontario about 1900. He told me the day he was born, March 19, his father was out plowing.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I don't want to scare the living **** out of you but the sulfur dioxide is already up there. We are talking about adding one pound for every 2000 pounds that is in the atmosphere now. Most of it came from the ocean and from volcanic eruptions.


We also have natural substances such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. Artificially changing the balance of those green house gases is believed by most scientists to be what got us in the present situation. (Not all scientists - that's a discussion for another day or thread). I don't believe our knowledge of terraforming has advanced to the state where we can confidently predict that we can solve the problem by changing the balance of another atmospheric constituent. I don't like the idea of being a lab rat in someone's experiment. (Remember we are all passengers on Spaceship Earth.)


----------



## andrewf

I'm guessing you meant May 19? Mar 19 is not that remarkable.


----------



## m3s

OhGreatGuru said:


> I don't believe our knowledge of terraforming has advanced to the state where we can confidently predict that we can solve the problem by changing the balance of another atmospheric constituent. I don't like the idea of being a lab rat in someone's experiment. (Remember we are all passengers on Spaceship Earth.)


US, Canada and Norway first banned CFC aerosol sprays when scientists theorized such substances were responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. It took decades to go from scientific theory to international agreement and several decades more to phase out CFCs in developing countries. But today we have clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and signs of stratospheric ozone recovery. Acid rain is a similar story of human impact and scientific theory determining scientific method to mitigate it. According to prairie guy these both magically disappeared.

Human knowledge and capability is far ahead of what the public or layman on the internet can probably comprehend. There is closely guarded intellectual property, trade secrets, classified information for various economic, security and strategic reasons. Post cold war era governments tried to further unleash capitalism and privatize more R&D but progress has actually slowed down due to the poor costs-benefit of R&D and now shifting back to governments. It's very risky for a private company to boldly use scientific theory like what Elon Musk is doing without big government support.



Prairie Guy said:


> Yup...even though the fact that it's just another punishing tax, it's heartedly embraced by progressives and socialists who love government control over every aspect of their lives.
> 
> They are cult members who can't be reasoned with.


Carbon tax is actually the capitalist alternative to full out government bans and control. It's a softer financial disincentive like a sin tax on alcohol vs prohibition. Authoritarian regime is verboten yet a democracy has the tragic flaw of uneducated misinformed voters manipulated by those who benefit short term. The majority of younger generations seem to get it. It's the older ones that can't comprehend that an economy is not much good without an environment for it to operate in. They want status quo for their short term horizon whereas younger generation have longer timelines to consider.

Go talk to some younger people outside of a flat oil country echo chamber and you may find there's nothing cult like about it.


----------



## bgc_fan

Prairie Guy said:


> Yup...even though the fact that it's just another punishing tax, it's heartedly embraced by progressives and socialists who love government control over every aspect of their lives.
> 
> They are cult members who can't be reasoned with.


Yeah, like the oil companies Husky and Suncor who support the carbon tax. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ceraweek-suncor-husky-carbon-tax-1.5053182

Or maybe BP and Shell: https://energynow.ca/2019/05/oil-companies-join-corporate-lobbying-push-for-u-s-carbon-tax/

Must be some anti-oil cult members or socialists there.

It is pretty obvious why they support it, if the goal is to decrease carbon emissions, the best and easiest way is to disincentivise it using a carbon tax. The other option is a cap and trade or simply cap emissions for companies. Both of which add red tape and require regulation. Considering that most conservatives hate red tape and increased regulation, they prefer the carbon tax approach. Or maybe the former Reform leader Preston Manning is a closet socialist to advocate it? https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ch...but-clout-with-conservatives-seems-in-decline

Basically it comes down to this, if you don't believe in global warming, then you are against any approach to deal with it. And honestly, that is where the majority of the people on this board sit when it comes to this issue. 
But if you accept that global warming is an issue, then carbon tax is the easiest way to deal with it.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> US, Canada and Norway first banned CFC aerosol sprays when scientists theorized such substances were responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. It took decades to go from scientific theory to international agreement and several decades more to phase out CFCs in developing countries. But today we have clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and signs of stratospheric ozone recovery. Acid rain is a similar story of human impact and scientific theory determining scientific method to mitigate it. According to prairie guy these both magically disappeared.
> 
> Human knowledge and capability is far ahead of what the public or layman on the internet can probably comprehend. There is closely guarded intellectual property, trade secrets, classified information for various economic, security and strategic reasons. Post cold war era governments tried to further unleash capitalism and privatize more R&D but progress has actually slowed down due to the poor costs-benefit of R&D and now shifting back to governments. It's very risky for a private company to boldly use scientific theory like what Elon Musk is doing without big government support.
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon tax is actually the capitalist alternative to full out government bans and control. It's a softer financial disincentive like a sin tax on alcohol vs prohibition. Authoritarian regime is verboten yet a democracy has the tragic flaw of uneducated misinformed voters manipulated by those who benefit short term. The majority of younger generations seem to get it. It's the older ones that can't comprehend that an economy is not much good without an environment for it to operate in. They want status quo for their short term horizon whereas younger generation have longer timelines to consider.
> 
> Go talk to some younger people outside of a flat oil country echo chamber and you may find there's nothing cult like about it.


The carbon tax is just a way for wealthy young people to buy their way out of the very behaviour change they're trying to force on us.

Only an entitled Trust fund kid like Trudeau could be jetting off for weekend surfing vacations on a private jet, while telling the rest of us we should take public transit, or belittling us for wanting to heat our homes.


----------



## sags

Trudeau is the PM of Canada and is always "on the job". He has to travel with a security detail and aides and advisers. Public transportation isn't feasible.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Trudeau is the PM of Canada and is always "on the job". He has to travel with a security detail and aides and advisers. Public transportation isn't feasible.


I absolutely agree he (and senior ministers and even in some cases the opposition) should be travelling properly supported on government aircraft. 


My point was that weekend surf vacations halfway across the country aren't very green.


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> US, Canada and Norway first banned CFC aerosol sprays when scientists theorized such substances were responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. It took decades to go from scientific theory to international agreement and several decades more to phase out CFCs in developing countries. But today we have clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and signs of stratospheric ozone recovery. Acid rain is a similar story of human impact and scientific theory determining scientific method to mitigate it. According to prairie guy these both magically disappeared.


You are wrong. I didn't say that anything at all about acid rain or the ozone.


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> Carbon tax is actually the capitalist alternative to full out government bans and control. It's a softer financial disincentive like a sin tax on alcohol vs prohibition. Authoritarian regime is verboten yet a democracy has the tragic flaw of uneducated misinformed voters manipulated by those who benefit short term. The majority of younger generations seem to get it. It's the older ones that can't comprehend that an economy is not much good without an environment for it to operate in. They want status quo for their short term horizon whereas younger generation have longer timelines to consider.


That's your proof? More than 40% of young people in the US also believe that socialism and/or communism is better than capitalism. That's because it's what they're taught in school. How many young people would believe in socialism if they saw real evidence of its destruction instead of the fantasy world they're shown?

I prefer actual facts instead of what easily led children and teenagers have been brainwashed to believe.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> The carbon tax is just a way for wealthy young people to buy their way out of the very behaviour change they're trying to force on us.
> 
> Only an entitled Trust fund kid like Trudeau could be jetting off for weekend surfing vacations on a private jet, while telling the rest of us we should take public transit, or belittling us for wanting to heat our homes.


Is that _really_ all it is? It won't have any broader impact on carbon emissions?


----------



## m3s

Prairie Guy said:


> You are wrong. I didn't say that anything at all about acid rain or the ozone.


The glaring post about acid rain and ozone is conveniently deleted by the mods



Prairie Guy said:


> More than 40% of young people in the US also believe that socialism and/or communism is better than capitalism. That's because it's what they're taught in school. How many young people would believe in socialism if they saw real evidence of its destruction instead of the fantasy world they're shown?
> 
> I prefer actual facts instead of what easily led children and teenagers have been brainwashed to believe.


You keep using words that you don't seem to understand. Both Canada and US have elements of socialism even today. Your "facts" seem to be based on cold war propaganda and/or Trump tweets

Is Canada a dangerous bastion of socialism? According to Trump


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Is that _really_ all it is? It won't have any broader impact on carbon emissions?


Nope.
1. Canadas total emissions are negligible on the global scale.
2. The tax penalty isn't enough to drive behaviour change. They claim that the average person will get back more than they pay, so that means the average person can maintain the exact same lifestyle and still come out ahead. Where is the incentive to change.


Quite simply for a carbon tax to work it has to be GLOBAL, and it has to hurt enough to change behaviour.

I know people who changed habits to save money with time of day electricity. I did the math, it's not worth the bother. That's the problem with taxing behaviour change, you have to make it painful enough for people to change their behaviour, or they won't.
Charging a high enough tax to kill the economy enough to make a dent in Canadian emissions (still globally insignificant) is quite simply politically untenable, unless they lie about it.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Nope.
> 1. Canadas total emissions are negligible on the global scale.
> 2. The tax penalty isn't enough to drive behaviour change. They claim that the average person will get back more than they pay, so that means the average person can maintain the exact same lifestyle and still come out ahead. Where is the incentive to change.
> 
> 
> Quite simply for a carbon tax to work it has to be GLOBAL, and it has to hurt enough to change behaviour.
> 
> I know people who changed habits to save money with time of day electricity. I did the math, it's not worth the bother. That's the problem with taxing behaviour change, you have to make it painful enough for people to change their behaviour, or they won't.
> Charging a high enough tax to kill the economy enough to make a dent in Canadian emissions (still globally insignificant) is quite simply politically untenable, unless they lie about it.


1. I referred to carbon tax as a mechanism in general, so your point about Canada is moot. I guess we should just dump tankers filled with plastic waste in the ocean, too, because hey--Canada isn't that big.

2. Wow. Just wow. If we taxed apples at $10/lb, and gave consumers a rebate that more than offset the typical consumer's apple consumption, do you really think no one would buy fewer apples and more oranges?

Response to incentives is generally continuous. You seem to be suggesting that there is a magical point before which no one changes, and after which everybody changes. That isn't how the world works. We have plenty of natural experiments. Seem the gas price spike in the mid 2000s, and the resulting drop in VMT and sales of gas guzzlers. Gas prices drop and everyone is clamouring for SUVs.

No one is suggesting that Canada martyr itself. But it wouldn't kill us to show a bit of leadership, instead of being a laggard (which we are). We have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. At whom should we point and say "We won't do anything until you clean up your act first"? And this is also predicated on the idea that no one else is moving. China is making serious investments, as is Europe. The US will again once the pendulum swings back from the orange buffoon running the show down there.


----------



## lonewolf :)

m3s said:


> US, Canada and Norway first banned CFC aerosol sprays when scientists theorized such substances were responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. It took decades to go from scientific theory to international agreement and several decades more to phase out CFCs in developing countries. But today we have clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and signs of stratospheric ozone recovery. Acid rain is a similar story of human impact and scientific theory determining scientific method to mitigate it. According to prairie guy these both magically disappeared.
> 
> Human knowledge and capability is far ahead of what the public or layman on the internet can probably comprehend. There is closely guarded intellectual property, trade secrets, classified information for various economic, security and strategic reasons. Post cold war era governments tried to further unleash capitalism and privatize more R&D but progress has actually slowed down due to the poor costs-benefit of R&D and now shifting back to governments. It's very risky for a private company to boldly use scientific theory like what Elon Musk is doing without big government support.


 It is the angle of pull of gravity from the planets that causes the hole in the ozone to shrink & expand. Science & math came from astrology. It does not take a rocket scientist to notice we get heat from the sun i.e., @ night it is usually cooler then in the day time, winter is colder then summer, when the sun goes behinds a cloud it gets cooler. Climate scientist today that are paid for promoting global warming are blind to the fact the temp of the sun vibrates like everything else. The 36,000 scientists that signed the petition that man made global warming is bogus are a little smarter then scientists that are biased based on the paycheck coming in.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> 1. I referred to carbon tax as a mechanism in general, so your point about Canada is moot. I guess we should just dump tankers filled with plastic waste in the ocean, too, because hey--Canada isn't that big.
> 
> 2. Wow. Just wow. If we taxed apples at $10/lb, and gave consumers a rebate that more than offset the typical consumer's apple consumption, do you really think no one would buy fewer apples and more oranges?
> 
> Response to incentives is generally continuous. You seem to be suggesting that there is a magical point before which no one changes, and after which everybody changes. That isn't how the world works. We have plenty of natural experiments. Seem the gas price spike in the mid 2000s, and the resulting drop in VMT and sales of gas guzzlers. Gas prices drop and everyone is clamouring for SUVs.
> 
> No one is suggesting that Canada martyr itself. But it wouldn't kill us to show a bit of leadership, instead of being a laggard (which we are). We have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. At whom should we point and say "We won't do anything until you clean up your act first"? And this is also predicated on the idea that no one else is moving. China is making serious investments, as is Europe. The US will again once the pendulum swings back from the orange buffoon running the show down there.


I'm thinking the carbon tax as implemented in Canada in the current situation.
1. My point about Canada is key, even if we kill our entire economy, the global impact is negligible.

2. We're not "taxing apples at $10/lb".
We're "taxing apples" at 0.5% (average family carbon tax vs average family income) That's not enough to force behaviour change.
If we taxed at a rate strong enough to force behaviour change I contend it would be politically unpopular, unless it was hidden or lied about in some way.
Secondly if we did "tax apples" at $10/lb (a 1000% tax on apples) you're right, people would switch to oranges, and in terms of our economy they'd buy Florida Oranges instead of Canadian Apples. Again economically and politically suicidal, which is my point.

Quite simply I think the current carbon tax plan Canada is implementing is not going to
1. Have any noticable impact on a global scale.
2. Will not be sufficient to change Canadian behaviour as much as some would like, without serious economic and political consequences.

As it is we're exporting our carbon emissions and economy (and other pollutants) to other countries. It's bad policy, it's bad for Canada, and it's bad for the global environment.


----------



## andrewf

It seems really nonsensical to claim that a carbon tax would a) not change behaviour and simultaneously b) destroy the economy. On the facts of the matter, the carbon tax implemented in Ontario is about 4.4 cents per liter, or about 3.5%. It will ramp up to be more. My example of a 500% tax was a reductio ad absurdum, to demonstrate how the argument that a carbon tax is ineffective (alternately stated, prices don't affect demand) is absurd. You are now arguing that the elasticity of demand is very low for fossil fuels. I don't think the evidence supports you here. We see in times of expensive oil meaningful changes in behaviour that reduce consumption. What if you could have that, except instead of the windfall flowing to the Saudis it goes to middle class consumers at home?


----------



## hfp75

lonewolf :) said:


> It is the angle of pull of gravity from the planets that causes the hole in the ozone to shrink & expand. Science & math came from astrology. It does not take a rocket scientist to notice we get heat from the sun i.e., @ night it is usually cooler then in the day time, winter is colder then summer, when the sun goes behinds a cloud it gets cooler. Climate scientist today that are paid for promoting global warming are blind to the fact the temp of the sun vibrates like everything else. The 36,000 scientists that signed the petition that man made global warming is bogus are a little smarter then scientists that are biased based on the paycheck coming in.


well said..... scientists that are on the the government dime are just as bad as the ones on the corporate dime.... we need trustworthy science... not science with a motivation....... 1+1=2 and 1+1=43 somewhere in there is a problem.... its just that 'climate science' is confusing and becoming more and more complex - the scientists cant agree... so how can the plebs figure out what is right and wrong.... Bottom line, I dont believe in it, BUT I do strongly believe in taking care of our planet - being good stewards to what we have..... I just dont know if CO2 is really the cause of all our 'issues' - thus I dont think you or / and I are the problems as it relates to burning fissile fuels...


----------



## m3s

lonewolf :) said:


> It is the angle of pull of gravity from the planets that causes the hole in the ozone to shrink & expand. Science & math came from astrology. It does not take a rocket scientist to notice we get heat from the sun i.e., @ night it is usually cooler then in the day time, winter is colder then summer, when the sun goes behinds a cloud it gets cooler. Climate scientist today that are paid for promoting global warming are blind to the fact the temp of the sun vibrates like everything else. The 36,000 scientists that signed the petition that man made global warming is bogus are a little smarter then scientists that are biased based on the paycheck coming in.


I don't disagree with anything you said and yet I don't see how it changes anything I said. I get briefed space weather every shift and see its effects first hand. I am however skeptical a climate scientist is blind to basic science because someone on the internet said so and someone else on the internet from Calgary oil land agrees


----------



## m3s

hfp75 said:


> Bottom line, I dont believe in it, BUT I do strongly believe in taking care of our planet - being good stewards to what we have..... I just dont know if CO2 is really the cause of all our 'issues' - thus I dont think you or / and I are the problems as it relates to burning fissile fuels...


What literature have you read? How much was written by journalists from calgary?.. The risk of continuing status quo is catastrophic and yet the risk of doing something is that we make the planet a better place. It's risk management 101. Those who disagree fear the risk to their livelihood but fail to see the bigger picture. Here's some links copied from another site to digest

It's real, it's us, and it's bad...

The question that remains now is _what are we going to do about it?
_
The consensus among scientists and economists on carbon pricing to mitigate climate change is similar to the consensus among climatologists that human activity is responsible for global warming. Putting the price upstream where the fossil fuels enter the market makes it simple, easily enforceable, and bureaucratically lean. Returning the revenue as an equitable dividend offsets the regressive effects of the tax (in fact, ~60% of the public would receive more in dividend than they paid in tax) and allows for a higher carbon price (which is what matters for climate mitigation) because the public isn't willing to pay anywhere near what's needed otherwise. Enacting a border tax would protect domestic businesses from foreign producers not saddled with similar pollution taxes, and also incentivize those countries to enact their own.

Conservative estimates are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years, starting about now. In contrast, carbon taxes may actually _boost_ GDP, if the revenue is returned as an equitable dividend to households(the poor tend to spend money when they've got it, which boosts economic growth).

Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and many nations have already started, which can have knock-on effects in other countries. In poor countries, taxing carbon is progressive even _before_ considering smart revenue uses, because only the "rich" can afford fossil fuels in the first place. We won’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels without a carbon tax, the longer we wait to take action the more expensive it will be. Each year we delay costs ~$900 billion.
It's the smart thing to do. And the IPCC report made clear pricing carbon is necessary if we want to meet our 1.5 ºC target.

The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) Summary for Policymakers states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). Ch. 15 has a more complete discussion. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax. According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider economists with expertise in climate economics, economists with expertise in resource economics, or economists from all sectors. It is literally Econ 101.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> China is making serious investments,


As part of its energy dominance strategy as it grows all forms of energy production and consumption.



> as is Europe.


Which has seen consumer electricity rates in some European countries rise to among the most expensive in the world, and within a decade, lead to Europe struggling to keep the lights on during the winter as its reliable electricity plants retire out with nothing to replace them.



> The US will again once the pendulum swings back from the orange buffoon running the show down there.


Unless Trump wins again.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> It seems really nonsensical to claim that a carbon tax would a) not change behaviour and simultaneously b) destroy the economy. On the facts of the matter, the carbon tax implemented in Ontario is about 4.4 cents per liter, or about 3.5%. It will ramp up to be more. My example of a 500% tax was a reductio ad absurdum, to demonstrate how the argument that a carbon tax is ineffective (alternately stated, prices don't affect demand) is absurd. You are now arguing that the elasticity of demand is very low for fossil fuels. I don't think the evidence supports you here. We see in times of expensive oil meaningful changes in behaviour that reduce consumption. What if you could have that, except instead of the windfall flowing to the Saudis it goes to middle class consumers at home?


Why is is "nonsensical" to suggest that the carbon tax will either be too low or too high? 
1. Be too low, and therefore not cause significant behaviour change.
2. Be so high it damages the economy.

I don't think a $0.044 increase in the price of gas will cause significant changes to peoples behaviour.
I do think an increase large enough to cause significant behaviour change would have additional impacts that would be damaging to the economy. For example if you hiked the price of gas by $0.40 or more, people would change their behaviour, but I think at that level it would do some economic damage.

I agree that your example of a 500% or 1000% tax is absurd, I also agree you need very significant if not "absurd" increases to have a significant effect on behaviour. 
Looking at the Time of Use pricing on residential electricity use, I think it might have shifted some behaviour, but not much.

Yes I am arguing that consumer energy demand is relatively inelastic. I don't know anyone who decided not to buy a pickup truck due to the carbon tax, or cancel their vacation flights to Florida, Europe or Tofino either. So no I'm not aware of any change in behaviour or consumption that could be attributed to this. 

Are you actually suggesting there has been or will be significant behaviour change over a $0.044/L carbon tax? 
This is change is within the normal range of gas price variability, and I don't think it changed behaviour.

I will email the Ministry of Environment for any data on the efficacy of this change, or any evaluation plans to test for the efficacy. I just have to draft the request.
I have in the last few minutes emailed the Ontario Ministry of Energy to see if they have any data available on the impact of Residential Time of Use billing.

In short, a small/negligible tax will have a small or negligible impact and a correspondingly small level of harm, a large tax will have a large impact which will cause a large amount of harm.
I don't think there is a magical tax value that will have a large impact while only causing a small or negligible amount of damage to the economy.
I agree with the experts that an economic recession will reduce CO2 emissions, I just don't want to pursue that path.


----------



## andrewf

accord1999 said:


> As part of its energy dominance strategy as it grows all forms of energy production and consumption.
> 
> 
> Which has seen consumer electricity rates in some European countries rise to among the most expensive in the world, and within a decade, lead to Europe struggling to keep the lights on during the winter as its reliable electricity plants retire out with nothing to replace them.
> 
> 
> Unless Trump wins again.


Even if Trump gets a constitutional amendment to allow himself to run for more than two terms, he is old and fat and going to die eventually. The pendulum swings.


----------



## sags

The latest study from the National Academy of Sciences in the US predicts that sea levels could rise 6 feet by 2100. It will displace 187 million people who will be forced to move.

Many communities who are experiencing climate change damage are declaring climate change emergencies. Governments will be forced to act.

Political parties hoping to be elected will need to present a plan that voters believe will address climate change.


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> The glaring post about acid rain and ozone is conveniently deleted by the mods


That is impossible since I never made such a post.



> You keep using words that you don't seem to understand. Both Canada and US have elements of socialism even today.


Small does of socialism can work but only when supported with capitalism. Socialism on its own has a proven 100% failure rate.


----------



## andrewf

^ This whole debate is artificially polarized. No one except extreme fringes are arguing for 100% socialism or 100% unfettered capitalism. We're debating about slight tweaks to the blend. How much after-tax income inequality we think is best, etc. No one is arguing for perfect equality, even the most dramatic UBI proponent is playing within the capitalist framework and tacitly accepting of significant after-tax income inequality.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> The latest study from the National Academy of Sciences in the US predicts that sea levels could rise 6 feet by 2100. It will displace 187 million people who will be forced to move.


Meanwhile, the actual data shows sea levels are rising at roughly the same rate that they did 100 years ago.

A six feet rise in 81 years is an average of over 20mm/year, which would be impossible to miss. When is it going to show up?


----------



## sags

I could envision that in 50 years hip waders will be the popular clothing accessory along the coast.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> I could envision that in 50 years hip waders will be the popular clothing accessory along the coast.


I can envision that in 50 years people doubling over in laughter remembering the silly nonsense about a climate emergency. Scratching their heads asking, "How could everyone have been so damn stupid to believe that nonsense?".

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The latest study from the National Academy of Sciences in the US predicts that sea levels could rise 6 feet by 2100. It will displace 187 million people who will be forced to move.
> 
> Many communities who are experiencing climate change damage are declaring climate change emergencies. Governments will be forced to act.
> 
> Political parties hoping to be elected will need to present a plan that voters believe will address climate change.


No, political parties have to present a plan that voters like.

The current "plan" is basically a sin tax to pay for other things Liberal and NDP voters want, like more public housing. 
It simply uses "Climate change" as the excuse to hike taxes and engage in wealth transfer shenanigans. 

Conveniently that hits 2 targets.
1. People who want the government to do "something" about climate change.
2. People who are the recipients of all this "new money".

Lots of votes there.


----------



## m3s

Prairie Guy said:


> That is impossible since I never made such a post.


My bad, it was somebody else. I couldn't find it at the time as the previous climate thread is now hidden



Prairie Guy said:


> Small does of socialism can work but only when supported with capitalism. Socialism on its own has a proven 100% failure rate.


Every system in human history failed eventually. Capitalism is the best system so far yet it's a short blip in human history and already moving rapidly towards to unsustainable inequality and unbalanced ecosystems.

It will be replaced by something else when the time comes. Whether or not a system works probably has more to do with geopolitical and socioeconomic factors of the time than anything else

Depleting finite resources, deteriorating environment and increasing inequality will likely lead to war like every other problematic era in human history.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> No, political parties have to present a plan that voters like.
> 
> The current "plan" is basically a sin tax to pay for other things Liberal and NDP voters want, like more public housing.
> It simply uses "Climate change" as the excuse to hike taxes and engage in wealth transfer shenanigans.
> 
> Conveniently that hits 2 targets.
> 1. People who want the government to do "something" about climate change.
> 2. People who are the recipients of all this "new money".
> 
> Lots of votes there.


The tax is funding tax credits, not social housing.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> The tax is funding tax credits, not social housing.


Sorry, the current Federal plan is simply a circular set of bribes.
The previous Ontario tax was to fund vote buying projects.


----------



## AltaRed

Neil Macdonald has it about right in this opinion piece https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/carbon-tax-debate-1.5143916

The carbon tax is nothing but a tax, window dressing at best. Canada could completely eliminate its emissions and have no effect. Attention should be placed in the right places, dealing with the consequences of climate change, whether simply natural, or accelerated by man.


----------



## m3s

It's a decent portrayal of divisive politics that Canada has become. Token carbon tax seems like a realistic feasible approach if mostly symbolic, but it's a foot in the door. Ideally other countries will follow and over time meaningful change will happen. It's unlikely anything more would get enough votes. The Montreal protocol to phase out harmful substances took decades to get anywhere but it is important that countries like Canada lead from the front.

How would you propose to deal with the actual consequences of climate change? Would it be realistic and not cause conservative and economic over reaction that would only make things worse? Change needs to be phased in slowly over time. As the population ages and less boomers remember to vote things will start to shift. Ideally conservatives will eventually come up with something constructive besides reversing liberal dreams


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> How would you propose to deal with the actual consequences of climate change?


So far no one has proven that there are any negative consequences. And, of course, all the positive consequences of a little warming (as we continue to come out of an ice age) and the increased greening from more CO2 (verified by NASA) are completely ignored.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Neil Macdonald has it about right in this opinion piece https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/carbon-tax-debate-1.5143916
> 
> The carbon tax is nothing but a tax, window dressing at best. Canada could completely eliminate its emissions and have no effect. Attention should be placed in the right places, dealing with the consequences of climate change, whether simply natural, or accelerated by man.


"No effect"--wrong. Canada has disproportionately high per capita emissions. 

With any social problem, every individual has a small, relatively inconsequential contribution. It doesn't follow that everyone should do nothing to address. You can use the exact same logic to say that everyone should leave their dog's **** on the sidewalk, because what difference does one turd make? If that is how you want to govern yourself, all the power to you. I don't want to live in that world, and will use my vote accordingly.


----------



## AltaRed

1.6% of global emissions is outside any measurement probabilities of unproven models. Canada could go to zero with no measurable effect on the outcome. 

So please be my guest and do your part. The BC interior will continue to drive quad cab pickups and I will still heat* my pool with nat gas. Nothing changes other than a slightly thinner pocketbook.

Added: To give you an idea how fruitless any Canadian effort would be in shrinking our 1.6%, this link is worth a good read on coal generating plants https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants In the opening interactive map, push the slider all the way to the right for Future. Then select each of the regions independently to see just how much coal fired plant is under construction and planned.

* Turned it on today for the first time this season to help get the water temp up from a current 65F to something more palatable such as 85F over the course of the next 5 days, just in time for a 30C heat wave that may hit come next Monday.


----------



## accord1999

m3s said:


> How would you propose to deal with the actual consequences of climate change?


Wait until you know what it is if anything, and don't panic at events that are not unprecedented. The Australians thought they had permanent drought and built upwards of $10B worth of desalination plants, most of which are running at minimum production levels because the drought ended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_desalination_plants_in_Australia


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> 1.6% of global emissions is outside any measurement probabilities of unproven models. Canada could go to zero with no measurable effect on the outcome.
> 
> So please be my guest and do your part. The BC interior will continue to drive quad cab pickups and I will still heat* my pool with nat gas. Nothing changes other than a slightly thinner pocketbook.
> 
> Added: To give you an idea how fruitless any Canadian effort would be in shrinking our 1.6%, this link is worth a good read on coal generating plants https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants In the opening interactive map, push the slider all the way to the right for Future. Then select each of the regions independently to see just how much coal fired plant is under construction and planned.
> 
> * Turned it on today for the first time this season to help get the water temp up from a current 65F to something more palatable such as 85F over the course of the next 5 days, just in time for a 30C heat wave that may hit come next Monday.


And why should we take their forecast of "future" coal as fact? Coal demand has fallen off a cliff, and there has been a raft of coal power plant cancellations.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> "No effect"--wrong. Canada has disproportionately high per capita emissions.
> 
> With any social problem, every individual has a small, relatively inconsequential contribution. It doesn't follow that everyone should do nothing to address. You can use the exact same logic to say that everyone should leave their dog's **** on the sidewalk, because what difference does one turd make? If that is how you want to govern yourself, all the power to you. I don't want to live in that world, and will use my vote accordingly.


In my opinion, Canadians have a responsibility to be good global citizens. As pointed out here, we are big per capita emitters. We are responsible for the oil sands, one of the highest carbon emitting sources of oil in the world (per barrel).

Country-wide reduction in carbon emissions is important. As a voter, the question in my mind is: which party is _more committed_ to actually reducing carbon emissions? Which party is more likely to do something towards actually solving the problem and fulfilling Canada's obligations as good global citizens in a multinational effort?

A politician who spends all his time complaining about a carbon tax and who brands himself as the candidate for oil & gas workers doesn't look like someone who intends to reduce carbon emissions.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer laid out his election plank for an "energy corridor". Details are sketchy, but some people have already responded that it is impractical.

The idea isn't as simple as a pathway across Canada for utilities. It would require a service road and access points along the route.

It would require lighting and the required hydro lines. It would require security fencing and cameras.

Since an energy corridor would require all that anyways, a major undertaking such as this could be of great benefit to Canada. 

I just think it should be marketed as multi-faceted.

An energy corridor for pipelines, rail lines, and a new Trans Canada highway plus an ATV, cycling, hiking, camping trail the breadth of Canada would be more feasible to taxpayers.


----------



## lonewolf :)

james4beach said:


> In my opinion, Canadians have a responsibility to be good global citizens. As pointed out here, we are big per capita emitters. We are responsible for the oil sands, one of the highest carbon emitting sources of oil in the world (per barrel).
> 
> Country-wide reduction in carbon emissions is important. As a voter, the question in my mind is: which party is _more committed_ to actually reducing carbon emissions? Which party is more likely to do something towards actually solving the problem and fulfilling Canada's obligations as good global citizens in a multinational effort?
> 
> A politician who spends all his time complaining about a carbon tax and who brands himself as the candidate for oil & gas workers doesn't look like someone who intends to reduce carbon emissions.


 Build solar panels on all the farm land to supply us with power in times the sun is blocked from volcanic activity. Spend billions of dollars to supply hydro power to reserves that are in need of none stop handouts from the taxpayer as they can not hold themselves up. So billions can be spent on servicing the lines instead of putting gas in a generator. The government as always is late to the change of cycles. When the cycle changes back to global warming from global cooling that the cycle is presently in they will be concerned with stopping global cooling.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> In my opinion, Canadians have a responsibility to be good global citizens. As pointed out here, we are big per capita emitters. We are responsible for the oil sands, one of the highest carbon emitting sources of oil in the world (per barrel).
> 
> Country-wide reduction in carbon emissions is important. As a voter, the question in my mind is: which party is _more committed_ to actually reducing carbon emissions? Which party is more likely to do something towards actually solving the problem and fulfilling Canada's obligations as good global citizens in a multinational effort?
> 
> A politician who spends all his time complaining about a carbon tax and who brands himself as the candidate for oil & gas workers doesn't look like someone who intends to reduce carbon emissions.


Posts such as these are plainly intended to be political rather than looking at what would be rational and practical, balancing the economy's needs against being good global citizens. It is clear from my post on coal generating plants that many countries, mostly those with large or growing economies, are doing what is best for their economies....accords be damned. Being a martyr might feel good for the soul, but it has no positive effect and does nothing for the economic well being of Canadians. The sensible thing would be to do the things that are low hanging fruit, at minimal economic cost. Hopefully most Canadians are, or will be, bright enough to know that over time rather than being snookered with false political platforms. Unfortunately, it may take another 10 years to see how stupid current policy is.


----------



## MrMatt

That's exactly it. They want us to spend billions on climate change to be good global citizens. While we have people without clean drinking water, and waiting for healthcare from a system that is falling apart.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> That's exactly it. They want us to spend billions on climate change to be good global citizens. While we have people without clean drinking water, and waiting for healthcare from a system that is falling apart.


It's political ideology rather than common sense. It's a sad day when the governments we elect intentionally suppress economic practicality. It likely won't be any better post-Oct regardless of who gets in. FWIW, I generally would support a carbon tax IF it was appropriately re-invested in infrastructure that would improve our economy (while reducing emissions even). Examples, public transit, EV charging stations, twinning the obvious congested 2 lane highway, double tracking of rail beds, more efficient port facilities, better potable water and sewage treatment facilities, getting rid of project (pipeline, transmission line) regulation rather than something stupid like Bill C-69, etc, etc. Bill C-69 is a horror story as an example.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed this may seem like a silly political ideology to you, but I genuinely do want to act as a responsible citizen. For me, that involves doing the right thing out of both social and moral duty. I recognize there are tradeoffs for all these things, but in my opinion the environmental concern is both a short and long term concern. For the best interest of both Canada and the world, I want our country to take steps to reduce carbon emissions.

It's very much common sense for a person to take actions that improve the condition of life for themselves and others. We are social creatures who cooperate to improve our living conditions.

Countries don't have single top priorities. Clean drinking water and healthcare must all be addressed. But if someone asks me where I stand on carbon emissions (that's this thread right?) the answer is: I want the country to work towards reducing emissions.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> But if someone asks me where I stand on carbon emissions (that's this thread right?) the answer is: I want the country to work towards reducing emissions.


I'd be for reducing carbon emissions as well BUT only if it makes sense. In other words, the system they setup right now doesn't appear to make any sense. If I understand this correctly, most of the collected money comes back in a tax rebate, why the heck would they do this?


----------



## andrewf

lonewolf :) said:


> Build solar panels on all the farm land to supply us with power in times the sun is blocked from volcanic activity. Spend billions of dollars to supply hydro power to reserves that are in need of none stop handouts from the taxpayer as they can not hold themselves up. So billions can be spent on servicing the lines instead of putting gas in a generator. The government as always is late to the change of cycles. When the cycle changes back to global warming from global cooling that the cycle is presently in they will be concerned with stopping global cooling.


If the sun is blocked due to volcanic activity, the farmlands won't be much use now will they (plants need sun to grow).


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> It's political ideology rather than common sense. It's a sad day when the governments we elect intentionally suppress economic practicality. It likely won't be any better post-Oct regardless of who gets in. FWIW, I generally would support a carbon tax IF it was appropriately re-invested in infrastructure that would improve our economy (while reducing emissions even). Examples, public transit, EV charging stations, twinning the obvious congested 2 lane highway, double tracking of rail beds, more efficient port facilities, better potable water and sewage treatment facilities, getting rid of project (pipeline, transmission line) regulation rather than something stupid like Bill C-69, etc, etc. Bill C-69 is a horror story as an example.


Why does a carbon tax need to be spent, rather than transferred to tax payers? Not to say that infrastructure investment is not needed, but I don't see how they are connected.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Why does a carbon tax need to be spent, rather than transferred to tax payers? Not to say that infrastructure investment is not needed, but I don't see how they are connected.


Infrastructure improvements lead to efficiency and productivity improvements. Fewer commuters on the roads with better transit, less time wasted by vehicles in 'stop and go' idling, fewer trains idling on sidings waiting for a train to pass, less time for trucks and ships in port idling as goods are loaded and unloaded, better health to communities with good water and sewage treatment (in addition to more energy efficiency in such plants). Never mind energy improvements in public buildings Such examples are all around us, practically within arm's reach! The biggest problem with carbon taxes are the inefficiencies in collection and re-distribution, if in fact grubby governments don't divert it elsewhere. The BC program worked for awhile under the Liberals, but has gone completely off the rails with the NDP/Green coalition.

Don't collect it in the first place if it is NOT going to be put to reductions in energy usage per capita.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> AltaRed this may seem like a silly political ideology to you, but I genuinely do want to act as a responsible citizen. For me, that involves doing the right thing out of both social and moral duty. I recognize there are tradeoffs for all these things, but in my opinion the environmental concern is both a short and long term concern. For the best interest of both Canada and the world, I want our country to take steps to reduce carbon emissions


1. So, go ahead and feel good by taking all those steps yourself. There are many steps an individual can take.
2. Leaders have to set the example. JT jetting off to the west coast for a surfing weekend is NOT it. He and his entourage burned more carbon in one weekend than my whole family would do in multiple years.
3. Regulate higher CAFE for vehicles and a host of similar things to increase energy efficiency.
4. Approve TMEP so that less energy efficient crude by rail can be retired

VAT does not materially reduce consumption unless it is punitive*. Neither will a carbon tax unless it probably doubles the price of non-renewable energy. Anything of the level being imposed will just be a cost of doing business....as it has been in BC for 10 years.

* For example, import taxes of 80-100% are effective in keeping vehicle purchases unaffordable in places like Vietnam and Cambodia, although party officials via bribes still bring in their BMWs, Lexus, MB, etc.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> AltaRed this may seem like a silly political ideology to you, but I genuinely do want to act as a responsible citizen. For me, that involves doing the right thing out of both social and moral duty. I recognize there are tradeoffs for all these things, but in my opinion the environmental concern is both a short and long term concern. For the best interest of both Canada and the world, I want our country to take steps to reduce carbon emissions.
> 
> It's very much common sense for a person to take actions that improve the condition of life for themselves and others. We are social creatures who cooperate to improve our living conditions.
> 
> Countries don't have single top priorities. Clean drinking water and healthcare must all be addressed. But if someone asks me where I stand on carbon emissions (that's this thread right?) the answer is: I want the country to work towards reducing emissions.



I understand you, like most, want to be a responsible citizen, and likely want the best for all Canadians.
It always amazes me how people want to ascribe negative motivations to those they disagree with.

I'm conservative leaning, and I don't doubt that many leftists think they're doing the right thing. I actually admire those who really work for what they believe in.
I just think they're wrong on certain issues.


That's it, I don't think you're all morally impure and evil beings. I just think you're making the wrong trade offs.
Part of this is blind partisanship, which I hope most are not engaged in. 

The other half is basic personality traits and value interpretation. Lots of interesting psychology there.


At the end of the day, i'm all for a carbon reduction strategy with an acceptable cost/benefit trade off.
The current carbon tax plans are not acceptable by that metric. 
The cost is too high for the limited benefits.


----------



## nobleea

AltaRed said:


> Infrastructure improvements lead to efficiency and productivity improvements. Fewer commuters on the roads with better transit, less time wasted by vehicles in 'stop and go' idling, fewer trains idling on sidings waiting for a train to pass, less time for trucks and ships in port idling as goods are loaded and unloaded, better health to communities with good water and sewage treatment (in addition to more energy efficiency in such plants). Never mind energy improvements in public buildings Such examples are all around us, practically within arm's reach! The biggest problem with carbon taxes are the inefficiencies in collection and re-distribution, if in fact grubby governments don't divert it elsewhere. The BC program worked for awhile under the Liberals, but has gone completely off the rails with the NDP/Green coalition.
> 
> Don't collect it in the first place if it is NOT going to be put to reductions in energy usage per capita.


This is pretty much what was being done with the Alberta Carbon tax (though no more). Funds from the tax went towards Calgary C-train expansion and Edmonton's LRT expansions. The lowest cost solar plant was going to be backstopped by the carbon tax (the lowest bid from a private company was something like 1.9c/kwh. if the wholesale rate went below that during the contract period, the carbon tax fund would make up the difference). Rebates on solar PV installations on residential, commercial, and community buildings (I have 3 friends that took advantage of the program). Discounts on LED bulbs and the like. The vast majority was in the form of rebates though.


----------



## AltaRed

So JK political ideology killed what perhaps was a rational program (I was not aware of any of the details). What I had been reading on various media was the economic devastation the carbon tax was going to do to AB farmers since agriculture is an energy intensive industry no matter how one looks at it. Instead Albertans will get the idiotic JT imposed program that merely recycles money with an administration fee, or worse, siphoned off to pay for more energy intensive jaunts to Tofino or the Caribbean...or


----------



## nobleea

AltaRed said:


> So JK political ideology killed what perhaps was a rational program (I was not aware of any of the details). What I had been reading on various media was the economic devastation the carbon tax was going to do to AB farmers since agriculture is an energy intensive industry no matter how one looks at it. Instead Albertans will get the idiotic JT imposed program that merely recycles money with an administration fee, or worse, siphoned off to pay for more energy intensive jaunts to Tofino or the Caribbean...or


It's hard to run against someone who promises to eliminate a tax. There were a lot of people who thought it might be better to have control of the tax here, rather than be at the whims of Ottawa. I think with the rebates, it ended up being a whole lot of nothing.

Sorry, it was 3.7c/kwh, not 1.9 as I mentioned. And most was through wind, not solar.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...ectricity-alberta-bidders-contracts-1.4446746


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> So JK political ideology killed what perhaps was a rational program (I was not aware of any of the details). What I had been reading on various media was the economic devastation the carbon tax was going to do to AB farmers since agriculture is an energy intensive industry no matter how one looks at it. Instead Albertans will get the idiotic JT imposed program that merely recycles money with an administration fee, or worse, siphoned off to pay for more energy intensive jaunts to Tofino or the Caribbean...or


Hopefully the next government will repeal the JT plan. Which is precisely why they set it up as bribing scheme. 
It's hard to stop "free money", even if it's your own money less a government "handling fee".
It also frees the government from actually having to develop a program now, but I'm sure given a few more years they'll start diverting that money.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> 3. Regulate higher CAFE for vehicles and a host of similar things to increase energy efficiency.


How about just fix CAFE numbers (loopholes) and put all small SUVs under the "car" category.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> How about just fix CAFE numbers (loopholes) and put all small SUVs under the "car" category.


Whatever works best. Lots of ways to regulate out (penalize) non-social excesses on a variety of energy related matters. The focus on many things has been lost with carbon taxes and the erroneous labeling of CO2 as a pollutant.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Infrastructure improvements lead to efficiency and productivity improvements. Fewer commuters on the roads with better transit, less time wasted by vehicles in 'stop and go' idling, fewer trains idling on sidings waiting for a train to pass, less time for trucks and ships in port idling as goods are loaded and unloaded, better health to communities with good water and sewage treatment (in addition to more energy efficiency in such plants). Never mind energy improvements in public buildings Such examples are all around us, practically within arm's reach! The biggest problem with carbon taxes are the inefficiencies in collection and re-distribution, if in fact grubby governments don't divert it elsewhere. The BC program worked for awhile under the Liberals, but has gone completely off the rails with the NDP/Green coalition.
> 
> Don't collect it in the first place if it is NOT going to be put to reductions in energy usage per capita.


Wow. This is dipper policy. Most conservative economists wouldn't agree with you on this point.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Wow. This is dipper policy. Most conservative economists wouldn't agree with you on this point.


No, but it actually does something useful and more effective than the current carbon tax plan out of Ottawa. If the Cons get in, they do need to replace it with policy that actually will reduce energy usage per capita.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> agriculture is an energy intensive industry no matter how one looks at it


Or it could speed up innovation of smaller solar powered autonomous robots instead of heavy fossil fuel burning machines that are only so large to keep the number of human operators as low as possible. Heavy equipment operators will be replaced by robotic engineers and techs, both in Alberta O&G and agri. It's a matter of incentive to adopt to modern times sooner rather than later. If we can send robotic rovers to explore another planet for over a decade I think we can handle crops on earth as well.


----------



## AltaRed

No doubt they will be within economic reach of our farmers......


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> Quite simply I think the current carbon tax plan Canada is implementing is not going to
> 1. Have any noticable impact on a global scale.
> 2. Will not be sufficient to change Canadian behaviour as much as some would like, without serious economic and political consequences...


This is it in a nutshell. Our government is going for window dressing to illustrate that we are supportive of the Paris Accord rather than adopt real change.

To say they are imposing a carbon tax but will be giving a bunch back is hypocrisy at its worst. We have to get rid of these imposters! And can we get the Trudeau handlers to stop him from doing stupid things please.


----------



## sags

Only part of the gas tax will be returned to consumers. The rest is used to fund green energy projects.

Ontario lost billions in revenue when the Doug Ford PC government cancelled the carbon tax.

Now they are cancelling important programs and services and people aren't happy about it.


----------



## lonewolf :)

sags said:


> Only part of the gas tax will be returned to consumers. The rest is used to fund green energy projects.
> 
> Ontario lost billions in revenue when the Doug Ford PC government cancelled the carbon tax.
> 
> Now they are cancelling important programs and services and people aren't happy about it.


 It is best is government stays out of subsidizing energy projects let the market figure out the best energy source to use. Tax payers are getting fed up with the in your face in your wallet government. The government needs to stop baby sitting with all the social programs let people be independent again. Stop of stealing from the hard working productive to give to those on the social programs. Someone has to pay the piper.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Now they are cancelling important programs and services and people aren't happy about it.


You have to live within your means.

The people that aren't happy about it are the socialists who love to spend other people's money..

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Only part of the gas tax will be returned to consumers. The rest is used to fund green energy projects.
> 
> Ontario lost billions in revenue when the Doug Ford PC government cancelled the carbon tax.
> 
> Now they are cancelling important programs and services and people aren't happy about it.


Ontario was spending like crazy, the reason people are unhappy with Ford is unpopular because he's trying to get it under control.
People don't like to say no.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Ontario lost billions in revenue when the Doug Ford PC government cancelled the carbon tax.


More accurately, taxpayers saved billions. You seem to think that all the money belongs to the government to disperse as they see fit.


----------



## sags

There must be a lot of socialists in Ontario. Ford's approval rating plummeted to a record low minus 53.

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/fords-popularity-plunges-mainstreet-poll

His problems started when he cancelled the carbon tax and eliminated $6 billion in revenue. It was all downhill from there.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> There must be a lot of socialists in Ontario. Ford's approval rating plummeted to a record low minus 53.
> 
> https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/fords-popularity-plunges-mainstreet-poll
> 
> His problems started when he cancelled the carbon tax and eliminated $6 billion in revenue. It was all downhill from there.


No, there are simply a lot of people who simply don't think. They feel it's free when the government gives them some money and get angry when they take it away. They have no concept of the government living within its means.

Unfortunately this situation results in the socialists getting into power and literally bankrupting the economy until finally the conservatives get into power and have to spend the next 4 years straightening out their mess. The idiot public gets angry because the government takes away all their candy and votes them out and we start the cycle all over again.

ltr


----------



## sags

"Living within your means" also means raising revenue to pay for spending.

Polls have consistently shown that Canadians would rather pay more in taxes to fund social programs than to cut taxes and eliminate them.


----------



## sags

Conservatives often find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion and conclude they are right and everyone else is wrong.

When it happens so often, perhaps the Conservative ideology needs some updating ?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> There must be a lot of socialists in Ontario. Ford's approval rating plummeted to a record low minus 53.
> 
> https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/fords-popularity-plunges-mainstreet-poll
> 
> His problems started when he cancelled the carbon tax and eliminated $6 billion in revenue. It was all downhill from there.


Doug For was elected on scrapping the carbon tax, he scrapped it. The people whining about it didn't vote for him anyway.

I don't agree with all his policies, but on balance he's basically doing what he said he would.
It isn't something Ontario voters are used to after.

The latest budget has increased health and education spending every year, but somehow, that's still "cuts to health care and education". 

I think the Doug Ford drop in approval rating is due to a nunber of factors.
It's really pretty simple, he cancelled some big handouts, so they're really upset.
The media and news reports are constantly attacking him, and making outright fraudulent statements on their actions.

It's one thing when you're making tough choices to get things on track, but when opposition groups and the media are spreading lies about you, it gets even harder.
Why do you think Free Speech is becoming such an important issue?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Conservatives often find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion and conclude they are right and everyone else is wrong.
> 
> When it happens so often, perhaps the Conservative ideology needs some updating ?


It's not a surprising that people like stuff that someone else pays for.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> "Living within your means" also means raising revenue to pay for spending.


Nope, wrong again. The answer, which is completely foreign to socialists, is to reduce spending.



sags said:


> Polls have consistently shown that Canadians would rather pay more in taxes to fund social programs than to cut taxes and eliminate them.


Nope, wrong again. People want to fund social programs _and_ they want to cut taxes. They just don't realize it doesn't work that way..

ltr


----------



## sags

There has been a succession of governments of every political party who were going to "eliminate wasteful spending"

They soon discover (to their shock and astonishment.....lol) there is no wasteful spending left to cut, and they choose to add the deficits to the debt when they should be raising revenues.

I think eliminating the carbon tax will be same. Government spending will remain the same and the shortfall will end up on the debt.

The good news is that strategic spending has grown the economy and government revenues have increased. As a result our debt to GDP ratio continues to decline.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> There has been a succession of governments of every political party who were going to "eliminate wasteful spending"
> 
> They soon discover (to their shock and astonishment.....lol) there is no wasteful spending left to cut, and they choose to add the deficits to the debt when they should be raising revenues.
> 
> I think eliminating the carbon tax will be same. Government spending will remain the same and the shortfall will end up on the debt.
> 
> The good news is that strategic spending has grown the economy and government revenues have increased. As a result our debt to GDP ratio continues to decline.


No, they realize that it is really hard to shrink government, nobody wants to lose services, and it is very hard to get elected promising cuts.

Governments armed monopolies that take your money. They already take nearly half our paychecks. They have enough money.

There is lots of wasteful spending, they're so out of touch they don't even understand it.
How much did Ottawa spend on a skating rink for a few months? 
How much did Ontario spend to rent a rubber duck?
We have Prime Minister who Tweets away thousands or millions to impress celebrities.

Personal tax rates are at 50%, we even have the poor paying income taxes to the government to keep it functioning. 

I think everyone agrees that at some point, taxes are too high and causing a problem. Maybe that's 50%, or 80%, I don't know what you think too high is. (I think 50% is way too high)
When the govnerment is spending so much that even those making minimum wage need to pay taxes, and they're still over spending, we have a problem.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> .... there is no wasteful spending left to cut...


The classic socialist credo




sags said:


> As a result our debt to GDP ratio continues to decline.


Another classic mistake. When GDP is high during prosperous cycles, this is the exact time to create a surplus to get through the bad times. A low debt to GDP ratio masks a high debt situation which will turn on you when times get tough. 

ltr


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> The classic socialist credo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic mistake. When GDP is high during prosperous cycles, this is the exact time to create a surplus to get through the bad times. A low debt to GDP ratio masks a high debt situation which will turn on you when times get tough.
> 
> ltr


Huh?

How much do you think GDP changes in recessions? Care to illustrate with some numbers how you think this works? A typical recession see GDP shrink by as much as 5%, but that doesn't really make a massive difference to debt:GDP.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Huh?
> 
> How much do you think GDP changes in recessions? Care to illustrate with some numbers how you think this works? A typical recession see GDP shrink by as much as 5%, but that doesn't really make a massive difference to debt:GDP.


Well, it does. 300:1000 is 30%.... while 300:950 (5% drop in GDP) is 31.6%. That is significant, but of course the numerator changes too. An added deficit of 30 makes the ratio 330:950 = 34.7% That is a massive change which then takes years to bring back down to 30% and entirely dependent on GDP growth since deficits seem to continue to run in perpetuity. The holy grail of GDP growth is not going to go on forever.

So yes, what really matters in a recession is the dramatic shift in the absolute value of annual deficits...which of course add to debt, which under so many recent governments is never paid back via surpluses. There seems to be no end to the credit limit, until credit agencies and bond markets decide otherwise.

Added: Our governments want the optics to look good, so they show things like Chart 4 in this https://www.budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/overview-apercu-en.html But when more objective analysis is looked at, then we get something like https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/canada/government-debt--of-nominal-gdp Select MAX in the chart and see what could have been if gov'ts had been disciplined post 2010 methodically balancing the budget and into a surplus by 2016. Our gov't likes to say we are the best in the G7 but that is perhaps questionable, and small comfort looking at the bottom table here https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

Added yet again: Too many countries are living on borrowed time and too many developed countries are counting on GDP growth (which is slowing) and inflation to push debt ratios under the rug. Countries with stagnant or declining populations to stimulate GDP growth could very well implode within a generation. Hard to put one's arms around what needs to be done. Some would say right-of-center governments have more fiscal discipline but that is not necessarily so, e.g. USA currently. The upcoming 1-2 decades could likely be governments lurching back and forth at the extreme edges, e.g. socialist vs far right, as economies unravel. Social unrest could get ugly.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> The holy grail of GDP growth is not going to go on forever.


That's a really extraordinary claim, and one that has much wider ranging implications than a debate around appropriate levels of indebtedness.

While real GDP growth may slow, no reason to assume nominal GDP growth will necessarily slow/go negative. If needed, inflation could be allowed to run a bit higher.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> While real GDP growth may slow, no reason to assume nominal GDP growth will necessarily slow/go negative. If needed, inflation could be allowed to run a bit higher.


Real GDP growth has stalled to close to zero in a number of countries, e.g. Japan, and some European countries are not far behind. Nominal numbers don't mean anything because if inflation is allowed to grow, then interest rates must follow and servicing debt increases. The point really is that a country must get its fiscal house in order eventually. Countries that have overspent their economies eventually pay the price. How many times has Argentina hit the wall? How about Venezuela today? Increasing amounts of tax and spend as advocated by certain CMF members is a sure way to ruin.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> there is no wasteful spending left to cut, and they choose to add the deficits to the debt when they should be raising revenues.


Raising revenues is increasing taxes. That should not be the government's goal.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> Raising revenues is increasing taxes. That should not be the government's goal.


The crazy thing is that anyone thinks there is no wasteful spending in government. 
I don't know a single organization that doesn't have what most people would consider wasteful spending.

Federal and Provincial goverments waste money by the millions, and there is very little corrective action. Look at Doug Ford, he's offering to pay for auditors to help cities, and they don't even want to take a look at their own books, it's crazy.


----------



## sags

PC leader Scheer dropped his pledge to balance the budget. 

Even he knows that government spending and debt are non issues.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> PC leader Scheer dropped his pledge to balance the budget.
> 
> Even he knows that government spending and debt are non issues.


He has changed balancing the budget from 2 years to 5 years because he knows one cannot reduce structural deficits caused by multi-year programs too rapidly, e.g. a 10 year shipyard contract for 16 vessels. You really need to state facts as they are rather than misrepresent to suit your ideology.


----------



## james4beach

Not even elected yet and he's already breaking his promises.

Scheer not only dropped his promise to balance the budget (shameful), but his new 5 year timeline isn't ambitious at all. The current govt projections expect that the deficit will shrink substantially by then anyway. Scheer is now only promising a slightly more balanced budget than what the Liberals plan:



> (source) In the most recent budget, tabled two months ago, Morneau projected deficits for those years of $19.8 billion, $19.7 billion and $14.8 billion. In 2022-2023, the deficit is expected to decline to $12.1 billion. The next year (what would be the fourth year of a Scheer government), the deficit is projected to be $9.8 billion.


Lots of huff and puff and bluster from the Conservatives, with no substantive policies or platforms. Making a mountain of a non issue (SNC and JWR) which fizzled out. Big talk on balancing the budget, then completely retracting it and practically aligning with the Liberals. And of course, no significant energy or climate change policy other than whining about "taxes", and offering no better solution.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> PC leader Scheer dropped his pledge to balance the budget.
> 
> Even he knows that government spending and debt are non issues.


Are you kidding? What he knows is that the Liberals have created a debt so ridiculously large that it can't be undone in anything but 5 years. 

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Not even elected yet and he's already breaking his promises.


Hard to even comment on this James. So sad. You're such a smart guy, and yet you so often miss the point completely. Sigh.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

like_to_retire said:


> Hard to even comment on this James. So sad. You're such a smart guy, and yet you so often miss the point completely. Sigh.
> 
> ltr


It truly does show how "snookered" supposedly intelligent people can be. It's like watching Sarah Sanders or Kellyanne Conway prostitute their credibility.


----------



## james4beach

It's not a large federal debt, as % of GDP it's quite reasonable. It's one of the lowest debt burdens among developed nations. The economy is healthy and unemployment is the lowest rate since 1976 -- clearly the deficit spending was useful.

We've achieved similarly awesome employment numbers to the US but we have far smaller deficits than the US. It should also be noted that deficit spending during these recovery years has been the norm in all developed countries.

AltaRed, and like_to_retire, I don't think you're looking at this rationally. The debt burden is not severe by any measure and the government projects the deficit will shrink substantially in a handful of years.

Why are you looking for problems where there is none? Canada probably has the best economic and fiscal condition of any G7 country right now. I understand it's always better to strive to be even better, but face it... Canada under Trudeau has achieved a great economy.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> It truly does show how "snookered" supposedly intelligent people can be. It's like watching Sarah Sanders or Kellyanne Conway prostitute their credibility.


I couldn't have come up with a better example.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

AltaRed said:


> It truly does show how "snookered" supposedly intelligent people can be. It's like watching Sarah Sanders or Kellyanne Conway prostitute their credibility.


Speaking of being snookered...more than 40% of university students think socialism is better than capitalism. That's the result of "higher learning" from liberal professors at supposed elite colleges and universities. But, at least they have their safe spaces where they can run and hide when their feelings are hurt, or when someone tells them a fact that they don't like.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Not even elected yet and he's already breaking his promises.
> 
> Scheer not only dropped his promise to balance the budget (shameful), but his new 5 year timeline isn't ambitious at all. The current govt projections expect that the deficit will shrink substantially by then anyway. Scheer is now only promising a slightly more balanced budget than what the Liberals plan:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of huff and puff and bluster from the Conservatives, with no substantive policies or platforms. Making a mountain of a non issue (SNC and JWR) which fizzled out. Big talk on balancing the budget, then completely retracting it and practically aligning with the Liberals. And of course, no significant energy or climate change policy other than whining about "taxes", and offering no better solution.


Yes, before we even start casting votes, he's changed his platform to be a bit more realistic. Sure things change, but he's trying to be upfront and realistic.
The energy corridor is a significant energy policy.

You know there are a lot of valid criticism of Andrew Scheer, why don't you use some of them?
He has policies, he has a plan, and he's doing his best to be honest and transparent.

Trudeau sits there with bribes, corruption and ethical violations. The choice is clear.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Trudeau sits there with bribes, corruption and ethical violations. The choice is clear.


What are you referring to here? Just making up some slander?


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> What are you referring to here? Just making up some slander?


What slander? There are 5 known ethics violations, and several suspect payments/bribes to Trudeau/liberal interests. These are not secrets, but if your only source of information is biased media then you would be unaware of these things.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> What are you referring to here? Just making up some slander?


It's not slander if it's true, or do you think the ethics commissioner is a liar?
That's not to mention the many other situations where it looks very suspicious. 

I honestly don't think Trudeau understands ethics, he voted against an inquiry into his own actions. 
That's about as blatant a conflict of interest as I can imagine. He should have abstained from that vote. The fact that he didn't abstain, shows utter contempt for ethical principals.

Being completely serious, I honestly think Trudeau is easily among the most unethical PMs, or party leaders we've ever had at the federal level.
I would hope even Liberal supporters are hoping for a Conservative minority so they have an excuse to get rid of him

Canadians overall trust their government and institutions, we have been blessed with a good history of responsible capable government. 
Trudeau has caused significant damage to this trust.


----------



## sags

Unfortunately it is too late for an "energy corridor". By the time it was planned, routed, and built the world will be functioning on green power.

It has taken decades just to expand Highway 400 to more lanes for a few hundred miles, and it still isn't completed.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Unfortunately it is too late for an "energy corridor". By the time it was planned, routed, and built the world will be functioning on green power.


I for one can't wait to see a 747 take off on battery power.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Unfortunately it is too late for an "energy corridor". By the time it was planned, routed, and built the world will be functioning on green power.


I'm 57 and was promised that green power was just around the corner when I was a child. In spite of half a century of trying with untold trillions spent we are not even close. Maybe you should stick to facts instead of wishful thinking and outright falsehoods.


----------



## AltaRed

The energy and transportation corridor concept still has a lot of merit. A key benefit would be economic opportunity to northern communities. Imagine many of the desperate hovels of FN communities that could operate and maintain the various infrastructure. Imagine the transmission of green energy potentially from coast to coast. Imagine eastern Canada eventually being self-sufficient in domestic crude and no longer reliant on despot countries. 

Lots to be said for it, but somehow doubt Canada has the vision, foresight and fortitude to make it happen over the next 10-20 years. Now if Canada, as a nation, did not have all that interest wasted away servicing debt...... some $30B per year. https://commodity.com/debt-clock/canada/


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer has released his pipeline plan.

1) Cancel the carbon tax

2) Repeal Bill C-69

3) Repeal the No tanker ban

4) Shorten the approval process by establishing timelines.

5) Invoke constitutional authority to build major projects.

https://twitter.com/AndrewScheer?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

It reads like it was written by the oil companies and if you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of a possible election victory draining away.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Andrew Scheer has released his pipeline plan.
> 
> It reads like it was written by the oil companies and if you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of a possible election victory draining away.


It reads like someone who wants to get something done, and if you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of prosperity.

Another Andrew Scheer tweet today:

_"My vision for Canada is a country where taxes are low, government is limited, but potential is unlimited. As Prime Minister I will work to live within our means, leave more money in your pockets, and let you get ahead"._

Sounds like my kinda guy.

ltr


----------



## RBull

I added the one you left out #5 and put down verbatim what his tweet stated. The comments you wrote seems like more of your usual Liberal propaganda, with little to no facts, and a lot of wishful thinking. 

What I read was someone who seems like he actually wants to get something positive done, that benefits the country. 



sags said:


> Andrew Scheer has released his pipeline plan.
> 
> 1) Cancel Justin Trudeau's carbon tax
> 
> 2) Repeal the No More Pipelines Act Bill C-69
> 
> 3) End the BC tanker ban
> 
> 4) Establish timelines for approvals
> 
> 5) Eliminate foreign interferences in the approvals process
> 
> 6) Invoke constitutional authority to build major projects.
> 
> https://twitter.com/AndrewScheer?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
> 
> 
> It reads like it was written by the oil companies and if you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of a possible election victory draining away.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> It reads like it was written by the oil companies


This is the corruption and influence that the Conservative party is trying to normalize. Big energy companies drive the agenda, and Conservatives try to spin it as good old fashioned democratic values (ridiculous). Similarly, they are driven by powerful corporate interests constantly pushing for lower taxes.

This tactic was pioneered by the Americans back with Reagan. The powerful corporate interests push their agenda for lower taxes and less regulation. To win the votes, the party spins issues which appeal to the voter base (I want cheaper gasoline! save my job! Justin looks silly!).

I call it political corruption and influence from corporations, and oil & gas in particular.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> This is the corruption and influence that the Conservative party is trying to normalize. Big energy companies drive the agenda, and Conservatives try to spin it as good old fashioned democratic values (ridiculous). Similarly, they are driven by powerful corporate interests constantly pushing for lower taxes.
> 
> This tactic was pioneered by the Americans back with Reagan. The powerful corporate interests push their agenda for lower taxes and less regulation. To win the votes, the party spins issues which appeal to the voter base (I want cheaper gasoline! save my job! Justin looks silly!).
> 
> I call it political corruption and influence from corporations, and oil & gas in particular.


As opposed to Trudeau who is trying to build a media funding & censorship board, and throwing unions on it to ensure the left wing bias stays strong.

Do you really think it's inappropriate to consider a major sector of the economy when setting policy?

Actually don't bother, I know you think that it is important we have an incessant media bias telling us all how horrible we are, and it we just took a green lifestyle the celebrities want us to (but don't actually live themselves) it would all be good.
Who cares if the policies throw millions out of work, we'll just hike taxes and give them a handout so we can pretend we care.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Not worth your effort. Sags and J4B are just on this thread trolling.


----------



## AltaRed

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Not worth your effort. Sags and J4B are just on this thread trolling.


That kind of stuff can get you suspended, even if entirely true. It's clear where the bias is in this forum.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> I call it political corruption and influence from corporations, and oil & gas in particular.


Big Tech is far more powerful and corrupt than oil & gas. But you give them a pass...probably because they tend to silence people you oppose.


----------



## sags

The policy isn't mine or that of J4B. 

It is the official Conservative pipeline election policy. If pointing out that the policy would run rough shod over people's rights is trolling..............then so be it.


----------



## sags

There was an interesting Munk debate on CSPAN last night from May 9th, and the topic of discussion was China's economy and foreign policy. 

China has been and is currently involved in supplying resource rich countries with cash to support dictatorships or prop up governments in South America, Africa and Asia. 

They negotiate deals to buy all the oil at a low price and then resell it immediately on the open market. This is what Canadian oil shipped from a western port would have to deal with.

Even if we built the pipeline to the west coast and loaded tankers absorbing all the cost and risk, the Chinese would compete for Asian market share with lower prices.

This seems to support the opinion of some oil analysts and experts that Canadian oil shipped to Asia may have no market. 

Canadians are not getting all the facts on the world of oil, but rather a pleasant vision of selling all our oil to Asia for world prices.

There is no certainty that is going to happen in the real world.

https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/China


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Andrew Scheer has released his pipeline plan.
> 
> 1) Cancel the carbon tax
> 
> 2) Repeal Bill C-69
> 
> 3) Repeal the No tanker ban
> 
> 4) Shorten the approval process by establishing timelines.
> 
> 5) Invoke constitutional authority to build major projects.
> 
> https://twitter.com/AndrewScheer?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
> 
> It reads like it was written by the oil companies and if you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of a possible election victory draining away.


This sure is going to sell well in Ontario and BC! Yikes. Does CPC not realize they need to win these provinces?


----------



## humble_pie

an energy corridor is just another name for a pipeline right-of-way

anybody who thinks canada has the $$ to build super-colossal hyper-humungous debt-dependent brand-new infrastructure across the entire north of the nation is, well, just blabbing out a foolish fantasy

for starters we'd have to wait 40 years for global warming to dry out the muskeg. But of course the same folks who think energy corridor is cool new vote-getting urban slang are the folks who don't believe in global warming anyhow .each:

PS the present transCanada ROW still serves well; it is not the problem. The present transCanada highway still serves well; it is not the problem. The problem is enviro opposition to pipelines & energy corridors no matter where situate.

stephen harper faced this problem for 13 years & failed. Failed in both canada & the US. However it looks like justin trudeau may be reaching a solution soon.

note that right-wingers always end up advocating armed put-down of localized enviro opposition to pipelines. What they are missing is that not only trudeau, but any elected canadian prime minister from any party whatsoever, will never be able to turn guns upon indigenous nations. In 2019, weaponized conflict is not going to happen.

the only alternative is the one the Liberals are pursuing. Persuade, persuade, persuade. Respect, respect, respect. Engage partnership in communities all along the pipeline route. Set up financial partnership where appropriate, ie where treaty land rights pre-exist. This is a slow path that will produce harmony in the end.


----------



## AltaRed

An infrastructure ROW up north would most likely be welcomed by disenfranchised FNs who would have real jobs. Further, most, if not all, of the ROW could be on crown land making it much simpler for infrastructure developers to deal with potentially only one landowner per province. Lastly, it is not complex running pipelines and electrical transmission lines through the boreal forest, including muskeg. Muskeg is actually relatively easy to build on/in. It is all well proven winter construction that can be well managed. The more difficult part for pipelines would be the Canadian shield but that's been done before with the TC mainline and the mountains of BC. The concept is actually quite brilliant. Places like La Ronge in SK would be staging areas AND eventually regional O&M yards. Same with Flin Flon and areas along #11 in northern ON, and in Quebec such as Saguenay enroute to Saint John.

The most egregious opposition is easily handled by making international interference in domestic affairs a criminal offense (as it should be) and CBSA turning troublemakers back at the borders. We have become way too complacent about foreign meddling in our affairs. I think the concept is brilliant, albeit highly unlikely to ever happen given the short sightedness of most politicians.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> The policy isn't mine or that of J4B.
> 
> It is the official Conservative pipeline election policy. If pointing out that the policy would run rough shod over people's rights is trolling..............then so be it.


It was your mis-representation of the policy that was the issue at hand. Manipulation of the facts does not add credibility.


----------



## m3s

That's why I find alaska's indigenous corporations interesting. It gets buy in from the indigenous and aligns goals.

Alberta had the opposite approach of denigrating anyone who questions how “their” oil will cross other's land. Good luck changing those minds now.

Scheer is saying exactly what Albertans want to hear yet he actually needs to find something other provinces would vote for. He already has Alberta buy in

The political timing for a pipeline couldn’t be much worse. Environmental unrest is trending in educated youth around the world.



OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Not worth your effort. Sags and J4B are just on this thread trolling.


So a large proportion of Canadians are trolls? This kind of post only hurts your cause. You may be living in an echo chamber if you think this is trolling.


----------



## james4beach

Prairie Guy said:


> Big Tech is far more powerful and corrupt than oil & gas. But you give them a pass...probably because they tend to silence people you oppose.


Why do you assume I support big tech? They are also a huge corporate influence on government, and I strongly disagree with how they're shaping society and policy. The big tech companies have lobbied government strongly for many years and have gained far too much power. In fact I would support breaking up Google and Amazon to disrupt their monopoly control.


----------



## kcowan

james4beach said:


> Why do you assume I support big tech? They are also a huge corporate influence on government, and I strongly disagree with how they're shaping society and policy. The big tech companies have lobbied government strongly for many years and have gained far too much power. In fact I would support breaking up Google and Amazon to disrupt their monopoly control.


There is a book out called Silicon State that articulates these concerns very completely. It would seem that the influence of such companies outstrips the current real influence of O&G companies.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> an energy corridor is just another name for a pipeline right-of-way
> 
> anybody who thinks canada has the $$ to build super-colossal hyper-humungous debt-dependent brand-new infrastructure across the entire north of the nation is, well, just blabbing out a foolish fantasy


Lots of companies and communities want to invest in Canada. 
I'm sorry you think investing in Canada and Canadian infrastructure is a "foolish fantasy".


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> There is a book out called Silicon State that articulates these concerns very completely. It would seem that the influence of such companies outstrips the current real influence of O&G companies.


Going off lobbyist spending, it seems like O&G is still quite influential. About same 'investment' in lobbying as big tech. I don't recall big tech ever buying a presidency, unlike O&G with Bush/Cheney.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i&showYear=a

Lobbyist spending by industry, 1998- 2019

1 Healthcare/pharma
2 Insurance (health)
3 Electric Utilities
*4 Electronics manufacturing (big tech)* $2.3B
5 Business Associations
*6 Oil & Gas *$2.2B


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Going off lobbyist spending, it seems like O&G is still quite influential. About same 'investment' in lobbying as big tech. I don't recall big tech ever buying a presidency, unlike O&G with Bush/Cheney.
> 
> https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i&showYear=a
> 
> Lobbyist spending by industry, 1998- 2019
> 
> 1 Healthcare/pharma
> 2 Insurance (health)
> 3 Electric Utilities
> *4 Electronics manufacturing (big tech)* $2.3B
> 5 Business Associations
> *6 Oil & Gas *$2.2B


Naw, big tech just disproportionately censors right leaning opinions. If you put a price on that, it's worth quite a bit of $$$.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Naw, big tech just disproportionately censors right leaning opinions. If you put a price on that, it's worth quite a bit of $$$.


Do you need a cross to carry?

Any complaints about the outsize influence of FOX news in TV? I thought not.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> I don't recall big tech ever buying a presidency, unlike O&G with Bush/Cheney.


It's hard to recall something if you were never made aware of it and don't verify your sources. Big Tech with the help of the media bought Obama's second term (and probably the first one). It doesn't take a lot of money to selectively promote favourable stories or bury inconvenient information.

But let's say you're right. Oil and gas don't have tech or the media on their side and their influence is negligible at best, so one must assume that few million gullible people who would have voted Democrat were magically influenced by Big Oil that they hate (how exactly??) and somehow changed their mind to vote Republican. But, 90% negative coverage of Trump 24/7 for months by Big Tech and the media wasn't enough to get Republicans to vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

If that's really true, then the left are the most gullible people on the planet. :biggrin:


----------



## andrewf

Trump has a propaganda network in Fox news. He got more unearned media coverage than any other candidate in history. That represents a pretty significant in-kind political contribution.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Trump has a propaganda network in Fox news. He got more unearned media coverage than any other candidate in history. That represents a pretty significant in-kind political contribution.


And Obama had NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. Plus the big tech companies. But let's ignore all that :biggrin:


----------



## AltaRed

All those combined were not nearly the unabashed advertising arm of FOX though.... well, maybe CNN is close to FOX. Objective media reporting from cable channels in particular is long gone. The networks have been somewhat better at balanced reporting, especially PBS. Still, Trump got a lot more minutes even on network news. Way off on a tangent though. We are going the way of Russia, Turkey, Hungary et al with this $600M media fund. It is a dangerous precedent. The pushback has been surprisingly muted from our institutions.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Lots of companies and communities want to invest in Canada.
> I'm sorry you think investing in Canada and Canadian infrastructure is a "foolish fantasy".



oh pshaw, please don't put words in my mouth. My post has nothing to do with the critical task of attracting investment to canada.

it has everything to do with the extraordinary length of time it would take - easily 30, 40 years - before canada could amass the resolve, the cooperation & the capital necessary to build a colossally expensive mega-project such as a northern energy corridor. It's a foolish fantasy to pretend this could happen sooner. Andrew scheer could very well be in his grave, after a long & normal lifetime of 3-score-years-and-10, before such a gigantic infrastructure could be built. 

in addition, scheer has stolen the term "energy corridor" from the Eagle Spirit oil pipeline project, designed to run from northern alberta to prince rupert BC.

Eagle Spirit is an indigenous project run by the lax kw'alaams & allied indigenous nations who already host the LNG terminal at prince rupert. For years now, Eagle Spirit has promoted its project as an "energy corridor" (their words exactly), along which would run alberta oil, dilbit, natural gas, hydro & telecommunication networks.

here's Eagle Spirit chairman calvin helin announcing the launch of Eagle Spirit with the words "energy corridor" in september 2012:

https://www.ictinc.ca/calvin-helin-game-changing-first-nations-energy-company-announced

it would take an unpleasantly dodgy character - perhaps a history major whose only job outside politics had been a few months stint as an insurance salesman - to brazenly steal an indigenous nation's working concept without crediting them.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> Naw, big tech just disproportionately censors right leaning opinions. If you put a price on that, it's worth quite a bit of $$$.


Well you are closer than andrew. Their company influence is not from lobbying according to the book. It is from conducting business.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> in addition, scheer has stolen the term "energy corridor" from the Eagle Spirit oil pipeline project, designed to run from northern alberta to prince rupert BC.
> 
> Eagle Spirit is an indigenous project run by the lax kw'alaams & allied indigenous nations who already host the LNG terminal at prince rupert. For years now, Eagle Spirit has promoted its project as an "energy corridor" (their words exactly), along which would run alberta oil, dilbit, natural gas, hydro & telecommunication networks.
> 
> here's Eagle Spirit chairman calvin helin announcing the launch of Eagle Spirit with the words "energy corridor" in september 2012:


Actually no. It was developed circa 1971 by Richard Rohmer,


> The committee report noted how a 1971 report by Richard Rohmer _ an air-force veteran of D-Day who became a prominent land-use lawyer with the ear of governor general Roland Michener _ proposed the development of a “mid-Canada” corridor, recommending federal, provincial and territorial governments make it an urgent priority. Rohmer imagined a massive transportation network for goods and people could turn communities such as Flin Flon, Whitehorse and High Level into major new urban centres.
> 
> The report was presented then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau but the committee said his government never moved forward on the idea.


And was refreshed in 2016 by the University of Calgary


> Scheer’s pitch appears to have drawn inspiration from a 2016 University of Calgary paper that offered possible solutions through a northern corridor for transportation and infrastructure.
> 
> G. Kent Fellows, who co-authored the report, said the right-of-way could be used for roads, rail, pipelines, electricity transmission lines and telecommunications. The study’s proposed 7,000-kilometre corridor would also serve communities well north of the existing east-west routes that run closer to the U.S. border. In concept, a main line and offshoots would connect ports in northern British Columbia and the Northwest Territories to Churchill, Man., eastern Quebec and Labrador.


And caught the attention of the Senate.

Spirit River was merely an Edmonton to Prince Rupert corridor, some of which already exists.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Actually no. It was developed circa 1971 by Richard Rohmer,
> 
> And was refreshed in 2016 by the University of Calgary
> 
> And caught the attention of the Senate.
> 
> Spirit River was merely an Edmonton to Prince Rupert corridor, some of which already exists.



actually i knew there were earlier usages but i was not writing a book so did not digress in that direction. I was hoping that someone like yourself would come forward to add some of the additional details, thank you!

the plain fact is that the idea as well as the existence of trans-continental transport routes date back possibly even to prehistoric times. I suppose the mother of all trade corridors would be the ancient gold & ivory route that flowed north up the east coast of africa to the middle east, where it mixed with assyrian & anatolian traders who then voyaged thousands of miles eastward to china, together with their goods & presumably their donkey caravans.

this was the earliest Silk Road, a trading pattern that existed millennia before marco polo set out from venice, as archaeologists are discovering.

in our time, in fact very forward-looking, china is re-building & re-inventing the ancient Silk Road, calling it today the Belt & Road. But it's the same idea, chinese goods will flood western europe, africa & the americas with a speed and volume five times greater than what could be achieved only a decade ago.

i've posted some about this contemporary chinese drive towards the west because it is a major geopolitical fact today, therefore not going to repeat .each: 

bref, one could own an entire vast library stuffed with volumes setting forth the histories of trans-continental trade routes across a couple thousand years or more. I might mention in passing that russia also appears to have massively increased/re-engineered their northern pipelines & northern settlement patterns during the past couple decades.

northern energy, electronic, trade & commercial corridors will be built in canada eventually. What is a foolish fantasy is for andrew scheer or any other politician to gibber on as if the same were going to spring up out of the earth, fully functioning, at zero cost, any time soon. What scheer is offering is vote-getting porn.

ironically in this forum it is the same gentlemen who fiercely oppose climate change who also appear to be the parties ardently embracing a northern energy corridor tomorrow if not sooner. Whereas the way i see it, a northern canadian energy/commercial corridor is a future inevitability that will be rooted in both climate change & also in the need to vitalize & protect our northern frontier.

at the moment we are perilously exposed with almost no defenses in the north. These will cost mega $$. Andrew scheer's babble about a northern energy corridor does not appear to include a single word about how to raise the infrastructure capital.

in addition, the anti-climate cmffers on here have posted repeatedly that they are supporting the CPC precisely because this party has no plans to pay for infrastructure, no plans to increase either taxes or public debt. Gentlemen you cannot have it both ways!


----------



## AltaRed

From my perspective, what Scheer proposes could be sound policy albeit he did not invent it, and it will likely never get off the ground in any significant way for some time. It will probably muck around for many more years, perhaps decades. The point though is that it never hurts to bring it back to the foreground as visionary and reasonably strategic, and why not use it for political gain? Of course, there is no funding plan. How can there be at a conceptual stage? It will take inordinate study, and tens of billions of dollars by private industry, provincial and federal goernments to fund pipeline and electrical transmission, perhaps over 10+ years. AB, SK and some others would also have to buy into buying hydro power from West and East rather than building more nat gas generating plants, etc. etc.

As for the rest of your post, I haven't really bothered to read much of it...because it appears way too partisan and hyperbolic. Few people I know oppose climate change. Most accept CC as inevitable and CC will happen to some degree regardless of any amount of intervention - part of our planetary natural cycle. The resistance is in throwing money at non-solutions when virtually no one outside some European countries are doing anything of a similar nature. Nothing we do will make a measurable difference. Two more years of global coal generating plant development in China and SE Asia will wipe out anything we could possibly do. The debate should be around being pragmatic about economic approaches rather than putting expensive lipstick on the pig.


----------



## sags

It is true that many climate change skeptics have retrenched from their initial positions that it didn't exist to the current theory that it exists but there is nothing we can do about it.

The retrenchment was unavoidable when the evidence of climate change became so pronounced and self evident. They were wrong before.......could they be wrong again ?

Even if their theory is valid it does create a serious conundrum. 

If climate change exists and the damage is going to continue to become more devastating, should we not declare it an world emergency and do whatever we can to address it ? 

After all, who cares about building for a future that won't exist ?


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> If climate change exists and the damage is going to continue to become more devastating, should we not declare it an world emergency and do whatever we can to address it ?
> 
> After all, who cares about building for a future that won't exist ?


The government could give out free copies of the 1995 movie Waterworld so people are prepared!


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> After all, who cares about building for a future that won't exist ?


No matter what tax they apply, our future will likely not exist. That's what happens with climate change. There have already been five major ice ages. Currently we're in a warm interglacial period. 

Where you're sitting right now was once covered with a couple kilometers of ice. How did it melt and get us to where we are today? - Climate change.

No tax will change that.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> oh pshaw, please don't put words in my mouth. My post has nothing to do with the critical task of attracting investment to canada.
> 
> 
> 
> it would take an unpleasantly dodgy character - perhaps a history major whose only job outside politics had been a few months stint as an insurance salesman - to brazenly steal an indigenous nation's working concept without crediting them.


You quite clearly said that the massive investment was a foolish fantasy.

Are you suggesting that Andrew Scheer is listening to, and campaigning on a indigenous plan to attract investment to the north? 
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Also many groups would not want to be attached to a "Conservative" initiative.

if it's a good plan, they should go ahead with it, it doesn't matter who created it, who implements it, and who takes final credit for it. 
Good policy and good results are the goal.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> The government could give out free copies of the 1995 movie Waterworld so people are prepared!


Yeah, that sounds like something they'd do for 2 specific reasons.
1. The fearmongering would be great.
2. It's the type of useless guidance I'd expect (the movie set was destroyed by a tropical storm, that's exactly the kind of disaster preparedness plan I'd expect from the Climate change crowd)


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> It is true that many climate change skeptics have retrenched from their initial positions that it didn't exist to the current theory that it exists but there is nothing we can do about it.
> 
> The retrenchment was unavoidable when the evidence of climate change became so pronounced and self evident. They were wrong before.......could they be wrong again ?
> 
> Even if their theory is valid it does create a serious conundrum.
> 
> If climate change exists and the damage is going to continue to become more devastating, should we not declare it an world emergency and do whatever we can to address it ?
> 
> After all, who cares about building for a future that won't exist ?


The skepticism is in the degree (rate) at which man changes climate, not that climate is not changing. Few people I know have ever said that climate is not changing. It will change whether our species exists or not. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

The world is not going to beat to your drum or to any of the IPCC crowd with their agendas and vested interests. It is pure fantasy to expect any one country, or group of countries, to martyr their economies when the rest of the world does not play ball. It's a completely different ball game than the days when the world came together with a CFC ban. The impact was obvious and there were ready substitutes. Not so with such a complicated feed forward/feedback system and CO2 being an essential compound to life as we know it.


----------



## Spidey

Sometimes with this climate change stuff, I get the feeling I'm in one of those science fiction movies where everyone has been affected by some mind-altering virus that makes them paranoid but only a few are spared. Of course, I fully realize that many would say I'm the one with the altered-mind - fair enough - who knows maybe you're right. 

0.8 degrees warmer since the end of the last little ice age. It is difficult to keep a controlled environment such as your house within 0.8 degrees, let alone the entire planet. 

But Canada's increase in temperature has supposedly doubled the rest of the world since 1948. High on May 28, 1948 in Ottawa - 25.6 degrees. High today - 12 degrees. And I've been comparing all year and have quite similar results. But maybe if you tell people something loud enough and repeat it often enough they will totally believe it.


----------



## AltaRed

Spidey, you cannot compare 'weather' with 'climate'. A small selection of data points doesn't explain anything. 

But neither can the incredible manure that came out of Catherine McKenna's mouth. She lost so much credibility in about 5 minutes, she made Sarah Sanders' and Kellyanne Conway's constant drivel look like sainthood relative to her.


----------



## Spidey

AltaRed said:


> Spidey, you cannot compare 'weather' with 'climate'. A small selection of data points doesn't explain anything.


Totally agree. I knew I was vulnerable in that regard. But 2 things:

1. "Weather not climate" only appears to go one way with every hurricane, tornado and dry spell blamed on global warming. 
2. This is not just a global warming hypothesis but a "global warming crisis", with some such as Guy McPherson saying we only have until 2026 as a species. This has been one of the coldest winters on record in much of North America. This has also been the coldest spring in over 50 years in Ottawa and much of North America. An acquaintance who has just been in Turkey told me that that country is also experiencing significantly below average temperatures. Surely with such a crisis, where our days are numbered, we should at least be experiencing average or above average temperatures - not 13 degrees below.


----------



## cainvest

Spidey said:


> Surely with such a crisis, where our days are numbered, we should at least be experiencing average or above average temperatures - not 13 degrees below.


That's how averages work, sometimes you're below and other times you're above ... sometimes off by a fair amount.


----------



## m3s

Spidey said:


> 1. "Weather not climate" only appears to go one way with every hurricane, tornado and dry spell blamed on global warming.


That's just from journalist click bait sensationalizing to sell ads and unintelligent people parroting them. The average temperate change doesn't account for larger changes cancelling each other out. The poles could have more drastic warming with another area cancelling most of that out so the average stays flat while there are actually major changes.



Spidey said:


> 2. This has been one of the coldest winters on record in much of North America. This has also been the coldest spring in over 50 years in Ottawa and much of North America. An acquaintance who has just been in Turkey told me that that country is also experiencing significantly below average temperatures. Surely with such a crisis, where our days are numbered, we should at least be experiencing average or above average temperatures - not 13 degrees below.


Yet it was the warmest winter on record for other parts of North America: Record-early Alaska river thaw follows high winter temperatures. It was by far the earliest breakup of the Nenana river in recorded history. People here are very concerned about how this will impact water supply this summer. Apparently it has more to do with the jet stream so not necessarily climate change. So your 2 anecdotes are just naive to the overall picture.

My personal anecdote: It was weird to fly south and find it was far colder every time and yet it was a very mild winter in the interior Alaska (just below arctic circle) Like milder than I would expect in coastal Canada. I was out hiking in early march and couldn't safely cross rivers that should normally be safe to cross into April. This has a huge impact on people who still rely on winter roads for resupplies


----------



## Spidey

cainvest said:


> That's how averages work, sometimes you're below and other times you're above ... sometimes off by a fair amount.


But 7 years before mass extinction? (the video was done in 2016.) Shouldn't we be creeping somewhere above the average? (By the way this isn't the only fellow warning about human extinction in the near term.) 







Re: Alaska "The previous earliest breakup of the Tanana, a tributary of the Yukon River, was April 20, a mark reached in 1998 and 1940." So 6 days earlier from what was experienced in 1940. Certainly worthy notice but hardly the stuff of panic IMO.


----------



## cainvest

Spidey said:


> But 7 years before mass extinction? (the video was done in 2016.) Shouldn't we be creeping somewhere above the average? (By the way this isn't the only fellow warning about human extinction in the near term.)


If it was only 7 years to mass extinction due to climate change, I'd say yes .. the average temps would be wayyyyyyy off.
But since it's not, no worries!


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> ........ only 7 years to mass extinction due to climate change.......


So the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, and because there's a little extra CO2 gas in the atmosphere, something required by plants to produce oxygen, the world is going to end in 7 years.

Yeah, OK.

ltr


----------



## m3s

Spidey said:


> But 7 years before mass extinction? (the video was done in 2016.) Shouldn't we be creeping somewhere above the average? (By the way this isn't the only fellow warning about human extinction in the near term.)


I didn't bother with the video but there are many indicators being tracked by military/government besides climate change that a mass societal disruption is likely in the near future

Holocene extinction - Animals are currently going extinct at an alarming rate as a result of human activity. Humans and their livestock now account for +96% of mammal biomass
Refugee crisis - Drought, poverty and violence linked to human activity has accelerated human migration from Africa, ME and SA to Europe and NA
Climate change - Natural but also accelerated by human activity which will increasingly strain a growing human population
Income inequality - Capitalism is the best system we ever knew but unfortunately human nature is leading to unsustainable income inequality again just like every system prior

These are all interconnected and since we have an increasing population and finite resources, governments and military are concerned this will lead to mass violence in coming decades


----------



## like_to_retire

m3s said:


> ...............a growing human population.........


Now that seems like an actual problem we could be spending time on instead of wasting it on climate change.

It appears most 1st world countries have a negative population, so maybe they can get together and do something about the rest of the world.

ltr


----------



## Spidey

m3s said:


> Income inequality - Capitalism is the best system we ever knew but unfortunately human nature is leading to unsustainable income inequality again just like every system prior


In my view you've hit on the real agenda, which is an anti-capitalist movement. Almost nobody lives their personal lives as if this was a crisis, including the top AGW alarmists like Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio. In fact there was a recent study, which reflects what I've seen anecdotally, which shows that skeptics generally live in a more environmentally-friendly manner (less air-travel and automobile use) than AGW believers. (If our prime-minister is any example this is certainly true.) Regarding both the Holocene extinction and refugee crisis, the report says they are due to human activity such as over-hunting, the reports don't seem to mention climate change. 

We've warmed 0.8 degrees since the end of the little ice age. Why is this so surprising? Can anyone keep their house at a constant temperature with 0.8 degrees? Certainly you can increase the vertical scale to make tenths of degrees look like mountains and that appears very effective in frightening people. 

Despite all the panic and granted some very real problems, people like Steven Pinker make a pretty good argument that things in general are getting better. But somehow everyone is bent on their view that we are headed for mass destruction. This seems deeply impeded, so I know I have little ability to convince people otherwise. Even Pinker seems incapable.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> It is pure fantasy to expect any one country, or group of countries, to martyr their economies when the rest of the world does not play ball. It's a completely different ball game than the days when the world came together with a CFC ban. The impact was obvious and there were ready substitutes. Not so with such a complicated feed forward/feedback system and CO2 being an essential compound to life as we know it.


In fact, the CFC ban is no longer being recognized by one of the cosigners, China, so even the past victories are being lost:

China returned to emitting CFCs back in 2012


----------



## MrMatt

Spidey said:


> But somehow everyone is bent on their view that we are headed for mass destruction.


Because it frees you from taking individual responsibility and doing something.

If its a massive global problem, why is it up to me to fix it?

So they play at telling others what to do, rather than taking any action themselves. 

It's easy and appealing to reject personal responsibility, but it's a soul sucking destructive way to live.
Unfortunately it's particularly popular and growing in society today.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Spidey said:


> But somehow everyone is bent on their view that we are headed for mass destruction. This seems deeply impeded, so I know I have little ability to convince people otherwise.


Supposedly this is the worst thing that will ever happen to mankind, but if you dare question some of the data or science then they shut you down. One would think that something this important would be debated publicly by all scientists instead of a few people telling us that "the debate is settled" so don't you dare ask us any questions!!

Only a fool would buy that BS. Unfortunately, there are a lot of fools out there.


----------



## like_to_retire

Prairie Guy said:


> Supposedly this is the worst thing that will ever happen to mankind, but if you dare question some of the data or science then they shut you down. One would think that something this important would be debated publicly by all scientists instead of a few people telling us that "the debate is settled" so don't you dare ask us any questions!!
> 
> Only a fool would buy that BS. Unfortunately, there are a lot of fools out there.


So it would seem.

ltr


----------



## kcowan

For once, I am proud to be a skeptic rather than an alarmist!


----------



## m3s

Spidey said:


> Despite all the panic and granted some very real problems, people like Steven Pinker make a pretty good argument that things in general are getting better. But somehow everyone is bent on their view that we are headed for mass destruction. This seems deeply impeded, so I know I have little ability to convince people otherwise. Even Pinker seems incapable.


A psychologist who looks like he'll be long gone before push comes to shove. Things can appear better on the surface while the underlying risks increase at the same time. It's like how forest fire prevention can let tinder pile up for a bigger fire. Issues escalate quickly if the ecosystem, climate or economy etc get too far out of balance. Everything is trending out of balance now especially the ecosystem vs human population. Boomers don't seem to want to acknowledge this for self serving reasons.


----------



## andrewf

Pinker's point isn't that things get better on their own, but that things have been getting better over time, largely as a result on technological advancement but also because we eventually do make policy changes. So, maybe he is optimistic that eventually we will get on with dealing seriously with GHG emissions. In some ways, I agree that the regulatory approach might be too slow and that technological improvement will see renewables put fossil fuels out of business. Not that you O&G rent seekers should be rejoicing, either way oil rents are going to be under threat.


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> there are many indicators being tracked by military/government besides climate change that a mass societal disruption is likely in the near future
> 
> Holocene extinction - Animals are currently going extinct at an alarming rate as a result of human activity. Humans and their livestock now account for +96% of mammal biomass
> Refugee crisis - Drought, poverty and violence linked to human activity has accelerated human migration from Africa, ME and SA to Europe and NA
> Climate change - Natural but also accelerated by human activity which will increasingly strain a growing human population
> Income inequality - Capitalism is the best system we ever knew but unfortunately human nature is leading to unsustainable income inequality again just like every system prior
> 
> These are all interconnected and since we have an increasing population and finite resources, governments and military are concerned this will lead to mass violence in coming decades




^^ this. totally. resonates.

here's a good news gem though. In montreal's booming IT sector - cannot find enough workers - a couple grad students at the HEC have started up the-nano-business-that-everybody-loves

it's the bees. We all know the planet's bee population is now at risk. We need bees to pollinate crops, if no pollination there will be no food, this means that if bees fail, humans could eventually also die of starvation.

the students have designed, tested, trialled in the field, optimized, built & are selling Save the Bees software

sensors are installed inside each hive. 24/7 they report back to the beekeeper dozens of fluctuating data points such as hive moisture, hive temperature, queen bee activity, worker bee health stats, many other monitors
.
in the past a beekeeper would have to drive around to all his hives, suit up, open each hive & look inside to inspect for signs of disease or other dysfunction. Now he can monitor all his hives, in real time, from his smartphone.

the student entrepreneurs have completed 2 years of field trials with beekeepers up & down the ottawa river valley. The beekeepers have reported that their honey production is up 60%, now that problems can be detected & treated so rapidly.

the nano-business is presently selling almost exclusively to almond orchards in california. Their sensors for california include a GPS monitor since hive theft is a big item in california, not so much yet in canada (healthy bee hives are extremely expensive to replace in these times of fragile bee health). The same second a california hive gets moved, the beekeeper is alerted to drive out to chase the problem.

it's a win-win story. Last year the GMA added 1,000,000 new jobs in IT & AI. Montreal is being hailed as canada's smartest city.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Thanks for that Humble. Looks like you are referring to Nectar. I wasn't aware of them.
I'm interested in this technology and have been looking into ApisProtect.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Pinker's point isn't that things get better on their own, but that things have been getting better over time, largely as a result on technological advancement but also because we eventually do make policy changes. So, maybe he is optimistic that eventually we will get on with dealing seriously with GHG emissions. In some ways, I agree that the regulatory approach might be too slow and that technological improvement will see renewables put fossil fuels out of business. Not that you O&G rent seekers should be rejoicing, either way oil rents are going to be under threat.


Even the best and most impartial 'forecasters' don't see global oil demand dropping below 80 million barrels per day by 2035. We will go through a peak sometime in the next 10 years, perhaps at 110 million barrels per day. No one knows.


----------



## andrewf

humble_pie said:


> it's a win-win story. *Last year the GMA added 1,000,000 new jobs in IT & AI.* Montreal is being hailed as canada's smartest city.


Typo? This can't be correct, unless every second person in Montreal is a data scientist... Montreal can call itself that, but I don't think it is outpacing Toronto, which was one of the academic hotspots that started the latest explosive advance in machine learning.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Even the best and most impartial 'forecasters' don't see global oil demand dropping below 80 million barrels per day by 2035. We will go through a peak sometime in the next 10 years, perhaps at 110 million barrels per day. No one knows.


You only need a small decrease in oil demand to collapse prices, as demand is fairly inelastic in the short run. And competing with renewables and electrification is effectively a put on the oil price. Oil will continue to be needed in chemicals and plastics for a good while yet, but the era of windfall profits on oil might be drawing to a close.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Why doesn't the imminent rature crowd report any of this type of news?

Shell Quest carbon capture and storage project reaches milestone of 4M tonnes.

_"Shell Canada says the Quest carbon capture and storage project north of Edmonton has reached the milestone of four million tonnes of stored carbon dioxide, equivalent to the annual emissions of about one million cars.

The facility captures and stores underground about one-third of the CO2 emissions from the Shell-operated Scotford Upgrader, which turns oilsands bitumen into synthetic crude that can be refined into fuel and other products.

Shell says Quest has stored more carbon dioxide than any other similar project in the world and is doing it at a higher annual rate."_


For the benefit of m3s who has a permanent hate on for boomers, note that no millenials or gen x were harmed in this project. In fact a number of them were employed.


m3s said:


> Boomers don't seem to want to acknowledge this for self serving reasons.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> And competing with renewables and electrification is effectively a put on the oil price.


No, but successful oil recovery technology has.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree the era of windfall profits in oil will (should) be drawing to a close, notwithstanding geo-political events from time to time, simply because decelerating demand growth, and even demand declines, will temper the ability of oil prices to sustain themselves at lofty levels. What most people forget is that natural production declines, in the absence of capital, are in the order of 3-5%, and there is simply no way that demand for oil will remotely decline that rapidly. That means: 1) continued deployment of capital to arrest production declines, 2) the development of new sources of oil like ExxonMobil is doing offshore Guyana, and 3) only a remote possibility of stranded oil that has already been discovered and developed. 

Oil is priced at the margin, and supply is produced at the operating margin. The highest cost supplies (lowest margin) therefor will not be profitable to develop and will not be financed. Most likely new basins, e.g. Arctic oil and very deepwater oil potential will not be pursued. There is still plenty of money to be made from currently developed sources by a wide range of companies. A lot of the marginal, mostly small(er) companies will continue to disappear with resources more and more concentrated on fewer and bigger companies that have the ability to spread their risk, and survive volatility. 

P.S. I don't own any oil or gas stocks directly... only through my ex-Canada large cap ETFs.


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Thanks for that Humble. Looks like you are referring to Nectar. I wasn't aware of them.
> I'm interested in this technology and have been looking into ApisProtect.



yes, nectar. I wasn't aware of ireland's apisProtect but it's entirely possible that fiona murphy's project cross-pollinated the HEC students, who both hail from france but are studying here in canada. You just can't keep a good idea down!

when u thinggabbouddit there are probably many applications for specialized sensors in agriculture/agronomy.


----------



## Prairie Guy

NOAA cooks the books. Outright fraud?:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/


----------



## bgc_fan

Prairie Guy said:


> NOAA cooks the books. Outright fraud?:
> 
> https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/


You didn't read it did you? The blogger obviously has a lot of time on his hands to do a lot of nothing. 
At the end, his proof is based that NOAA reported a slightly higher temperature based on the fact that some of the temperature stations didn't exist back in the 1940s, or they were moved.

But here's the thing. Nothing he states actually invalidates the temperatures that NOAA is reporting.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

The blogger calculates that temperatures have been rolled back by about 3 degrees. Since we are only talking about Global Warming of .8 degrees in the last 100 years, this is significant.


----------



## bgc_fan

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The blogger calculates that temperatures have been rolled back by about 3 degrees. Since we are only talking about Global Warming of .8 degrees in the last 100 years, this is significant.


Except the blogger is making a huge leap by excluding all temperatures measured by other newer temperature stations, or older temperature registered by stations no longer in service. In other words, narrowing down the amount of measurements so he can cherry pick. In fact, in one station where there was an increase in temperature, he makes a huge show of showing how a slight location change of that monitoring station has invalidated that measurement. In other words, if the data looks inconvenient to his conclusions, he writes it off as nonsense. Again, like a lot of people on this board, he feels that if it is colder or warmer on average, that means it has to be colder or warmer everywhere.

NOAA didn't adjust the numbers. The blogger decided to cherry pick the data that was convenient to him to make his point.


----------



## james4beach

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Why doesn't the imminent rature crowd report any of this type of news?
> 
> Shell Quest carbon capture and storage project reaches milestone of 4M tonnes.


That is good news. Nice new technologies being explored. And I'm glad you brought up Shell... let's talk about them a bit.

Shell not only acknowledges climate change, and global warming, but supports a carbon tax (aka carbon pricing) as you can read about here, including directly from Shell:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...s-lawmakers-to-support-carbon-tax/?redirect=1
https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/shell-scenario-sky.html
https://www.shell.com/promos/busine...30d3b0b27bcc9ef72198f5/shell-scenario-sky.pdf

In fact, Shell is urging the Canadian energy sector to support a carbon tax as well.

Maybe it's time for the climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists to look at what this oil & gas giant is saying. Take the lead from an energy giant which is actually forward looking and forward thinking, considering their best long term interests. Shell is on board with the science and acknowledges climate change is a problem.



> “We see carbon pricing as an essential policy tool to tackle climate change and pave the way for a smooth energy transition,” a Shell spokesman said in a statement.
> 
> “Shell has long supported a strong and stable government-led carbon pricing framework,” the spokesman said. “It’s our view Government-led carbon pricing mechanisms are the lowest cost way to develop low carbon technologies for a low carbon economy.”
> ...
> Like many of its peers, Shell views a national carbon tax as a more efficient way to address climate change than piecemeal government rules.


As noted in this NY Times article: "Canada currently has one of the most ambitious carbon pricing programs in the world."

I'm proud of Canada for being an ambitious trailblazer. This is what I really admire about our government; there's actual progress being made. Despite the powerful energy lobby, which is trying to pull Canada backwards, the current government is doing the right thing. Maybe the Canadian energy sector will listen to Shell and other energy giants, and understand that carbon taxes are the correct policy decision.

One funny thing here is that global energy giants are becoming more supportive of carbon taxes, and the climate change denial is fading away. This is going to make the Canadian energy sector, and the politicians who've eagerly adopted their outdated message, look like real fools... both domestically and internationally.


----------



## sags

The green energy technology is improving swiftly, in large part because of the support of government and people who consider climate change a serious problem.

Change is sometimes forced upon us and some deal with it better than others. Often is a difficult process to convince some people.

Climate change policy will be an election issue and Canadian voters will decide which policy they prefer.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> ..........climate change is a problem..


I agree. The next ice age is approaching much faster than anticipated.

June 03, rainy and 9 degrees today, just like most days this spring after our recoed breaking cold winter.

I was so looking forward to global warming, but then the best they could muster was 0.8 degrees change. So, that didn't work out.

Now we're on our way to an ice age. Still have my heat on and did I mention it was June 03.

ltr


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> I agree. The next ice age is approaching much faster than anticipated.


No kidding, had to cover the garden plants due to a frost warning in June! Global warming my ....


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> I agree. The next ice age is approaching much faster than anticipated.
> 
> June 03, rainy and 9 degrees today, just like most days this spring after our recoed breaking cold winter.
> 
> I was so looking forward to global warming, but then the best they could muster was 0.8 degrees change. So, that didn't work out.
> 
> Now we're on our way to an ice age. Still have my heat on and did I mention it was June 03.
> 
> ltr


Not sure why the 'skeptics' insist on role-playing as dummies. I know that they get it, yet they keep reverting back to the weather=climate fallacy. The plural of anecdote is not data, etc.

Weather in the short run is driven by things like the jet stream. Just because you are on the cold side of the jet stream does not mean that it isn't hot on the other side of the jet stream. And a weakening jet stream is associated climate change, which also tends to result in more persistent/extreme weather patterns.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Not sure why the 'skeptics' insist on role-playing as dummies. I know that they get it, yet ..............


Because it's fun to poke the cultists.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

When BP and Shell agree there's climate change and are actually pushing for carbon taxes (like Canada now has), it's really a stretch to call climate change scientists cultists or nuts.

These days, the 'skepticism' and global warming denial just comes off as outdated and out of touch with reality.



> Oil companies, automakers and consumer products manufacturers will unleash a campaign for a U.S. tax on carbon dioxide emissions even though it may lead to higher prices for their product


My advice: get used to it.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> When BP and Shell agree there's climate change and are actually pushing for carbon taxes (like Canada now has)


Mostly because the greatest beneficiary is natural gas, of which BP and Shell have invested their future in.



> These days, the 'skepticism' and global warming denial just comes off as outdated and out of touch with reality.


It seems more like the countries and regions that have invested heavily into unreliable green energy continue to see expensive electricity and increasingly unreliable electricity systems, while China and the US continue their energy dominance strategy. It's really those who think the world is actually de-carbonizing that are outdated and out of touch with reality.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Not sure why the 'skeptics' insist on role-playing as dummies. I know that they get it, yet they keep reverting back to the weather=climate fallacy.


Mainly to lampoon the weather=climate examples cited by alarmists who now claim every storm, flood, drought or fire as an example of "climate change", as it these things did not exist prior to 1950.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> .....These days, the 'skepticism' and global warming denial just comes off as outdated and out of touch with reality......
> My advice: get used to it.


Accor1999 already did such a good job of saying everything I was about to cover, I'll just say that any opposing view of the "science-is-settled" is now met with rebuffs such as "role-playing as dummies" or at least complete dis-belief how anyone hasn't already jumped onto the mass hysteria alarmist's bandwagon of global warming. Sorry, science is never settled - get use to it.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Accor1999 already did such a good job of saying everything I was about to cover, I'll just say that any opposing view of the "science-is-settled" is now met with rebuffs such as "role-playing as dummies" or at least complete dis-belief how anyone hasn't already jumped onto the mass hysteria alarmist's bandwagon of global warming. Sorry, science is never settled - get use to it.
> 
> ltr


There are arguments that stand up to cursory scrutiny. "It rained yesterday" doesn't.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> There are arguments that stand up to cursory scrutiny. "It rained yesterday" doesn't.


Exactly, and this is why 137 years of weather data is meaningless. This is what climate change is hanging its hat on. Climate change has been happening for 4.5 billion years. The climate change community need not apply with their pitifully small sample size.

ltr


----------



## kcowan

Speaking of weather, Australia has recorded the coldest fall in memory with extensive snowfall warnings. The bad weather extends 1000 km up the coast and includes Sydney.


----------



## kcowan

Climate scientists have been too busy getting alarmed about CO2 emissions to have missed the return to CFC emissions that have reversed the shrinking of the antarctic hole since 2012:

China the prime suspect for the return of CFC emissions
Rogue emitters traced to NE China
Peer-reviewed paper from Nature magazine

The antarctic ozone depletion was considered a major threat to global health leading to an international agreement to ban CFCs known as The Montreal Protocol. Why has this development received so little coverage? I am sure you can guess!


----------



## sags

like_to_retire said:


> Exactly, and this is why 137 years of weather data is meaningless. This is what climate change is hanging its hat on. Climate change has been happening for 4.5 billion years. The climate change community need not apply with their pitifully small sample size.
> 
> ltr


You reject the science conclusions on the past 137 years but accept the science conclusions about 4.5 billion years ago ?

I would think it makes more sense the shorter, more recent time period would be much more accurate.


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> Climate scientists have been too busy getting alarmed about CO2 emissions to have missed the return to CFC emissions that have reversed the shrinking of the antarctic hole since 2012:
> 
> China the prime suspect for the return of CFC emissions
> Rogue emitters traced to NE China
> Peer-reviewed paper from Nature magazine
> 
> The antarctic ozone depletion was considered a major threat to global health leading to an international agreement to ban CFCs known as The Montreal Protocol. Why has this development received so little coverage? I am sure you can guess!


I agree this has been a travesty (unintended consequence) of climate change alarmists. You know the alarmists are taking cheap shots when they continue to use terms like 'climate change deniers' when in fact they know that is not true. They know full well that wise people should question and challenge looking for the truth rather than fall off cliffs into the sea. How many times do skeptics* have to repeat legitimate questioning of the degree to which man made emissions contribute to the rate of climate change? 

The alarmists may well look like fools as early as 10 years from now IF nothing much at all has changed on a global scale from a normal planetary cycle.

* Even the term skeptics is not accurate for most of us. Few are skeptical about climate change, but ARE skeptical /questioning/challenging the degree to which man contributes to climate change. The alarmists should be using terms that don't undermine their own credibility.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> You reject the science conclusions on the past 137 years but accept the science conclusions about 4.5 billion years ago ?


sags, you forgot, it was kinda cold last winter... lol.

I think an important factor that's often missed is that this is more than just observing a statistical trend. This isn't just about numbers varying over time. There is also a scientific explanation of causation:

high use of fossil fuels in last century --> high CO2 emissions --> sky high CO2 in atmosphere --> climate change

In other words, it's linked to human activity. Yes, climate varies over millions or billions of years, but what's relevant here is that human activity is causing the current changes. In particular, there's great data for CO2 levels in the atmosphere because it gets trapped in ice, so we can literally "mine" the data. As shown on NASA's page here, we now have the highest atmospheric CO2 readings in almost one million years.

Climate scientists acknowledge that other factors, like solar cycles, have some influence on climate. Those factors are all beyond our control. Human use of fossil fuels is totally within our control. Not only that, but the elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere are far beyond any historical precedent... it's just plain irresponsible to not tackle that.


----------



## sags

The climate change denier/skeptic/whatever proposition appears to be either a) or b):

a) scientists are not aware of all this information that skeptics are privy to disproving human involvement in climate change.

b) scientists are aware of it and are involved in a worldwide conspiracy to conceal it for some unknown reason.

Either way doesn't seem plausible to me.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> So the climate change denier/skeptic/whatever proposition is either a) or b):
> 
> a) scientists are not aware of all this information that skeptics are privy to disproving human involvement in climate change.
> 
> b) scientists are aware of it and are involved in a worldwide conspiracy for some unknown reason.
> 
> Either way doesn't seem plausible to me.


The thing that I don't get is that if climate change is such a critical threat, people aren't actually doing anything.
Trudeau is jetting off for weekend getaways, less wealthy people I know are buying "offsets" for the meat consumption, but talk about going vegan.

It's a whole bunch of "I won't, but you should". 
Get rid of the hypocrisy, come up with a credible plan that doesn't involve.
1. Destroying the Canadian economy and competitiveness.
2. Inexorably link the plan to socialist wealth redistribution schemes.

The reason I list those 2 are.
1. We know that the easiest and simplest way to reduce emissions is to damage the economy, the recession was great at reducing emissions.

2. If you get the left wing politics out of it, it wouldn't be so darn partisan.


I don't think there is anything wrong with being skeptical, particularly since some claims being promoted by some people have no basis in science.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> high use of fossil fuels in last century --> high CO2 emissions --> sky high CO2 in atmosphere --> climate change


That's not causation, that's weak correlation at best. Especially considering the vague description of "climate change". The reality is that the amount of climate data that we have is minuscule and even with that, there is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of extreme weather events in recent years.



> Human use of fossil fuels is totally within our control. Not only that, but the elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere are far beyond any historical precedent... it's just plain irresponsible to not tackle that.


This is real causation:

high use of fossil fuels in last century --> high CO2 emissions --> sky high CO2 in atmosphere --> high quality of life, plentiful food supplies with large population growth, far fewer deaths from climate.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

MrMatt said:


> The thing that I don't get is that if climate change is such a critical threat, people aren't actually doing anything.
> Trudeau is jetting off for weekend getaways, less wealthy people I know are buying "offsets" for the meat consumption, but talk about going vegan.
> 
> It's a whole bunch of "I won't, but you should".
> Get rid of the hypocrisy, come up with a credible plan that doesn't involve.
> 1. Destroying the Canadian economy and competitiveness.
> 2. Inexorably link the plan to socialist wealth redistribution schemes.
> 
> The reason I list those 2 are.
> 1. We know that the easiest and simplest way to reduce emissions is to damage the economy, the recession was great at reducing emissions.
> 
> 2. If you get the left wing politics out of it, it wouldn't be so darn partisan.
> 
> 
> I don't think there is anything wrong with being skeptical, particularly since some claims being promoted by some people have no basis in science.


My favorite is the 'experts' who charge $25,000 and up to give a speech screaming about how sea levels are going to rise 30 or 40 feet in the next 12 years as the polar ice caps melt - then go out and buy a $1,000,000 beach house 10 feet above sea level.


----------



## AltaRed

Sags doesn't see plausibility because he thinks the science is settled and the complex computer models are correct. Neither is true. The best models simply cannot accommodate what we don't know, nor what we don't know that we don't know. Most of the world can see the gong show for what it is, and will continue to do nothing to reduce emissions that is not in their economic interest to do so.

There are plenty of dissenting scientists within the IPCC community but they are being shut out AND the IPCC won't consider dissenting opinions in their reports. That is the stuff that conspiracies are made of.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Sags doesn't see plausibility because he thinks the science is settled and the complex computer models are correct. Neither is true. The best models simply cannot accommodate what we don't know, nor what we don't know that we don't know. Most of the world can see the gong show for what it is, and will continue to do nothing to reduce emissions that is not in their economic interest to do so.
> 
> There are plenty of dissenting scientists within the IPCC community but they are being shut out AND the IPCC won't consider dissenting opinions in their reports. That is the stuff that conspiracies are made of.


The thing is that the current "plans" are simply wealth redistribution schemes funded with a sin tax.
I oppose that.

Give me a sound environmental plan, I'm all for it.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> The climate change denier/skeptic/whatever proposition appears to be either a) or b):
> 
> a) scientists are not aware of all this information that skeptics are privy to disproving human involvement in climate change.
> 
> b) scientists are aware of it and are involved in a worldwide conspiracy to conceal it for some unknown reason.
> 
> Either way doesn't seem plausible to me.


Coldest June 4 in 55 years recorded in Ottawa today.

This just isn't working out for the alarmists. 

They so dearly want to have the headlines reading Hottest June 4 in 55 years, because then they could say, "See, we told you so, it's Global Warming".

Instead, the opposite is happening, so they have to resort to saying, "Don't be silly, that's weather you fools".

Lots of hand wringing going on....

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

An MIT scientist in Meteorology explains his doubts about Global Warming.

Seems like a reasonable guy.

ltr


----------



## sags

Complex models track hurricanes, and they can show differing paths...........but the scientists know the hurricane will end up in one of them.

Same with climate change. There are different models and one may be more accurate than another, but the scientists know all the models trend in only one direction.

Climate change is already having a large negative impact in many ways, which is recognized by governments, insurance companies and others who are responding to the effects.

The only question is how the situation will develop or if it is already too late for any human intervention to change the severity of the outcome.

We owe a duty to future generations to take whatever positive measures we can now. Ignoring a problem isn't a valid solution.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The only question is how the situation will develop or if it is already too late for any human intervention to change the severity of the outcome.
> 
> We owe a duty to future generations to take whatever positive measures we can now. Ignoring a problem isn't a valid solution.


We should take reasonable positive measures, care to suggest one, because nobody else seems to want to.


----------



## sags

I think the single most important positive measure is to elect political leaders who take climate change seriously and propose serious measures to reverse the trend.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> We should take reasonable positive measures, care to suggest one, because nobody else seems to want to.


I think we should continue to tighten emission standards for industrial production, we should continue to monitor CFC emissions because all the CO2 hullabaloo has caused the scientists to be distracted from monitoring (for six years), we should address the recycling of plastics and enforce/reward their replacement with other technologies, we should plant trees to absorb CO2.

We should not elect leaders who pander to alarmists. I think we are all being poisoned by plastic particles and that will hurt us more than CO2. We should address the disposition of unused drugs and spent batteries to prevent them entering our water supply through flushing and landfill.

We should establish standards for waste management companies to prevent our waste being improperly handled. We should do the same for industrial waste.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I think the single most important positive measure is to elect political leaders who take climate change seriously and propose serious measures to reverse the trend.


That would be nice, but that isn't what people vote for.


----------



## Prairie Guy

The Australian government will fork out $320,000 to promote global warming. Keynote speaker is well known climate liar and non scientist Al Gore.:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/0...o-conduct-climate-training-as-rare-snow-hits/

Governments around the world spend thousands/millions times more in taxpayer money to promote their global warming policies than oil companies have ever paid to deny it, yet some people still believe the "Big Oil" lie.


----------



## m3s

Prairie Guy said:


> Governments around the world spend *thousands/millions times more in taxpayer money to promote their global warming policies than oil companies have ever paid to deny it*, yet some people still believe the "Big Oil" lie.


Where's your source for that? Or are you talking out of your a$$ again?

Here's an actual study that quantifies the effects of political lobbying on climate policy enactment, suggesting that lack of climate action may be due to political influences, with lobbying lowering the probability of enacting a bill, representing $60 billion in expected climate damages. I don't think any reasonably adjusted person could argue "Big oil" lobbying is a lie

That's old news though. Nowadays big oil actually wants a carbon tax. It's wedge politics and old folks sharing fake news on facebook who don't



MrMatt said:


> That would be nice, but that isn't what people vote for.


Surveys after survey shows that will change as the old folks fade away. Gen x, y and z have differences but in general consider the environment a serious pressing issue. Palestinian and Israeli teens are coming together over climate issues. Think about that. They grew up in the information age, not the ancient fairy tale age or anti-socialist propaganda age.


----------



## Spidey

I am skeptical of the AGW hypothesis but let's say for a moment it is true. Let's use the analogy of a world debt. Canada owes 1.8% of that debt but all countries are considered responsible for the entire debt. China owes 28%, US 15%, India 6% and Russia 5%. Most of the smaller, poorer countries combined who are unable to make contributions make up another 21%. 

Over half the debt appears well out of our control. Would it make sense for Canada to aggressively pay down the debt, while other countries like China and India are borrowing like drunken sailors? It seems anything other than a global resolution where all countries are on the same playing field is pointless. And good luck getting some of the biggest emitters on board.


----------



## sags

Deniers/skeptics were partially correct when they said scientists models were fallible.

The negative consequences of climate change have arrived far earlier than was projected.

Global climate change has moved into a global climate crisis situation.


----------



## james4beach

Regarding Canada not having much impact globally (and therefore we shouldn't bother doing anything)... I think we *do* have global impact.

Canada is a highly respected country, and other countries -- even the US -- watch what we're doing. We have influence. Already, Canada has made waves by pursuing one of the most ambitious carbon pricing mechanisms among developed nations. This kind of thing makes international headlines and it has a social and political impact far beyond our borders. Other citizens elsewhere start demanding the same.

This is, in fact, global leadership and trailblazing. The New York Times and World Bank already have articles detailing Canada's carbon pricing mechanisms. And now that we have a federal carbon pricing system under the Liberals, we're going to have even more global impact... guaranteed.

Look at this World Bank report, for example. The Introduction starts with a quote from the Premier of Alberta. Both Alberta and BC feature prominently in many of the graphics showing global comparisons.

And in the regional/national breakdown of carbon initiatives, there are *twice* as many pages on Canada compared to China. Make no mistake... Canada's actions are visible and help establish public policy globally.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Regarding Canada not having much impact globally (and therefore we shouldn't bother doing anything)... I think we *do* have global impact.
> 
> Canada is a highly respected country, and other countries -- even the US -- watch what we're doing. We have influence. Already, Canada has made waves by pursuing one of the most ambitious carbon pricing mechanisms among developed nations. This kind of thing makes international headlines and it has a social and political impact far beyond our borders. Other citizens elsewhere start demanding the same.
> 
> This is, in fact, global leadership and trailblazing. The New York Times and World Bank already have articles detailing Canada's carbon pricing mechanisms. And now that we have a federal system under the Liberals, we're going to have even more global impact.
> 
> Look at this World Bank report, for example. The Introduction starts with a quote from the Premier of Alberta. Both Alberta and BC feature prominently in many of the graphics showing global comparisons.
> 
> And in the regional/national breakdown of carbon initiatives, there are a full 3 pages describing Canada, and just 1.5 pages on China. Make no mistake... Canada's actions are visible and help establish public policy globally.


Well let's show real leadershup and come up with a realistic plan that isn't just a wealth redistribution scheme.

The point with the impact is that we can take a leadership role, but that entails having followers, we shouldn't destroy our economy and global influence without accomplishing anything.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Well let's show real leadershup and come up with a realistic plan that isn't just a wealth redistribution scheme.
> 
> The point with the impact is that we can take a leadership role, but that entails having followers, we shouldn't destroy our economy and global influence without accomplishing anything.


The plan we have is quite solid. Large companies (even energy giants) and billionaires endorse carbon pricing. Even the US is coming around to carbon pricing/tax.

I like the current federal plan.


----------



## AltaRed

Getting International kudos from dysfunctional organizations does not put bread on the table. I care more about not looking like naive fools on the International scene, sacrificing our economy and standard of living to look good. There is such a thing such as being gullible and a laughingstock for those who then take advantage of us. The real world does not run on accolades. It is best to hide in the middle.

Added: I am all for reducing our carbon footprint if it is either neutral or positive for our overall economy. That is the primary criteria for me.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's show real leadershup and come up with a realistic plan that isn't just a wealth redistribution scheme.
> 
> The point with the impact is that we can take a leadership role, but that entails having followers, we shouldn't destroy our economy and global influence without accomplishing anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The plan we have is quite solid. Large companies (even energy giants) and billionaires endorse carbon pricing. Even the US is coming around to carbon pricing/tax.
> 
> I like the current federal plan.
Click to expand...

The plan is a wealth redistribution vote buying scheme. 
It also taxes Ontario and Alberta more than Quebec. 
Take out the wealth redistribution, treat all provinces equally and I might support it.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Global climate change has moved into a global climate crisis situation.


1. Global Cooling

2. Global Warming

3. Climate Change

4. Climate Emergency

5. Climate Crisis

They just keep throwing these scare tactics against the wall to see if they'll stick. Eventually, the alarmists will have to accept the natural changes that occur in this world.




m3s said:


> It's wedge politics and old folks sharing fake news on facebook



It seems that in the USA, 79% of those ages 18-29 use Facebook, while those age 65 and older clocks in at 46%.

So less than half the "old folks" bother with Facebook, but you young people seem to love it.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> Where's your source for that? Or are you talking out of your a$$ again?
> 
> Here's an actual study that quantifies the effects of political lobbying on climate policy enactment, suggesting that lack of climate action may be due to political influences, with lobbying lowering the probability of enacting a bill, representing $60 billion in expected climate damages. I don't think any reasonably adjusted person could argue "Big oil" lobbying is a lie...


I said taxpayer money spent...not just the official lobby funding. The government doesn't lobby itself. If you have to misrepresent what I said to try to prove your point, then you don't have a point.

It looks like you're the one that is talking out of their a$$


----------



## Prairie Guy

Possibly the dumbest politician in the US (Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - Democrat) recently stated that climate change requires $10 trillion dollars to "have a shot" to fix the climate. She has no scientific background, and never quoted a scientific source, but she wants $10 trillion to maybe fix the climate.

Of course, she has given no viable solutions that would work other than demanding $10 trillion dollars. It used to be that people in the media would ask basic questions when a politician said that taxpayers needed to ante up $10 trillion dollars, but those days are long gone.

Just by questioning her credentials and logic, I will probably be called a denier by some on this forum.


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> It seems that in the USA, 79% of those ages 18-29 use Facebook, while those age 65 and older clocks in at 46%.
> 
> So less than half the "old folks" bother with Facebook, but you young people seem to love it.


And how many lie about their age on facebook? My guess 37% ....


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> And how many lie about their age on facebook? My guess 37% ....


No idea, I've never had a Facebook account. I understand it's a source of fake news.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Well let's show real leadershup and come up with a realistic plan that isn't just a wealth redistribution scheme.
> 
> The point with the impact is that we can take a leadership role, but that entails having followers, we shouldn't destroy our economy and global influence without accomplishing anything.


The income redistribution complaint is a bit weak. If you were so upset about it, you should lobby to reduce HST rebates and child benefits and basic personal exemption. If not, you are just using this as a talking point.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Getting International kudos from dysfunctional organizations does not put bread on the table. I care more about not looking like naive fools on the International scene, sacrificing our economy and standard of living to look good. There is such a thing such as being gullible and a laughingstock for those who then take advantage of us. The real world does not run on accolades. It is best to hide in the middle.
> 
> Added: I am all for reducing our carbon footprint if it is either neutral or positive for our overall economy. That is the primary criteria for me.


Any credible evidence that current carbon pricing policy will 'sacrifice the economy', except in the narrowest of senses (needing a magnifying glass to detect the impact)?


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> 1. Global Cooling
> 
> 2. Global Warming
> 
> 3. Climate Change
> 
> 4. Climate Emergency
> 
> 5. Climate Crisis
> 
> They just keep throwing these scare tactics against the wall to see if they'll stick. Eventually, the alarmists will have to accept the natural changes that occur in this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in the USA, 79% of those ages 18-29 use Facebook, while those age 65 and older clocks in at 46%.
> 
> So less than half the "old folks" bother with Facebook, but you young people seem to love it.
> 
> ltr


I do feel like older folks disproportionately get sucked into the 'chain letter' corner of facebook. Then there is FOX (Faux) News. The *median *age of fox viewers is 65.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Any credible evidence that current carbon pricing policy will 'sacrifice the economy', except in the narrowest of senses (needing a magnifying glass to detect the impact)?


It's called death of a thousand cuts. When business adds up all their 'costs' and see that it is significantly worse than the other side of the border. capital moves. It's a combination of higher energy costs (mostly an Ontario screw up to date), increased employer CPP contributions, dual language requirements, etc. Carbon taxes are another cost burden. Small business has no choice but to suck it up, but big business moves, and especially multi-nationals. Other than the West Coast LNG project, pretty much everyone else in the process of leaving, or has already 'left', and even Bombardier is looking to unload the CRJ program due to an inability to compete. Pretty much every other Canadian company with International operations is spending its capital elsewhere.

JT already knows that given the degree of carbon tax credits Finance are having to give back to energy intensive industries to avoid an implosion. It seems pretty obvious.


----------



## andrewf

^ Kind of hand-wavy? Or, a rather general critique of government. One wonders what you would have said about Stephen Harper's professed belief in the need for command-and-control industry by industry regulation of carbon emissions.


----------



## AltaRed

Throw whatever label you want at it. It doesn't change the reality that the carbon tax just adds to the headwinds on our economy. Y'all need to give your heads a shake and become more pragmatic about your idealism because all this shite is going to have an increasing impact on economic growth. 

My most recent monthly gas bill has a charge of $9.14 for the 'cost of gas', $11.72 for carbon tax and another $0.22 for a Clean Energy levy (whatever the hell that is). All that money has been diverted by the "Larry and Larry" show in Victoria to NDP spending programs. Imagine our lumber mills trying to make money in a terrible softwood lumber market paying absurd energy bills like that. Almost every mill has reduced their operations by one shift, if not two shifts and a few have closed altogether in the past 2 months. Meanwhile, these same companies are buying up operations in the US instead. Obviously times are tough in the lumber industry with higher costs of sourcing logs, along with depressed finished lumber prices, but add carbon taxes, additional CPP premiums and all that other stuff.... and well there you have it. Reduced operations and closed mills in favour of US operations.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Throw whatever label you want at it. It doesn't change the reality that the carbon tax just adds to the headwinds on our economy. Y'all need to give your heads a shake and become more pragmatic about your idealism because all this shite is going to have an increasing impact on economic growth.
> 
> My most recent monthly gas bill has a charge of $9.14 for the 'cost of gas', $11.72 for carbon tax and another $0.22 for a Clean Energy levy (whatever the hell that is). All that money has been diverted by the "Larry and Larry" show in Victoria to NDP spending programs. Imagine our lumber mills trying to make money in a terrible softwood lumber market paying absurd energy bills like that. Almost every mill has reduced their operations by one shift, if not two shifts and a few have closed altogether in the past 2 months. Meanwhile, these same companies are buying up operations in the US instead. Obviously times are tough in the lumber industry with higher costs of sourcing logs, along with depressed finished lumber prices, but add carbon taxes, additional CPP premiums and all that other stuff.... and well there you have it. Reduced operations and closed mills in favour of US operations.


If they were serious, they'd add a carbon tax, and use it to reduce other taxes, rather than just add it on top.
As far as the wealth redistribution plan, I'm a very strong advocate for increasing the basic personal deduction.
If you're making less than the living wage, you shouldn't have to pay income tax.

As this article says, we have tax and spend Liberals.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-taxes-harper-budget-1.5164976

Tax revenue as a share of GDP has increased by more than 10%!
The Liberals have no interest in the environment, they're just taxing so they can try to get enough handouts to win the next election.


----------



## lonewolf :)

kcowan said:


> Speaking of weather, Australia has recorded the coldest fall in memory with extensive snowfall warnings. The bad weather extends 1000 km up the coast and includes Sydney.


 Perfect timing for Al Gores speech. Will the Australians trust in their own eyes or Al Gore.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> My most recent monthly gas bill has a charge of $9.14 for the 'cost of gas', $11.72 for carbon tax and another $0.22 for a Clean Energy levy (whatever the hell that is). All that money has been diverted by the "Larry and Larry" show in Victoria to NDP spending programs.


I think this captures my basic concern. NDP and Liberal governments are all about carbon tax and any other tax they can get away with. Yet we see container loads of trash being sent back from overseas. Who are these people that vote in such tax and spend governments who don't attend to basic issues of uncontrolled trash. They impose fines on cruise ships for show (because they never paid the last fine). All for show and not for go.

Yet the sheeple willingly vote for them because of man-made climate change. Give me a break!


----------



## sags

Alberta is having more wildfires and BC has raised the drought level. Saskatchewan relies heavily on established weather patterns to grow their grain crops.

It seems odd to me that westerners would not recognize climate change as a bigger problem for them than much of the rest of Canada.

Perhaps it is the media coverage. Around here there are often local stories about farmers dealing with climate change induced problems.

The skeptics don't acknowledge the effect climate change is having on the migration of invasive species of plants and insects, the release of methane gas in the Arctic tundra, diseases in agriculture and an assortment of other growing problems that are becoming more evident.

Those people who believe a temperature rise of a few degrees is nothing to worry about, don't understand the complexity involved in nature's biosphere.

Entire crops of western grains would be threatened if the life cycle of locusts and grasshoppers changes to provide them with more reproductive capacity.

As was illustrated by a grocery chain, without bees and butterflies the shelves in their stores would be empty.

Climate change concerns go well beyond rising sea levels and warmer weather. 

If carbon taxes are not doing enough to address climate change we should do more........not less.


----------



## like_to_retire

kcowan said:


> I think this captures my basic concern. NDP and Liberal governments are all about carbon tax and any other tax they can get away with. Yet we see container loads of trash being sent back from overseas. Who are these people that vote in such tax and spend governments who don't attend to basic issues of uncontrolled trash. They impose fines on cruise ships for show (because they never paid the last fine). All for show and not for go.
> 
> Yet the sheeple willingly vote for them because of man-made climate change. Give me a break!


Even if you finally convince the "sheeple" to vote for sensible and fiscally responsible governments, it only lasts as long until that government makes its first cut. Then these people realize they don't want to live within their means and they would rather future generations pay for their foolishness. Perfect example in Ottawa where the delusional are out in full protest against Doug Ford who is doing exactly what he said he would do before he was elected as Premier of Ontario. These protestors can't believe that he cut their festival funding. They are outraged that the festivals are going to have to start charging money for events that had previously been free. 

Yep, the Conservative governments don't last long once the socialists realize the government is serious about living within its means.

ltr


----------



## sags

_ Perfect example in Ottawa where the delusional are out in full protest against Doug Ford who is doing exactly what he said he would do before he was elected as Premier of Ontario. _

People are protesting because Doug Ford is doing exactly what he said he "wouldn't do". His election campaign pledge was to balance the budget without any cuts to services or job losses.

If Ford had run his campaign on cutting funding to healthcare, education and other services he would never have been elected. 

Ford ran a dishonest campaign and his poll numbers reflect how voters feel about that.

Ford's historic low poll ratings are effecting the federal PCs chances to win the seats in Ontario they need to win the fall election.

What Doug Ford has cut in his first year as Premier of Ontario.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...oug-ford-government-cut-its-first-year-office


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> People are protesting because Doug Ford is doing exactly what he said he "wouldn't do". His election campaign pledge was to balance the budget without any cuts to services or job losses.
> 
> If Ford had run his campaign on cutting funding to healthcare, education and other services he would never have been elected.


And isn't it a shame when telling the truth about what is required to save Ontario would result in never getting elected. 

You can't handle the truth.

ltr


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer still has no climate change plan, except to say he will cancel the carbon tax and not implement any government mandated solutions.

He does promote increased production of fossil fuels into the future by proposing pipeline development in a newly created energy corridor.

Scheer and the PC party are completely out of tune with voters on yet another important issue.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Scheer and the PC party are completely out of tune with voters on yet another important issue.


No one said sensible people were in the majority. That's why socialists keep winning elections.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Alberta is having more wildfires and BC has raised the drought level. Saskatchewan relies heavily on established weather patterns to grow their grain crops.
> 
> It seems odd to me that westerners would not recognize climate change as a bigger problem for them than much of the rest of Canada.
> 
> Perhaps it is the media coverage. Around here there are often local stories about farmers dealing with climate change induced problems.
> 
> The skeptics don't acknowledge the effect climate change is having on the migration of invasive species of plants and insects, the release of methane gas in the Arctic tundra, diseases in agriculture and an assortment of other growing problems that are becoming more evident.
> 
> Those people who believe a temperature rise of a few degrees is nothing to worry about, don't understand the complexity involved in nature's biosphere.
> 
> Entire crops of western grains would be threatened if the life cycle of locusts and grasshoppers changes to provide them with more reproductive capacity.
> 
> As was illustrated by a grocery chain, without bees and butterflies the shelves in their stores would be empty.
> 
> Climate change concerns go well beyond rising sea levels and warmer weather.
> 
> If carbon taxes are not doing enough to address climate change we should do more........not less.


When someone provides a real proposal, I'd be glad to listen.
If it's simply an excuse to raise taxes, no. I want REAL ACTION.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> And isn't it a shame when telling the truth about what is required to save Ontario would result in never getting elected.
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
> 
> ltr


Endorsement for lying? I thought Dougie is doing what he said he would do?


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Endorsement for lying? I thought Dougie is doing what he said he would do?


He is, but of course the cuts are far greater than he said in his campaign. He had to hold that back. You do what's required to get elected when you're dealing with socialists.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> He is, but of course the cuts are far greater than he said in his campaign. He had to hold that back. You do what's required to get elected when you're dealing with socialists.
> 
> ltr


He promised big cuts, and hasn't delivered.
He got rid of a few big vote buying political props, and he's making small trims in a variety of programs.
He's trying to clean out the convoluted bureaucracy, which has the unions fuming. They'll pull out all the stops to try and keep their cushy overpaid jobs.

But he hasn't really cut as much as he should. I thought all his talk about really caring was typical political BS like we get from the Liberals, but since he's moving so slow I actually think he does care.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> He is, but of course the cuts are far greater than he said in his campaign. He had to hold that back. You do what's required to get elected when you're dealing with socialists.
> 
> ltr


Integrity for sale.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Integrity for sale.


Well going slower and being more careful about how he adjust things isn't a lack of integrity. 
As much as Ford supporters want more, faster, deeper, if he doesn't keep people happy enough they'll vote Trudeau back in, and all his work will be wasted, because Trudeau has shown he has no qualms ignoring provincial jurisdiction anyway.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Alberta is having more wildfires


Alberta always has periods of large fires. This is a graph of hectares burned in Alberta that I created using data from https://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/historical-data/historical-wildfire-database.aspx










The data doesn't even include the giant (but unknown) Chinchaga fire of 1950, which may have been the largest known fire in North American history at 1.4M-1.7M hectares.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinchaga_fire

The main difference seems to be the larger fires in the past may have burned off more material so that there were longer periods of low fire activity. But with more people living in the danger areas, fires can't be left to burn normally as they would in the past.



> The skeptics don't acknowledge the effect climate change is having on the migration of invasive species of plants and insects,


Which mostly comes from critters and seeds hitching rides on human vehicles, or traveling along human created transportation corridors. 



> the release of methane gas in the Arctic tundra,


The clathrate gun hypothesis remains a weak theory with no compelling evidence such a runaway event could happen, and given the many cycles of warming that has occurred on the Earth where such a thing didn't occur, it probably can't occur.



> diseases in agriculture


Things that have existed since the dawn of agriculture. Just that humans keep on winning, hence the continual rise of agricultural production, especially in recent years, perhaps even thanks to CO2 greening of the Earth.



> Those people who believe a temperature rise of a few degrees is nothing to worry about, don't understand the complexity involved in nature's biosphere.


Those people who believe a temperature rise of a few degrees is *something* to worry about, don't understand the complexity involved in nature's biosphere.

And why do alarmists consider 1850 conditions to be the Garden of Eden?



> As was illustrated by a grocery chain, without bees and butterflies the shelves in their stores would be empty.


Lack of oil is the only thing that will make their stores empty.


----------



## like_to_retire

accord1999 said:


> Alberta always has periods of large fires. This is a graph......


Very interesting accord1999.

Thanks for the actual research, and the actual data to refute the standard alarmist climate emergency claptrap.

ltr


----------



## sags

It is the frequency and intensity of the fires that are related to climate change and wildfire experts expect the trend to continue to worsen.

https://climateatlas.ca/forest-fires-and-climate-change

Methane gas is being released from the frozen tundra. Nobody knows if there will be a massive release of methane that would be catastrophic, which isn't all that comforting.

Methane gas isn't the only concern scientists have about the melting tundra. They worry about pathogens and viruses for which modern humans have no built up immunity.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/...t-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

Invasive species move by various means, but they only survive in hospitable environments, which climate change is creating in areas where they wouldn't previously survive.

http://climateontario.ca/doc/factsheets/AQUATIC_INVASIVE_FACTSHEET-FINAL.pdf

In order to be a climate change skeptic it is an intellectual requirement to suspend belief in this area of science, while accepting science in most other areas.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> In order to be a climate change skeptic it is an intellectual requirement to suspend belief in this area of science, while accepting science in most other areas.


Who came up with this statement?


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> Who came up with this statement?


It's made up stuff - labeling mostly which is incorrect in itself. The climate is always changing and anyone who has a heart beat knows climate continuously changes.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Yet another scientist being outed for daring to question the mob.

https://business.financialpost.com/...using-extreme-weather-so-politicians-attacked


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> It is the frequency and intensity of the fires that are related to climate change and wildfire experts expect the trend to continue to worsen.


Will it get to be as bad as it was in the early 20th Century (before significant human interference good or bad)? By comparison, for 2018, 8.8M acres burned in the US.










https://www.nifc.gov/PIO_bb/Policy/FederalWildlandFireManagementPolicy_2001.pdf page 6



> In order to be a climate change skeptic it is an intellectual requirement to suspend belief in this area of science, while accepting science in most other areas.


What's wrong with that? Science is not some monolithic, homogeneous entity where every part is of equal skill and infallible. There's a well-known crisis in science called the Replication Crisis, in which experiments from many published papers cannot be reproduced. That's science, a lot of it is just statistical fluke that disappears once you investigate it further, or simply junk that will be forgotten in the future, like the aether of the pre-Einstein era of physics.

It's much easier to believe in Science that makes specific testable predictions, rather than a science that claims CO2 is the main cause of hotter temperatures, colder temperatures, more storms, fewer storms, more precipitation, less precipitation, etc..

In fact, isn't your statement more true of a religion?


----------



## sags

There is a reason 97% of climate experts agree that human activity in causing the rise in global temperatures.

The data clearly shows there are no other causes as significant as the release of greenhouse gases.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> There is a reason 97% of climate experts agree that human activity in causing the rise in global temperatures.
> 
> The data clearly shows there are no other causes as significant as the release of greenhouse gases.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/


There is, if you say anything anti climate change, you're a pariah. 
At one point the consensus was the world is flat, science isn't a democracy, popularity doesn't mean it's right.


But the more important point, that everyone is forgetting, what can we do? 
Do we have a leader that will do anything?
Will they do it in a responsible manner?


----------



## AltaRed

Plus the 97% has been taken way out of context on a regular basis. Almost everyone agrees human activity increases GHG, but there is little consensus on how much humans contribute, and little consensus on the degree of impact. Those who keep throwing out the 97% consensus without context and qualification are really just ideologues without credibility.


----------



## sags

Over 30 degrees inside the Arctic Circle in Russia and Finland. It is the warmest temperature on record. 

In January 2019, it was -38.9 degrees Celsius.......the coldest temperature on record.

India just had temperatures of over 50 degrees Celsius and the heat wave continues at 45 degrees Celsius.

These types of erratic weather record setting events are an accelerating trend.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Over 30 degrees inside the Arctic Circle in Russia and Finland. It is the warmest temperature on record.
> 
> In January 2019, it was -38.9 degrees Celsius.......the coldest temperature on record.
> 
> India just had temperatures of over 50 degrees Celsius and the heat wave continues at 45 degrees Celsius.
> 
> These types of erratic weather record setting events are an accelerating trend.


And you realize that we only have 137 years of weather records in 4.5 billion years that the earth has been around. That's the head of a pin. There isn't enough data to be making any bold claims about coldest or hottest days on record.

ltr


----------



## Spidey

I believe the claim to have accurate climate data since 1880 to be false if we are speaking globally rather than regionally. Until 1920 almost all of the good climate data came from the US, supplemented with a small amount of data from Europe and a little bit from Australia. In 1940 there were only a couple of climate stations in South America, there was almost no coverage in Africa and still only sparse coverage over Europe and Asia. From what I understand, there was almost no plotted ocean data until 1950- which would make sense if there was only sparse coverage of land data in 1940. 

So we may only have had reasonably good data, when speaking from a global perspective, since somewhere in the mid 1900s. With such a short time frame it is no surprise that we are frequently breaking records in both directions.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Plus the 97% has been taken way out of context on a regular basis. Almost everyone agrees human activity increases GHG, but there is little consensus on how much humans contribute, and little consensus on the degree of impact. Those who keep throwing out the 97% consensus without context and qualification are really just ideologues without credibility.


That doesn't matter, it's a convenient excuse to hike taxes, grow the government and take more control of peoples lives.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

MrMatt said:


> That doesn't matter, it's a convenient excuse to hike taxes, grow the government and take more control of peoples lives.


Agreed. 

I have little doubt that humans are having a negative effect on the climate (heating homes and fuelling up vehicles is just scratching the surface, but its the easiest to tax). I also have no doubt that a carbon tax in Canada will have no measurable effect on the climate, but will harm the economy and quality of life. 

Oil is a globally traded commodity and demand for it is still increasing. So lets say gas gets to 4.00 per litre, after all that is the ultimate purpose of this tax, to make energy unaffordable for Canadians. Oil and natural gas use has now been cut by 50% in Canada, everybody just stays at home because they can't afford to have fun and burns firewood to heat their houses, if they're lucky. This amazing decrease in demand has now lowered the price of oil on the global market, other countries and emerging economies snatch up this abundantly cheap energy and burn it for themselves. This miraculous 0.5% global decrease in GHG emissions Canada saved, is being emitted by any of the other 194 countries instead. Where is the benefit?


----------



## sags

There is one irrefutable data point collected from the time of first life on the planet. We are still here.

Our presence is conclusive evidence that no life extinction level climate change has occurred in the past.

That is not to say such an event won't occur in the future, which is what many scientists are concerned the trend is heading towards.


----------



## AltaRed

By we, I assume you mean **** sapiens. There are plenty of planetary events that have resulted in mass extinctions over hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years. **** sapiens are simply recent arrivals of some 300,000 years ago and we will disappear as surely as we evolved from our ancestors. So I don't see your point at all. If the planet continues to go through its warm/cold normal cycles, we will either fully disappear or start again as a small group(s) from South African caves or facsimiles thereof.

Added: **** sapiens evolved out of the 100,000 year cycles within the latest of the 5 ice ages, the Quarternary, which started about 2.6 million years ago, and the approximate beginning of **** erectus. We are still in the Quarternary glacial period. https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html and also https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-glaciation-timeline.html


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> There is one irrefutable data point collected from the time of first life on the planet. We are still here.
> 
> Our presence is conclusive evidence that no life extinction level climate change has occurred in the past.


Humans were not around during several well documented past extinctions.


----------



## AltaRed

And also were when many last ice age mammals disappeared. Just like the polar bear is destined to disappear whether we like it or not. What part of these natural evolutions do alarmists not understand? Nothing has ever stood still on this planet.


----------



## AltaRed

We humans are doing more damage to our planet with all of our structures, infrastructure, landfills, effluents, plastics and toxic chemicals than we ever will with GHG....which is actually a natural occurrence in our planetary cycle. It is a travesty travelling this planet and seeing our footprint we leave behind. Global warming should be the least of our worries.


----------



## MrMatt

https://business.financialpost.com/...using-extreme-weather-so-politicians-attacked

"There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves."

Lets see, the scientific consensus is you can't blame the increase in extreme weather, and more heat waves on climate change, because they're simply not happening.
It's just media manipulation.

The problem is when political leaders exaggerate the science, or outright lie for their own gain, people distrust the system.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Nothing has ever stood still on this planet.


Even the killer whales that used to feed in the Straight are coming into Burrard Inlet in search of harbour seals. They have even been spotted up Indian Arm.


----------



## Prairie Guy

MrMatt said:


> The problem is when political leaders exaggerate the science, or outright lie for their own gain, people distrust the system.


They get a lot of help from the useful idiots who believe everything they're told and vote them right back into office. Even the dumbest politician won't back a cause that has no public support.

I don't care if some people want to spend half of their income to remove 1 molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere, but I do get upset when they demand that everyone else fund their delusion.


----------



## kcowan

Prairie Guy said:


> I don't care if some people want to spend half of their income to remove 1 molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere, but I do get upset when they demand that everyone else fund their delusion.


The problem is that most of the alarmists want to spend your money not theirs.

Even Suzuki does not give up his two expensive homes and his private island for the cause. He preaches for others to give up stuff w/o setting an example. He is not as bad as Gore. That is the best I can say about him.


----------



## sags

kcowan said:


> Even the killer whales that used to feed in the Straight are coming into Burrard Inlet in search of harbour seals. They have even been spotted up Indian Arm.


As the sea water gets warmer, the biomass of the oceans decreases. A 1 degree increase in water temperature reduces marine life by 5%.

This already has implications on fishing for food sources, which are expected to increase. It is an example of how a small change in temperature upsets the balance of nature.

_University of Georgia marine biologist Samantha Joye, who wasn't part of the research, praised the study as meticulous and said it is also "an urgent call for action."

"Healthy oceans are required for planetary stability," Joye said in an email. "Aggressive global action to slow climate change is a moral imperative."_

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-ocean-biomass-study-1.5171104


----------



## sags

My grandfather built a cottage on an island south of Sudbury in the 1950s.

As a young lad, it was my task to catch perch minnows through the day and use them as bait to catch pickerel at dusk. We had frequent fresh fish dinners.

For years we enjoyed the good fishing and then it abruptly came to an end. Divers discovered there were few fish in the lake and large waterway system.

It was caused by the pollution drifting down from Sudbury. If I recall they called it "acid rain". After the pollution was stopped, the lakes were restocked and have recovered fully.

It is an example of how we can identify and stop pollution for a positive outcome.


----------



## AltaRed

Indeed, these are the 'pollution' issues that can be identified, planned and executed to perfection. They are regional in size, can be easily defined with quantitative measurement, solutions identified and progress quantitatively measured. There are hundreds of these 'problems' on our planet today that can be tackled in similar ways. 

One that has momentum today is single use plastics. While the problem is global in scale, each source of pollution is local in nature and could easily be managed and progress measured on a municipal, provincial/state/oblast/governorate or federal basis.


----------



## peterk

AltaRed said:


> Indeed, these are the 'pollution' issues that can be identified, planned and executed to perfection. They are regional in size, can be easily defined with quantitative measurement, solutions identified and progress quantitatively measured. There are hundreds of these 'problems' on our planet today that can be tackled in similar ways.
> 
> One that has momentum today is single use plastics. While the problem is global in scale, each source of pollution is local in nature and could easily be managed and progress measured on a municipal, provincial/state/*oblast*/governorate or federal basis.


Aha! You slipped up, comrade - Collusion! - Now tell us, just _how much_ are the Russians paying you, Alta*RED*, to spread this disinformation among the Canadian electorate?


----------



## AltaRed

Haha! I am all for tackling REAL problems that can be well defined, pursued and progress measured. It is pretty criminal the amount of plastic one finds almost everywhere.

P.S. The Russians have huge environmental messes so they don't get a free pass.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> As the sea water gets warmer, the biomass of the oceans decreases. A 1 degree increase in water temperature reduces marine life by 5%.
> 
> This already has implications on fishing for food sources, which are expected to increase. It is an example of how a small change in temperature upsets the balance of nature.
> 
> _University of Georgia marine biologist Samantha Joye, who wasn't part of the research, praised the study as meticulous and said it is also "an urgent call for action."
> 
> "Healthy oceans are required for planetary stability," Joye said in an email. "Aggressive global action to slow climate change is a moral imperative."_
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-ocean-biomass-study-1.5171104


"This study uses six different state-of-the-art computer models that give the best big picture look yet, Cheung said."

So now we have brand new computer models and we're supposed to believe them when all of the other ones were wrong...and all in the same direction? Hey...we were wrong before but we're right now. I promise!! :biggrin:


----------



## Mukhang pera

sags said:


> My grandfather built a cottage on an island south of Sudbury in the 1950s.
> 
> As a young lad, it was my task to catch perch minnows through the day and use them as bait to catch pickerel at dusk. We had frequent fresh fish dinners.
> 
> For years we enjoyed the good fishing and then it abruptly came to an end. Divers discovered there were few fish in the lake and large waterway system.
> 
> It was caused by the pollution drifting down from Sudbury. If I recall they called it "acid rain". After the pollution was stopped, the lakes were restocked and have recovered fully.
> 
> It is an example of how we can identify and stop pollution for a positive outcome.


I recall spending a summer on Long Lake near Sudbury. Many wondered about how such a large lake, that looked like it should be a productive fishing lake, seemed to have no fish in it. The term "acid rain" was not in common parlance back then and it was a phenomenon not well understood, at least not by ordinary folk.


----------



## AltaRed

Mukhang pera said:


> I recall spending a summer on Long Lake near Sudbury. Many wondered about how such a large lake, that looked like it should be a productive fishing lake, seemed to have no fish in it. The term "acid rain" was not in common parlance back then and it was a phenomenon not well understood, at least not by ordinary folk.


No, but the USA and Canada got together on how to solve that particular 'regional' problem. IMO, real time and effort should be spent on pollution mitigation on things we can see, feel, and measure quantitatively, and do something about on a positive cost benefit basis. CO2 increases in our atmosphere is not one of them.... beyond doing the obvious, e.g. retiring coal fired generating plants and stationary electrification where it makes sense, e.g. wider use of heat pumps IF the generated electricity is not coal fired


----------



## Prairie Guy

Good news. Massive plant growth and yield from higher CO2 and warmer temps has been scientifically proven:

"This study investigated the effects of elevated temperature alone and in combination with CO2 enrichment on grain yield and quality of soybean (Glycine max) and maize (Zea mays) grown in a Mollisol over five-year growing seasons. Plants were grown in open-top chambers with the ambient control, 2.1 °C increase in air temperature (eT) and eT together with 700 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration (eTeCO2). While eTeCO2 but not eT increased the mean grain yield of soybean by 31%, eTeCO2 and eT increased the yield of maize similarly by around 25% compared to the ambient control."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30802656


----------



## Mukhang pera

Prairie Guy said:


> Good news. Massive plant growth and yield from higher CO2 and warmer temps has been scientifically proven:


Good news indeed. 

We have mostly paved over the fertile lands of places like the golden horsehoe, Fraser Valley, etc. When I first saw the Fraser River Delta lands known as Richmond BC, it was mostly farms. Heureusement, that blot on the landscape has been dispatched. So Canada's north will have to become the new agricultural frontier. Golden Horsehoe II might be the land surrounding James Bay. And it's time we lost that nasty permafrost. Studies have shown that rice does not produce well in permafrost. Although, in the fullness of time, with sufficient genetic engineering, who knows? The word "ice" is already incorporated in the name "rice", so that could be a harbinger of good things to come. And rising sea levels are a blessing for sure. More room to store discarded plastics.


----------



## sags

The CBC is running a series on climate change.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-editor-note-1.5175490

Recent polling shows that climate change will be a major issue during the October Federal election.

The Liberal plan involves carbon taxes, support alternative energy and cutting future emissions.

The Green plan is to prohibit any further development or production anywhere.

The NDP plan is to declare “an environment and climate emergency” as well as pledge to cut emissions more deeply, eliminate government aid to the fossil-fuel industry and cancel the planned expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The PC plan is to be announced but it will not be mandated by the government......according to PC leader Andrew Scheer.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The CBC is running a series on climate change.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-editor-note-1.5175490


Who cares? It will be entirely one sided and devoid of facts. Enjoy the taxpayer funded propaganda.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> The Liberal plan involves carbon taxes, support alternative energy and cutting future emissions.
> 
> The Green plan is to prohibit any further development or production anywhere.
> 
> The NDP plan is to declare “an environment and climate emergency” as well as pledge to cut emissions more deeply, eliminate government aid to the fossil-fuel industry and cancel the planned expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
> 
> The PC plan is to be announced but it will not be mandated by the government......according to PC leader Andrew Scheer.


That PC plan gets my vote then.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

Prairie Guy said:


> Who cares? It will be entirely one sided and devoid of facts. Enjoy the taxpayer funded propaganda.


I think a person should care about shallow and biased reporting typically done by CBC but not much one can do about 'righting wrongs' for an objective balanced view. One can already tell from Sag's link that Canadians will be snowed into thinking what they do will make one iota of difference in the global scale of things. I will speculate the biggest tragedy will likely be encouraging Canadians to believe major change by Canadians will change the pattern of change in the Arctic. Nothing is further from the truth of course.


----------



## sags

Thousands of Canadians are in danger of having their homes deemed unable to insure due to high risk of climate change related damage.

_It's one thing to hear the concerns of those who have suffered catastrophic losses, or even environmental researchers who have been warning this is where we're headed. It's another thing entirely to hear the CEO of one of Canada's biggest insurance companies call climate change an "existential" threat.

"Climate change is massive, because we protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast," said Charles Brindamour, CEO of Intact Insurance. He said his company protects "one in five Canadians." After seeing a "five- to six-fold increase" in natural disasters worldwide over the last three decades, Brindamour knew the industry had to adapt.

"We had to totally reshape our business model to make sure we had a sustainable business in the context of massive changes in weather patterns."_

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/it...ge-is-making-some-homes-uninsurable-1.5173697


----------



## sags

How is climate change affecting Canada today, (latest data, graphs and science available)?

https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/inourbackyard/index.html


----------



## sags

like_to_retire said:


> That PC plan gets my vote then.
> 
> ltr


Andrew Scheer should be congratulated if he clings to his ideology even if it returns the Liberals to a majority government. It is the right thing to do.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> How is climate change affecting Canada today, (latest data, graphs and science available)?
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/inourbackyard/index.html


That is exactly the kind of sensationalist, incomplete and biased journalism one would expect from the CBC.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> After seeing a "five- to six-fold increase" in natural disasters worldwide over the last three decades,


Thanks to a 5-6 fold increase in global GDP.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Thousands of Canadians are in danger of having their homes deemed unable to insure due to high risk of climate change related damage.


CBC fake news. Lets build our houses on a flood plain and blame climate change if there's a problem. It's a climate emergency - run for your lives!

They sure glossed over the part where they wrote: _"urbanization with the runoff issues, and you've got bad infrastructure that wasn't right when they built it," he says. "And it all ends up with water in people's basements and hundreds and hundreds of homes getting flooded."_....... yeah, that's not a climate emergency, that's simple stupidity.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

And more outright lies from the media. CBC would be proud:

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-seattle-times-story-on-massive-heat.html


----------



## Spidey

Its an easy game to play when climate change can do everything. Unusual heat - climate change. Forest fire - climate change. Flooding due to an exceptionally cold winter with a record amount of snow - climate change.

Meanwhile much of our region has experienced the coldest spring on record and June so far has been experiencing sub average temperatures. Let me guess - more climate change. Sigh . . . . .


----------



## like_to_retire

Spidey said:


> Its an easy game to play when climate change can do everything. Unusual heat - climate change. Forest fire - climate change. Flooding due to an exceptionally cold winter with a record amount of snow - climate change.
> 
> Meanwhile much of our region has experienced the coldest spring on record and June so far has been experiencing sub average temperatures. Let me guess - more climate change. Sigh . . . . .


And it's an absolutely brilliant plan. 

If you can attribute everything that happens, either good or bad to a single claim, you're golden. The masses aren't that bright, so you need a single bad guy to blame.

They've got the media on their side, and the government obviously loves it, since they can now put a tax on what they like to call carbon (which doesn't exist, because it's actually a trace gas of CO2).

The sheep are all falling in line.

ltr


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> That is exactly the kind of sensationalist, incomplete and biased journalism one would expect from the CBC.


The continuation of the Trudeau Pravda Campaign thanks to $600 million of our tax dollars. Disgusting.

The gullible will get what they deserve!


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Andrew Scheer should be congratulated if he clings to his ideology even if it returns the Liberals to a majority government. It is the right thing to do.


You're only saying that because you want a Liberal majority.

Andrew Scheer should act with integrity, but do enough to get elected.

It's all about compromise, and if you have to have some climate plan to get elected, get some climate plan and get elected. 

Heck if they simply cancelled the carbon tax rebate and used that money to raise the personal deduction I'd see that as a step forward. 

Rasing the basic deduction so that minimum wage earners don't pay income tax would be great, and I expect would have decent support among conservatives.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> Rasing the basic deduction so that minimum wage earners don't pay income tax would be great, and I expect would have decent support among conservatives.


Yes and enhance GIS for the SAHMs. Use some of the 15 billion(?) that would otherwise be spent on Universal Pharmacare. Agree to negotiate drug prices nationally without gouging tax-payers with another social program albatross!


----------



## sags

Greenland glacial ice melting away.









Predictions are for a record amount of melting ice this year.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/health/greenland-ice-sheet-intl-hnk/index.html


----------



## Prairie Guy

https://www.cultwatch.com/how-to-leave-recover.html


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> Greenland glacial ice melting away.
> 
> View attachment 19458
> 
> 
> Predictions are for a record amount of melting ice this year.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/health/greenland-ice-sheet-intl-hnk/index.html


None of this should be a concern since it is the continuation of the trailing end of the last ice age and a continued warming of the planet that will come next. IOW, it should be expected. It is also known that a warming of the planet, both in the oceans and the atmosphere should result in a more intense precipitation cycle. Summer rains in Greenland should be expected to increase, and so might winter snowfall. It's a mug's game to wring hands over what the ice sheets will be doing. People have to get over their penchant for wanting/expecting things to remain constant.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Greenland glacial ice melting away.


I look forward to seeing the pictures you post when the arctic is forested over as it was 55 million years ago.

The climate changes. We all know that, but many people don't want to ruin the economy over something that happens over and over whether we are there or not.

ltr


----------



## sags

It is of great concern because humans may not survive the changes. 

There may be life on the planet, but it won't look like us. Life in the past didn't look like us either.

The natural world has a tremendous evolutionary capability to adapt. Humans...........not so much.


----------



## AltaRed

Quite frankly, **** sapiens have no right to survive into perpetuity anyway. Whether we exist another 100 years, 1000 years, or 100,000 years is really not necessarily within our control, nor should it really matter. Sun behaviour, comets and asteroids will see to that. What is difficult to understand about that?

Added: My view has always been that **** sapiens have no more right to exist than any other species. No more complicated than that.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> It is of great concern because humans may not survive the changes.


That's okay...liberals who embraced the Climate Scam will die first when their promised green energy sources fail and they starve to death. Once they're gone the other half who didn't buy into the scam will happily enjoy life without the annoyance of those who thought they knew better...although a few people may save their clueless family members.

It's a win/win.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The natural world has a tremendous evolutionary capability to adapt. Humans...........not so much.


Humans are the most adaptable creatures on the planet. We comfortably live in tropics and Arctic, and everything in between.

You must be a troll...no one can be as uninformed and wrong as you seem to be.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

sags said:


> Greenland glacial ice melting away.
> 
> View attachment 19458
> 
> 
> Predictions are for a record amount of melting ice this year.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/health/greenland-ice-sheet-intl-hnk/index.html


Ok, but what do you expect, a miraculous 50% reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels in Canada will do about these anticipated changes? 

Other than have a major negative impact on the economy and standard of living?


----------



## AltaRed

Talk is cheap https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514 We are already being taxed a lot more than even a minority of Canadians are willing to pay.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> It is of great concern because humans may not survive the changes.
> 
> There may be life on the planet, but it won't look like us. Life in the past didn't look like us either.
> 
> The natural world has a tremendous evolutionary capability to adapt. Humans...........not so much.


Then, I don't understand your position on this or anyone else in the cult as to why you want to destroy our economy over a done deal? Do you really feel you can change the natural cycles of this earth? Remember they've been going on for 4.5 billion years. Way before man was in the picture. It's arrogance that people today feel they have an influence over this situation.

Where you're sitting now, about 700 million years ago, was covered in about 3 kilometers of solid ice. And 55 million years ago, we know that the arctic was completely forested over, replete with palm trees in Alaska. You and your socialist governments aren't going to change that situation from re-occurring with a silly carbon tax. Shake your head.

ltr


----------



## Spidey

sags said:


> It is of great concern because humans may not survive the changes.
> 
> There may be life on the planet, but it won't look like us. Life in the past didn't look like us either.
> 
> The natural world has a tremendous evolutionary capability to adapt. Humans...........not so much.


If I believed this there is no way I could live with myself if I drove a car or took an airplane. I probably would also live in the smallest, most conveniently located accommodation possible, such as an apartment. Believing as they do, I can't quite understand how the majority of the AGW crowd can morally justify their lifestyles.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Quite frankly, **** sapiens have no right to survive into perpetuity anyway. Whether we exist another 100 years, 1000 years, or 100,000 years is really not necessarily within our control, nor should it really matter. Sun behaviour, comets and asteroids will see to that. What is difficult to understand about that?
> 
> Added: My view has always been that **** sapiens have no more right to exist than any other species. No more complicated than that.


So you object to mildly inconveniencing extractive industries but are A-OK with wiping out humanity. The mind boggles. If you are indifferent to the continued existence of the species I'm not sure I follow your logic on your political positions.


----------



## sags

Why do climate change deniers worry so much about what happened billions of years ago.

The conditions back then were not conducive to life. We enjoy a window of opportunity to exist and are squandering it. How foolish we are.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Humans are the most adaptable creatures on the planet. We comfortably live in tropics and Arctic, and everything in between.
> 
> You must be a troll...no one can be as uninformed and wrong as you seem to be.


I doubt climate change could be so severe as to cause the extinction of humans. Modern industrial society could potentially collapse, leading to 90%+ die-off due to falling agricultural yields. Depending on your outlook that might be almost as bad as extinction.


----------



## andrewf

5Lgreenback said:


> Ok, but what do you expect, a miraculous 50% reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels in Canada will do about these anticipated changes?
> 
> Other than have a major negative impact on the economy and standard of living?


Maybe there should be some sort of international agreement to coordinate the global reduction in carbon emissions. And maybe we shouldn't sabotage such agreements by breaking them.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Why do climate change deniers worry so much about what happened billions of years ago.
> 
> The conditions back then were not conducive to life. We enjoy a window of opportunity to exist and are squandering it. How foolish we are.


It's a funny world when those who point out that the climate has always been changing are "climate change deniers".


----------



## Spidey

MrMatt said:


> It's a funny world when those who point out that the climate has always been changing are "climate change deniers".


:encouragement: :encouragement: :encouragement:


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> It's a funny world when those who point out that the climate has always been changing are "climate change deniers".


You can't argue with the alarmists. They are a cult!


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> The conditions back then were not conducive to life. We enjoy a window of opportunity to exist and are squandering it. How foolish we are.


Earfh has been even more conducive to life in the past, almost always when it was warmer.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> So you object to mildly inconveniencing extractive industries but are A-OK with wiping out humanity. The mind boggles. If you are indifferent to the continued existence of the species I'm not sure I follow your logic on your political positions.


Has nothing to do with inconveniencing extractive industries. You are of the opinion that increasing concentrations of CO2 will wipe out humanity. I suggest that thought process is misguided at best. There are many other things that have polluted and will continue to pollute this planet first.

The appropriate solution would be to encourage people to change their ways in the interest of decreasing the pollution burden on the planet, even banning certain products like plastic straws and the like, but the key is to curtail demand. Trying to 'kill' supply will never work and never has... from prostitution, to illicit drugs, to sugar, to alcohol, to nicotine, etc.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Maybe there should be some sort of international agreement to coordinate the global reduction in carbon emissions. And maybe we shouldn't sabotage such agreements by breaking them.


Too bad those international agreements are nothing but tax scams. Only a fool would buy into such BS.


----------



## AltaRed

No one is going to give up their sovereign interest/desire to defend/grow their economies, and especially not on a molecule that will be self-regulated, produced in a billion places and impossible to measure and track honestly or fully. A bit of lipstick and a frilly bonnet here and there to 'play the game' and not much more. No deep concerns about abrogation of commitments. The heavyweights will do as they wish with their shipping and transportation systems and their militaries. Anyone seriously think a warring party will increase the CAFE on their military machines? Not wage war in remote places? Not undertake the inefficient combustion of bombing and strafing? Not conduct aerial survelllance? Not launch missiles? Not burn crops? Not clear forests? C'mon folks, you're peeing upwind in a hurricane.


----------



## sags

Despite people saying otherwise, China leads the world in many categories of renewable energy production and use.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-facts/renewable-energy-facts/20069

It would be a serious mistake to tie our future too closely to fossil fuels.


----------



## AltaRed

No one is saying to tie the future too closely to fossil fuels. Simply be pragmatic about it, i.e. balance of economics and environment. China is still building new coal fired generating plants. Renewables simply are not the complete solution. Not a hard concept to grasp.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

China as the role model. Changing the channel are we?
Instead of getting wet by constantly pissing into the wind, how about trolling those in the U.S. who want to fire up thermal coal use again -  Trump administration has rolled back a landmark Obama-era effort targeting coal-fired power plants and their climate-damaging pollution.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> ...even banning certain products like plastic straws and the like, but the key is to curtail demand. Trying to 'kill' supply will never work and never has... from prostitution, to illicit drugs, to sugar, to alcohol, to nicotine, etc.


As I understand it, Nestle can sue Canada if they ban plastic water bottles. It is covered under NAFTA and continued under the USMCA. Plastic water bottles are a much greater threat to our well-being than CO2. Yet our leader thinks that is the solution? It is all window dressing to get votes. I wonder if the alarmists can sleep at night.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Despite people saying otherwise, China leads the world in many categories of renewable energy production and use.


China's the biggest electricity and energy consumer in the world, so China also leads the world in many categories of other energy production and use. China may be #1 in wind, solar, and hydro, but it's also #1 in coal and #2 in oil.










https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2018-electricity-other-energy-statistics/


----------



## m3s

China manufactures our stuff.. and yet produce less CO2 emmission per capita


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> You are of the opinion that increasing concentrations of CO2 will wipe out humanity.


Incorrect. I said the opposite in the last couple of posts. You said you don't care how soon humanity goes extinct (it is a matter of time), and so you don't care about anything that might influence that.



> The appropriate solution would be to encourage people to change their ways in the interest of decreasing the pollution burden on the planet, even banning certain products like plastic straws and the like, but the key is to curtail demand. Trying to 'kill' supply will never work and never has... from prostitution, to illicit drugs, to sugar, to alcohol, to nicotine, etc.


Uh, so you're suggesting we should ban oil and gas instead of taxing it? Burning oil & gas certainly results in pollution. And if you are saying we should curtail demand, that is literally the entire point of a carbon tax. Higher prices leads to lower demand. Has nothing to do with reducing supply. Command and control policies like the Conservatives suggested under Harper might try to limit output directly (constraining supply) or proximate attempts to hamper O&G industries like blocking pipelines. I think it is more economically efficient to allow these resources to be extracted, but reflect the cost they impose on society in the price via taxation. The most efficient resources should be extracted, and marginal resources be left in the ground.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> No one is going to give up their sovereign interest/desire to defend/grow their economies, and especially not on a molecule that will be self-regulated, produced in a billion places and impossible to measure and track honestly or fully. A bit of lipstick and a frilly bonnet here and there to 'play the game' and not much more. No deep concerns about abrogation of commitments. The heavyweights will do as they wish with their shipping and transportation systems and their militaries. Anyone seriously think a warring party will increase the CAFE on their military machines? Not wage war in remote places? Not undertake the inefficient combustion of bombing and strafing? Not conduct aerial survelllance? Not launch missiles? Not burn crops? Not clear forests? C'mon folks, you're peeing upwind in a hurricane.


Yes, they will. Maybe you should do some research on the effort the US military has put into efficiency, renewables and alternative energy sources. Fossil fuels reliance makes modern militaries highly vulnerable to supply disruption, and reliance on imported energy brought in on vulnerable truck convoys is costly in both resources and lives as they make attractive targets for IEDs.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> As I understand it, Nestle can sue Canada if they ban plastic water bottles. It is covered under NAFTA and continued under the USMCA. Plastic water bottles are a much greater threat to our well-being than CO2. Yet our leader thinks that is the solution? It is all window dressing to get votes. I wonder if the alarmists can sleep at night.


I would suggest taxing single use plastic. It has a place, but consumers could use a bit of incentive not to buy it by the case instead of drinking water from the tap.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> No one is saying to tie the future too closely to fossil fuels. Simply be pragmatic about it, i.e. balance of economics and environment. China is still building new coal fired generating plants. Renewables simply are not the complete solution. Not a hard concept to grasp.


No one is proposing the complete elimination of fossil fuels. Just a tax to help provide incentives to develop and adopt alternatives. I would be happy if we started with eliminating all the subsidies and favourable tax treatment for O&G production.


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> China manufactures our stuff.. and yet produce less CO2 emmission per capita


More data mining at its worst. I sure the hell hope China's emissions per capita is much less than ours. Look at their population and compare GDP/capita as well. China GDP/capita is about 20% of ours http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-gdp/ and they produce about the same amount of oil and gas on a total basis http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/oil-producing-countries/ and a fraction of ours on a barrel/capita basis.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> No one is proposing the complete elimination of fossil fuels. Just a tax to help provide incentives to develop and adopt alternatives. I would be happy if we started with eliminating all the subsidies and favourable tax treatment for O&G production.


The left loves to tax behaviour that they deem unsuitable and give tax breaks to things they like such as their countless climate "initiatives" mostly based on lies, faulty data, and plain old wishful thinking.

But one thing they will never do is spend their own money first to set an example or to prove that something is viable. All of their grand plans require someone else to foot the bill. And, when they fail the taxpayer never gets paid back or even an apology...they just get hit up for another progressive cause.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> No one is proposing the complete elimination of fossil fuels. Just a tax to help provide incentives to develop and adopt alternatives. I would be happy if we started with eliminating all the subsidies and favourable tax treatment for O&G production.


I would leave O&G production alone* since our companies have the same right to provide supply as any other location in the world. Our fiscal regime for O&G is barely competitive with the rest of the world. Comparative studies are done all the time to determine what it would take to attract one dollar of capital in country A vs country B vs country C, etc. That is how the various countries set their royalty and tax regimes. I've done many of these economic comparisons in my career comparing a basket of investment opportunities and ranking them for management to decided where to spend precious investment dollars. That is the point that few outside the industry (and the governments negotiating on the opposite side of the table) understand.

O&G doesn't really get any favourable tax deductions. They get to write off expenses on dry exploration wells, as they should be able too since only about 1 in 10 exploration wells result in new reserves (the rest are dry and have to be cemented off and de-commissioned), and they amortize their development wells/facility costs, and production costs like any other capital activity for PP&E. It's a common fallacy to think otherwise. The owner of the mineral rights get their royalties as they should (whether government or private owner).

I do believe it is demand that needs to be pressured, but there are better ways to do it than a carbon tax applied indiscriminately across the board. The carbon taxes on my Nat Gas consumption is higher per GJ than the actual commodity cost itself. Regulate higher CAFE requirements, put a higher tax on fuel guzzlers, incent homeowners to replace their 78-80% efficient gas furnaces with 96% efficient ones, etc. 

* other than to pay carbon taxes just like a consumer for fossil fuels consumed in production, or whatever replacement scheme is considered.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Yes, they will. Maybe you should do some research on the effort the US military has put into efficiency, renewables and alternative energy sources. Fossil fuels reliance makes modern militaries highly vulnerable to supply disruption, and reliance on imported energy brought in on vulnerable truck convoys is costly in both resources and lives as they make attractive targets for IEDs.


An M1A2 Abram tank is still an Abram tank https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-how-the-u-s-army-is-upgrading-the-abrams-tank-fo-1832979607 and a F-22 and F-35 are still fuel hungry and heavy fighter planes. We are not going to solar powered tanks and fighters any time soon. I don't think we will see many Tesla inspired convoy trucks soon either.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Uh, so you're suggesting we should ban oil and gas instead of taxing it? Burning oil & gas certainly results in pollution. And if you are saying we should curtail demand, that is literally the entire point of a carbon tax. Higher prices leads to lower demand. Has nothing to do with reducing supply. Command and control policies like the Conservatives suggested under Harper might try to limit output directly (constraining supply) or proximate attempts to hamper O&G industries like blocking pipelines. I think it is more economically efficient to allow these resources to be extracted, but reflect the cost they impose on society in the price via taxation. The most efficient resources should be extracted, and marginal resources be left in the ground.


A carbon tax is not going to reduce consumption very much. It has helped but hasn't had a material change in gasoline fuel habits in BC* in over 10 years of carbon taxes. Separately, do you think anyone is going to shut off their NG furnace in wintertime or lower their thermostat? They'll cut back on food and clothing first. I don't care about nonsense from any government since political expediency is the name of the game rather than practical and pragmatic solutions. The carbon tax is a Liberal tax and spend propaganda machine, or a wealth distribution scheme as a few posters have noted. I have no idea what the Cons are proposing yet other than more incentives to use technology and retro-fit for higher energy efficiency. No idea where that money comes from.

The most efficient resources are already being produced just by the nature of where capital flows go. No company is dumb enough to invest in a 5% return project when a 15% return project could be funded instead. Net margin is the name of the game. No different than a grocery store or a cheese factory really except the sources of production and methods of transport are not as changeable as easily as sending the cheese delivery truck down a different highway. See my prior post on discussion about fiscal and royalty regimes around the world.

* https://www.blakeshaffer.ca/post/gasoline-demand-bc-and-the-rest-of-canada/


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Yes, they will. Maybe you should do some research on the effort the US military has put into efficiency, renewables and alternative energy sources. Fossil fuels reliance makes modern militaries highly vulnerable to supply disruption, and reliance on imported energy brought in on vulnerable truck convoys is costly in both resources and lives as they make attractive targets for IEDs.


Of course efficiency is a massive research area, logistics ins the key to success.

However fossil fuels are more efficient than the alternatives for most things. Fossil fuels still have a great energy capacity, which is why we use them.


----------



## AltaRed

I find it is mostly those in ivory towers who do the 'Don Cherry' wave about disruptors and how technology is going to change everything on the scale of Amazon, the smartphone, high speed wireless, etc. and render everything before it obsolete. They simply don't understand that while we will see efficiency and effectiveness improvements in energy use towards renewables, it will be a very long process and it will have only varying degrees of success in various areas. Just like the infantryman 'boots on the ground' will never be fully replaced. S/he will simply be better equipped to do a more effective and efficient job. 

It is the same for a vast array of global activities.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> I would suggest taxing single use plastic. It has a place, but consumers could use a bit of incentive not to buy it by the case instead of drinking water from the tap.


They already have consumer (environmental handling) fees on plastic bottles and such.


----------



## kcowan

cainvest said:


> They already have consumer (environmental handling) fees on plastic bottles and such.


They have to hit the producers big time to get rid of them. A tax on consumers takes too long.


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> They have to hit the producers big time to get rid of them. A tax on consumers takes too long.


I think it is more important to tackle demand. If 500ml plastic water bottles had a $1/bottle refund levy, a lot more bottles would be recycled.


----------



## Prairie Guy

kcowan said:


> They have to hit the producers big time to get rid of them. A tax on consumers takes too long.


Maybe a triple tax on the hypocrites until they step in line? Trudeau preaches daily about plastic and the climate daily but also uses single use water bottles....or what he calls "drink box water bottles sort of things"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu6ZKcWr4ls


----------



## Prairie Guy

AltaRed said:


> I think it is more important to tackle demand. If 500ml plastic water bottles had a $1/bottle refund levy, a lot more bottles would be recycled.


We only need to charge those who vote liberal $1 a bottle...they are the ones making the demands, so they should step up and put their money where their mouth is.


----------



## AltaRed

Prairie Guy said:


> We only need to charge those who vote liberal $1 a bottle...they are the ones making the demands, so they should step up and put their money where their mouth is.


All plastics are a severe menace to a broad range of animal life on the planet, regardless of where one goes in this world. It should be a hot button issue for everyone, a travesty that I think far exceeds the impact of man made GHG, and maybe second only to land and water chemical contamination.


----------



## like_to_retire

I sure hope Justin Trudeau drove all the way down to see Trump in an electric car.

I understand you could drive around 300 internal combustion cars for the same CO2 as one plane.

But whose counting?

Why not use a telephone if there's actually a climate emergency?

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> All plastics are a severe menace to a broad range of animal life on the planet, regardless of where one goes in this world. It should be a hot button issue for everyone, a travesty that I think far exceeds the impact of man made GHG, and maybe second only to land and water chemical contamination.


Yes, we've learned that which is why we strictly control waste management now. Maybe we should talk to the people dumping their garbage in the ocean?

If you look at Canada, once we realized micro-beads were a risk, we immediately (by regulatory standards) banned them.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> I think it is more important to tackle demand. If 500ml plastic water bottles had a $1/bottle refund levy, a lot more bottles would be recycled.


So the case of Nestle 24 bottles rises to $26.40 from $2.40 and both the producer and consumers will buck up? I would do it but then I don't care about being re-elected.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Yes, we've learned that which is why we strictly control waste management now. Maybe we should talk to the people dumping their garbage in the ocean?
> 
> If you look at Canada, once we realized micro-beads were a risk, we immediately (by regulatory standards) banned them.


Of course, using the argument in this thread, Canada should just dump plastic in the ocean because what does it matter what Canada contributes to the problem if Asia is the big source of ocean plastic?

Less tongue-in-cheek, as I understand it, single use plastic here largely ends up in landfills. Most ocean plastic is due to poor waste disposal in Asia, and could be largely addressed by effective waste collection and disposal. I suspect we should just be reducing where it makes sense, some recycling where economic and burning the rest to convert to energy.


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is more important to tackle demand. If 500ml plastic water bottles had a $1/bottle refund levy, a lot more bottles would be recycled.
> 
> 
> 
> So the case of Nestle 24 bottles rises to $26.40 from $2.40 and both the producer and consumers will buck up? I would do it but then I don't care about being re-elected.
Click to expand...

Actually from about $4 with current levy, but the point is, at what level will the majority recycle? Obviously $1 is absurdly high but what makes the difference? Same issue with carbon taxes although there is no recycle option.


----------



## sags

I always wanted one of those red cast iron hand water pumps in our backyard, but never got around to putting one in.

I thought it would be pretty cool and lots of fun for our son and his pals.

I don't even know if we would have been allowed to do so.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> I suspect we should just be reducing where it makes sense, some recycling where economic and burning the rest to convert to energy.


The problem with sensible solutions is that the alarmist will never approve because burning releases CO2. That is the main problem with our carbon tax. It is applied indiscriminately. They have only made exceptions when there is a strong lobby.


----------



## AltaRed

It is a similar problem with refining crude. Everyone in the business (and even some consumers) know the only truly economic refineries are those that are either on tidewater, or near their end use markets, but the clowns all say they don't want them in their backyard (e.g. Horgan in BC and proponents wanting more AB refining capacity), mostly for the optics of pretending they don't use refined product, and partly because they don't want the CO2 load associated with refining crude in their statistics. IOW, don't take responsibility for their own behaviour.


----------



## like_to_retire

Do as I say, and not as I do, rears its head again today when Mr. Trudeau is caught destroying our environment by using single use plastic utensils. The shame of it all.

He is called out on Twitter with his pile of single use plastic forks and knives, and when questioned he says of course they'll be re-used?

I do tire of his lectures on these topics, and then every time he turns around we see him wasting more jet fuel than I would use in 100 lifetimes and using plastic utensils that he claims will destroy the earth.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

The privileged and conceited, if not also arrogant, are quite often hypocrites. JT fits the model perfectly. Harper was narcissistic, but he did come from and understood the middle class and mostly walked the talk. Paid for his own infrequent vacations too.


----------



## sags

My how easily Trudeau whips conservatives up into a frenzy. Hair, clothes, vacations, ..........

Never mind about serious issues like a climate change crisis that is already having profound negative effects on Canadians.

Trudeau is a reusable fork wielding pizza eater.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> Never mind about serious issues like a climate change crisis that is already having profound negative effects on Canadians.


Only in some minds do some think there is a climate change crisis. Say it enough and you will believe the sky is falling. That is what the ideologists do.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> My how easily Trudeau whips conservatives up into a frenzy. Hair, clothes, vacations, ..........
> 
> Never mind about serious issues like a climate change crisis that is already having profound negative effects on Canadians.
> 
> Trudeau is a reusable fork wielding pizza eater.


The point is that if he really thought it was a serious issue, he'd be doing something about it. 
The fact that he doesn't actually act in line with his stated principles is the issue.

I've never been to a restaurant that washes and reuses single use plastic forks.


----------



## AltaRed

As a well worn example, he flies all over the place, including surfing at Tofino, using taxpayer paid jets gulping taxpayer paid fuel, and has no conscience of his personal carbon footprint. Government business is one thing, but there is no excuse for his personal footprint.


----------



## m3s

Since when did Trudeau join the green party of canada?

Hyperbole


----------



## sags

Europe is experienced "hell on earth" with temperatures between 45 and 50 degrees Celsius. 

Most people don't have air conditioning and their homes are designed to keep the heat in........not out. Last time they had such a heat wave 15,000 people died.

People in Europe describe it as standing in front of an open pizza oven door all day and all night.

Australia is experiencing a similar continuing heat wave and drought there.

New Brunswick has experienced so much flooding it is causing health hazards. The Canadian military can barely keep up with all the climate change related problems.

In the Arctic, people are being forced to move their homes away from the rising ocean. In the US, FEMA can't keep up with the cost of all the damage from storms, flood and fire.

The long frozen permafrost is melting and releasing methane gas and could release ancient pathogens and viruses for which humans have no bodily resistance.

Around here in Ontario, Lake Erie is at record levels and more intense storms and wave action. It is causing increasing collapses of land into the lake.

Governments, militaries, insurance companies, corporations recognize the threat of climate change and are adapting as best they can.

All over the world, weather patterns are changing and becoming more intense. All over the world people are recognizing that climate change is real and is an emergency.

Some Conservatives are even recognizing the threat of climate change. Former PC Prime Minister Kim Campbell panned Andrew Scheer's climate plan as no plan at all.

Trudeau isn't even taking this serious enough. We need to take stronger action to lower emissions and transition into renewable clean energy now.

Al Gore was right.......climate change is true even if it is inconvenient. He is owed an apology from the many who doubted him.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/7304...ecord-floods-and-extreme-weather-will-that-me


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> All over the world, weather patterns are changing and becoming more intense. All over the world people are recognizing that climate change is real and is an emergency.


Climate change is indeed real, and some of it is exacerbated by mankind, but it certainly is not an emergency. Mankind does not have the power to change the patterns of our solar system nor the normal climate cycles of our planet. So instead of getting into an irrational frenzy like a bunch of chickens flapping around in the hen house, time and money would be better spent learning how to sensibly adjust and adapt to our environment. To the extent we can make practical adjustments to our lifestyles to mitigate rate of change, we should do so, but to call it an emergency is nothing more than ideological bull crap.

Sags, since you have become constantly and predictably repetitive with your ideology, perhaps you can enlighten us as to your lifestyle changes you have funded and will continue to fund to reduce your carbon footprint. I haven't heard whether you now have EVs that use only renewable power, or have energy neutrality with your own solar panels or wind turbine, or have eliminated all discretionary purchases of consumer goods that have used energy to be made, shipped and sold, or have made material donations to energy conservation projects, or have given up gas heating and/or air conditioning, or have eliminated single use plastics, or recycle everything possible in your region. A documented inventory of your actions might inspire others to follow in your footsteps. OTOH, if you have not done much of any of the things I have noted, it seems to me you are simply emulating the hypocritical behaviour of your beloved PM.


----------



## sags

We can each play our part but the most effective way to combat climate change is at the source of the pollution. 

Remove the source and consumers will buy what is available. A few consumers making even quantum changes won't solve the massive problem.

People must be led to the promised land, as perfectly illustrated by the skeptic and denier crowd who steadfastly refuse to accept the science.


----------



## AltaRed

The source(s) is everyone that consumes hydrocarbon energy, be it a consumer, a goods provider, or a commercial entity. As I have mentioned time and again, it is the demand (consumption) that must be reduced. Constraining supply has not worked for prostitution, prohibition, illicit drugs, etc. It will not work for hydrocarbons either. There will always be nations willing to fill the void. 

Take some responsibility Sags. Put your money where your ideology is rather than passing the buck and skating around the issue.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

For someone who really believes we are at a point of climate catastrophe, it must be difficult to accept, maybe even difficult to recognize their role in that catastrophe after they spent a career in the auto industry and now collect a nice pension from that industry. 
I would assume they would be willing to not just 'do their part' to reduce their carbon footprint, but would be willing to go well beyond, to try to make amends for their grandkid's sake. 
Unfortunately, it seems that all of the Henny Penny/Chicken Little's we hear from these days are more concerned about telling everyone else what they need to do than making any changes of their own. Hypocrisy rules this issue.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> We can each play our part but the most effective way to combat climate change is at the source of the pollution.
> 
> Remove the source and consumers will buy what is available. A few consumers making even quantum changes won't solve the massive problem.
> 
> People must be led to the promised land, as perfectly illustrated by the skeptic and denier crowd who steadfastly refuse to accept the science.


CO2 isn't pollution. That is a known and undeniable scientific fact that you choose to ignore. 

Stop repeating lies...it doesn't help your cause, in fact, it only makes you look uneducated and a denier of science.


----------



## sags

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and warms the earth. It is not a pollutant at this level of concentration.

Higher concentrations of CO2 cause a greenhouse effect and warm the planet more than is normal. It is becoming a pollutant at this level of concentration.

Too much concentration of CO2 causes global warming to the point it is no longer a passive benefit but an active threat. It is a pollutant at this level of concentration.

We need to reverse the planet warming trend by reducing the level of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere.


----------



## sags

Contributing to global warming and climate change was unavoidable for everyone, regardless of where they worked, lived or the consumer products they bought.

We now know better and consumers are demanding companies provide climate friendly products. The auto industry is gearing up for electric car production in the future.

The people are ahead of the politicians on this issue and climate change is becoming a top election issue that politicians can no longer ignore.

It is a higher public awareness that moves the expression from climate change warning to climate change emergency or crisis.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

But Sags, what are YOU doing?
Be a role model here.

Our neighbour just bought a new dodge ram. That's 3 vehicles next door - one for him (he doesn't need wheels for work), one for her (she doesn't work), and one for grandma. Two parked in the driveway, one on the street. 

I can't look to them to set an example.


----------



## MrMatt

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> But Sags, what are YOU doing?
> Be a role model here.


He's "raising awareness".
That's what environmental leaders like Trudeau and Al Gore do, though I expect his carbon footprint, like the average Canadians, is a fraction of any of the "Green leaders"


----------



## sags

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> But Sags, what are YOU doing?
> Be a role model here.
> 
> Our neighbour just bought a new dodge ram. That's 3 vehicles next door - one for him (he doesn't need wheels for work), one for her (she doesn't work), and one for grandma. Two parked in the driveway, one on the street.
> 
> I can't look to them to set an example.


We own 2 vehicles and only drive a few thousand kilometers a year. We don't travel often and only for day trips. We reuse and recycle. We rent a smaller townhouse that fits our needs.

We do what we can, but as consumers are forced to purchase items that are manufactured under circumstances that create unnecessary pollution. 

Your neighbor is a good example of why climate change must be addressed at the source. Too many people won't change their habits regardless of the negative impacts.

Climate change is like a fire. If you want to put out a fire, you aim the extinguisher at the base of the fire.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> The people are ahead of the politicians on this issue and climate change is becoming a top election issue that politicians can no longer ignore.
> 
> It is a higher public awareness that moves the expression from climate change warning to climate change emergency or crisis.


But the latest survey shows that most Canadians that are concerned are not prepared to spend even $100 in additional costs to do anything about it. IOW, talk is cheap. Irreconcilable.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> We own 2 vehicles and only drive a few thousand kilometers a year. We don't travel often and only for day trips. We reuse and recycle. We rent a smaller townhouse that fits our needs.
> 
> We do what we can, but as consumers are forced to purchase items that are manufactured under circumstances that create unnecessary pollution.



I dunno Sags. Clearly your footprint is 100 orders of magnitude lower than your beloved PM, but why not an EV already? Seems a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt would fit your needs. 

Not sure what you mean by 'unnecessary pollution' but I agree the consumer doesn't control how the products they purchase are made. Our role is to avoid buying consumer products as much as possible, especially food, steel and aluminum that are energy intensive processes.


----------



## Spidey

sags said:


> My how easily Trudeau whips conservatives up into a frenzy. Hair, clothes, vacations, ..........
> 
> Never mind about serious issues like a climate change crisis that is already having profound negative effects on Canadians.
> 
> Trudeau is a reusable fork wielding pizza eater.


It is simply the hypocrisy of someone preaching to us and laying guilt trips while doing the opposite in his personal life. At work they ask us to bring our own utensils to cut down on plastic waste. As you know I'm a AGW skeptic (or as you would say denier) but I always comply as I still care about the environment and don't like creating needless waste. You would think after that little virtue-signalling demonstration about single-use plastics that Trudeau could make a tiny effort to set an example by keeping a knife and fork in his desk drawer like I do. If that was the only incident, certainly I could agree that he should have a pass. But from what has been reported, he uses air-travel for vacation more often than any prime-minister in history. Chretien and Harper often vacationed locally. The Conservatives also posted a photo montage of panels showing Trudeau with plastic water bottles on multiple occasions. I don't know about you but I use a reusable water bottle. It's a little akin to a preacher admonishing on the sins of fornication and then visiting the Mustang Ranch in his off hours.


----------



## MrMatt

Spidey said:


> It is simply the hypocrisy of someone preaching to us and laying guilt trips while doing the opposite in his personal life. At work they ask us to bring our own utensils to cut down on plastic waste. As you know I'm a AGW skeptic (or as you would say denier) but I always comply as I still care about the environment and don't like creating needless waste. You would think after that little virtue-signalling demonstration about single-use plastics that Trudeau could make a tiny effort to set an example by keeping a knife and fork in his desk drawer like I do. If that was the only incident, certainly I could agree that he should have a pass. But from what has been reported, he uses air-travel for vacation more often than any prime-minister in history. Chretien and Harper often vacationed locally. The Conservatives also posted a photo montage of panels showing Trudeau with plastic water bottles on multiple occasions. I don't know about you but I use a reusable water bottle. It's a little akin to a preacher admonishing on the sins of fornication and then visiting the Mustang Ranch in his off hours.


All these vacations are kinda weird, he LIVES at Harrington Lake!.


----------



## sags

AltaRed said:


> I dunno Sags. Clearly your footprint is 100 orders of magnitude lower than your beloved PM, but why not an EV already? Seems a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt would fit your needs.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by 'unnecessary pollution' but I agree the consumer doesn't control how the products they purchase are made. Our role is to avoid buying consumer products as much as possible, especially food, steel and aluminum that are energy intensive processes.


No EV because we would have no way to charge the batteries. I would love to have purchased a Chevy Volt but an extension cord snaking from our unit to the parking lot wouldn't be good.

Maybe our landlord will install meters in the parking lot, but it is doubtful without some government program to pay for it. There lies an example for positive government action.


----------



## sags

It is interesting that Elizabeth Warren, the very liberal Democratic Senator and candidate for President is the politician who discusses how the wealthy and regular folks live in two different worlds when it comes to climate change. She is publicly saying what many conservatives are saying about setting examples, but they don't like her because she is a "socialist".


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and warms the earth. It is not a pollutant at this level of concentration.
> 
> Higher concentrations of CO2 cause a greenhouse effect and warm the planet more than is normal. It is becoming a pollutant at this level of concentration.
> 
> Too much concentration of CO2 causes global warming to the point it is no longer a passive benefit but an active threat. It is a pollutant at this level of concentration.


Everything you said there is wrong. CO2 has little effect on temperature and is nowhere near dangerous levels. Stop denying science.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Take some responsibility Sags. Put your money where your ideology is rather than passing the buck and skating around the issue.


My enjoyment of this board has improved since I put sags on Ignore. I had stated when I was still suffering that he is acting like a troll. Your attempts at getting him to demonstrate Non-Troll behaviour is admirable. My only other disappointment is HPs attempts to defend him.


----------



## kcowan

Spidey said:


> You would think after that little virtue-signalling demonstration about single-use plastics that Trudeau could make a tiny effort to set an example by keeping a knife and fork in his desk drawer like I do. If that was the only incident, certainly I could agree that he should have a pass. But from what has been reported, he uses air-travel for vacation more often than any prime-minister in history. Chretien and Harper often vacationed locally. The Conservatives also posted a photo montage of panels showing Trudeau with plastic water bottles on multiple occasions...


I am also a CO2 realist. And I share your concern about JT appealing to snowflakes. But I gave him a pass on the plastic water bottles that were no doubt supplied by the conference organizers.

OTOH his personal choice of water in cardboard boxes lined with plastic is feeble and are not recyclable except by burning. Plus they cost US$44 for 24 compared to under $3 for 24 Nestle water bottles in plastic that are underwritten by us all. Only a trust fund kid would claim that is reasonable.


----------



## sags

AltaRed has already identified the many, many problems humans have created around the world, and don't appear all that interested in cleaning up.

We have abandoned oil wells in the west. Oceans filling up with plastic. Chernobyl and Fukishima nuclear reactors still smoldering away.

We send used electronics to Asia.......and some household garbage apparently.

Giving it some thought and doing some reading, maybe climate change is just one more problem we will have to accept and deal with. 

More scientists are now concluding the negative effects of climate change have occurred at a far more rapid pace than anticipated and time for solutions may have already run out.

If we accept that as a fact, we still have to deal with the costly problems that will have to be addressed.

Insurance companies are walking away from the risk. They can earn their profits in less risky geographical areas.

Who pays then ?.....Homeowners ? Taxpayers ?........I suspect it will be taxpayers one way or the other.

Why not then keep the carbon tax and put it into a fund like the CPP (hands off from the government) to be distributed in times of crisis.

Without a carbon tax, are taxpayers not destined to be picking up the cost for the polluters ?


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Without a carbon tax, are taxpayers not destined to be picking up the cost for the polluters ?


Carbon isn't pollution. It's a base element essential for life on Earth to exist.


----------



## AltaRed

Prairie Guy said:


> Carbon isn't pollution. It's a base element essential for life on Earth to exist.


It is ideological spin, just as it is calling CO2 pollution. The tact is completely wrong. If anything, call it what it is, i.e. a 'hydrocarbon consumption tax' which is already piled on to gasoline and diesel taxes, both federally and provincially, and even surtaxes like in GVR to fund the SkyTrain. 

It pains me to say this, but to the extent this silliness is to continue, I agree with Sags that all such taxes should be independently administered and allocated for re-investment, out of the patronage and ideological hands of politicians. We need independently managed national schemes for many things, such as the issues with plastics, but keep them out of the hands of politicians and make the programs transparent and accountable to the public with annual financials and project reporting. Only then might we see some real consumer support.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> We need independently managed national schemes for many things, such as the issues with plastics, but keep them out of the hands of politicians and make the programs transparent and accountable to the public with annual financials and project reporting.


Has this ever been done by the government?


----------



## sags

NASA answers the question if it is too to change the outcome.........

_Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries. That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it.
In the absence of major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by an average of 6 °C (10.8 °F), according to the latest estimates. Some scientists argue a “global disaster” is already unfolding at the poles of the planet; the Arctic, for example, may be ice-free at the end of the summer melt season within just a few years. Yet other experts are concerned about Earth passing one or more “tipping points” – abrupt, perhaps irreversible changes that tip our climate into a new state.

But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach: 1) “mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and 2) “adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is: what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come? Recycling and driving more fuel-efficient cars are examples of important behavioral change that will help, but they will not be enough. Because climate change is a truly global, complex problem with economic, social, political and moral ramifications, the solution will require both a globally-coordinated response (such as international policies and agreements between countries, a push to cleaner forms of energy) and local efforts on the city- and regional-level (for example, public transport upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, sustainable city planning, etc.). It’s up to us what happens next._


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> Has this ever been done by the government?


Not that I know of in a 'pure' sense, and not nationally that I know of. BC's original carbon tax program was set up by the then provincial Liberals with some granularity and a fiscal report at the end of each fiscal year to show what was collected and where the funds went... but it was contaminated in a number of ways: 1) Collected funds were not segregated from other revenues, 2) Much of the revenue was diverted back to cutting the lowest provincial income tax rate by approximiately half (as a concession to low income earners to ease hardship, e.g. conceptually similar to the GST/HST rebate), and 2) Description of funded programs was at a much too high of a level to be able to verify/validate much of anything. All that has been lost under the current NDP government which is perverse given it is only in power due to the support of the Green party. One would think the Greens would insist on granularity and targeted publicly reporting funding of green initiatives. IOW, NDP and Greens are worse than their predecessors.

I think the public could get on board with an independent CPPIB type organization, but politicians (of any stripe) are not going to let go of their partisan based gravy train.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Some scientists argue a “global disaster” is already unfolding at the poles of the planet; the Arctic, for example, may be ice-free at the end of the summer melt season within just a few years. Yet other experts are concerned about Earth passing one or more “tipping points” – abrupt, perhaps irreversible changes that tip our climate into a new state.


Yes, I remember 12 years ago when former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in six years. Go figure.

**********************************

_"Al Gore predicted in 2007 that by 2013 the Arctic Ocean would be completely ice free. __In the summer of 2012 ice levels did reach all time lows in the Arctic. Emboldened by this report Australian Professor Chris Turney launched an expedition in December of 2013 to prove that the Antarctic Sea Ice was also undergoing catastrophic melting only to have his ship trapped in sea ice such that it could not even be rescued by modern ice-breakers.

The Professor should have known that a more accurate estimate of sea ice can be had from satellite images taken every day at the Poles since 1981.* These images show that between summer and winter, regardless of the degree of summer melting, the sea ice completely recovers to its original size the winter before for almost every year since the pictures were taken.* The sea ice has been stubbornly resistant to Al Gore’s predictions. In fact the average annual coverage of sea ice has been essentially the same since satellite observations began in 1981. However that has not stopped global warming advocates and even government agencies from cherry picking the data to mislead the public"._

_"Melting glaciers are another topic of the warming alarmists. Indeed they can choose to point to some that are actually melting, ignoring those that are growing or remaining stable. Why the differences? They are largely dependent on whether over periods of time more snow falls than ice melts or the reverse. They are a great place to cherry pick data.

The solution to public fear about ice melting and sea level rising is simply using common sense"._

**********************************

Yeah, that common sense goal goes out the window when you're dealing with a cult.

ltr


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> I think the public could get on board with an independent CPPIB type organization, but politicians (of any stripe) are not going to let go of their partisan based gravy train.


That's a big problem, if politicans can't even keep their own house "clean" how can we rely on them to help "clean" the planet. At this point in time I'd say vote *no* to all green related actions until they can come up with a proper plan that makes sense and provides complete transparency.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> That's a big problem, if politicans can't even keep their own house "clean" how can we rely on them to help "clean" the planet. At this point in time I'd say vote *no* to all green related actions until they can come up with a proper plan that makes sense and provides complete transparency.


You're missing the point.
Right leaning people want logic, consistency and a realistic plan.

Lefties want feelings, and the money is going to a "good cause" anyway, so they don't care about all that stuff like "will it work?"


----------



## Prairie Guy

Climate change is one of the biggest scams ever pulled on taxpayers. One day people will look back and wonder how so many people could have been so gullible for so long, and how so many people got away with so many lies.

And those who supported the tax and attacked those opposed (many are on this board) will do what they do every single time they are proven wrong...they'll just pretend that it never happened. No shame and no reparations. Then the government will come up with a new tax and the same gullible idiots who fell for the carbon tax will fall in line once again and once again attack those who see through the scam.

Canada could have a whopping $1.5 trillion dollars to fight "climate" next week if half of the country (those who believe the lie) each stepped up and donated $100 to the cause. That's a very small price to pay...imagine saving the planet for a mere $100? But we all know that they'll never do it with their own money.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> Climate change is one of the biggest scams ever pulled on taxpayers. One day people will look back and wonder how so many people could have been so gullible for so long, and how so many people got away with so many lies.
> 
> And those who supported the tax and attacked those opposed (many are on this board) will do what they do every single time they are proven wrong...they'll just pretend that it never happened. No shame and no reparations. Then the government will come up with a new tax and the same gullible idiots who fell for the carbon tax will fall in line once again and once again attack those who see through the scam.
> 
> Canada could have a whopping $1.5 trillion dollars to fight "climate" next week if half of the country (those who believe the lie) each stepped up and donated $100 to the cause. That's a very small price to pay...imagine saving the planet for a mere $100? But we all know that they'll never do it with their own money.


They'd only have $1.5 billion dollars.
Also they don't believe in it, most of them just want free money from the "bad guys"/
I know people buying electric cars and carbon offsets.

They don't actually change their personal lifestyle, they still have 2 or more cars in their house, and they fly off on vacations.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Climate change is one of the biggest scams ever pulled on taxpayers. One day people will look back and wonder how so many people could have been so gullible for so long, and how so many people got away with so many lies.
> 
> And those who supported the tax and attacked those opposed (many are on this board) will do what they do every single time they are proven wrong...they'll just pretend that it never happened. No shame and no reparations. Then the government will come up with a new tax and the same gullible idiots who fell for the carbon tax will fall in line once again and once again attack those who see through the scam.
> 
> Canada could have a whopping $1.5 trillion dollars to fight "climate" next week if half of the country (those who believe the lie) each stepped up and donated $100 to the cause. That's a very small price to pay...imagine saving the planet for a mere $100? But we all know that they'll never do it with their own money.


I think you need to check your sums again. There are not 15 billion Canadians.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> I think you need to check your sums again. There are not 15 billion Canadians.


Sorry...I accidentally counted an extra comma 

There would be $1.5 billion, not trillion.


----------



## Pluto

*Why do deserts get cold at night (considering all the co2 warming)?*

https://www.google.ca/search?client...ld+at+night?&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

No mention of co2 in the explanations. Deserts get cold at night due to lack of H2O, the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas. Dry desert air gets cold at night. 

If co2 was such a powerful greenhous gas, as is claimed by the Church of NASA, deserts would stay warm at night.


----------



## m3s

Polls show those concerned with climate change are from coastal provinces, younger and more educated

I noticed it was the elderly from the landlocked provinces but now you have confirmed the less educated part


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> Polls show those concerned with climate change are from coastal provinces, younger and more educated
> 
> I noticed it was the elderly from the landlocked provinces but now you have confirmed the less educated part


I think that is a vast over-generalization. Of all the 30somethings and 40 somethings I know from a multitude of locations, a significant majority are too busy in life, careers and balancing budgets to do more than token efforts to reduce their environmental footprint beyond what they are already doing such as recycle, fuel mileage and converting to LED lighting as they cycle out burnt out bulbs. I doubt any of them would voluntarily pay even $100 in carbon taxes to mitigate emissions. They see it for what it is. A tax grab.

The only ones I know who have jumped on the bandwagon are those who don't incur the consequences, meaning little to no personal cost (economic stake) in the process. That includes the disenfranchised as well. Disengenuious at best.

There is no geographical differentiation that I can see, but there is a densification bias that I see between the insulated and ideological concrete box types in big cities versus those that see real life on a broader daily basis and understand real life practicalities. 

That is really a different socio-economic issue altogether.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Polls show those concerned with climate change are from coastal provinces, younger and more educated
> 
> I noticed it was the elderly from the landlocked provinces but now you have confirmed the less educated part


Have you seen what's going on at schools these days? Some of the popular ideas are absolutely nuts.


----------



## m3s

A poll is a generalization. Polls show it is those living in the coastal provinces, those more educated and youth who are more concerned in general (this is a country wide poll) vs your anecdotal belief.

I imagine there is some truth to both. Those who are more concerned with "cheap gas to drive their kids to school" would rather spend $100 on their child's birthday. Many are too inundated in their personal world crisis to look at a bigger world picture

Real life practicalities definitely exist. A carbon tax to encourage lower emissions and a pipeline to the west is not that unrealistic or unpractical imo. Any change is apparently ideological and unpractical. No in between. We'd never survive without plastic bottles.

It is true there are disenfranchised with no economic stake but there are also those whose entire lives are at stake on the other end of the spectrum. Which of those 2 has more power and influence on the vast majority in between?

Small changes by a large country can make a bigger impact. It's polarizing to call one person an ideological disenfranchised hypocrite for living like vast majority while advocating for small changes on a larger scale.


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> Polls show those concerned with climate change are from coastal provinces, younger and more educated


Polls have shown that over half of college and university students think socialism is better than capitalism. I wouldn't consider that as "better educated", but actual proof that they are easily led by socialist teachers to believe both the socialism lie and the climate change lie.


----------



## AltaRed

I've only read about two polls, one a recent CBC one on 3 important issues, of which one is climate change, and another poll saying the vast majority of Canadians wouldn't spend $100 on fighting climate change. None of the polls I have seen have very much differentiation in terms of demographics, location, or socio-economic status. What I do see is those who are least likely to have to pay for climate change tend to be the highest supporters, along with ideological youth most likely in their 20s. No surprise there. One can be in favour of anything if it doesn't cost that person much of anything. Think you have to be specific on what poll you refer too, and what are the specific, often leading, questions that potentially skew the results. One generally gets what they ask for.

I just know from our blended families and their associates of 30somethings, and 40somethings, most of whom have university degrees and successful careers, that climate change is most definitely not front and center. Anecdotally, I don't see much in the way of interest from the population in the BC southern interior either. Nothing much of substance is being discussed that I am aware of. Anecdotal information for sure.


----------



## like_to_retire

Prairie Guy said:


> Polls have shown that over half of college and university students think socialism is better than capitalism. I wouldn't consider that as "better educated", but actual proof that they are easily led by socialist teachers to believe both the socialism lie and the climate change lie.


Yeah, the crap they fill our kids heads with today is unconscionable. No wonder that the youth of today believe this nonsense.



AltRed said:


> I've only read about two polls, one a recent CBC one on 3 important issues, of which one is climate change, and another poll saying the vast majority of Canadians wouldn't spend $100 on fighting climate change. None of the polls I have seen have very much differentiation in terms of demographics, location, or socio-economic status. What I do see is those who are least likely to have to pay for climate change tend to be the highest supporters, along with ideological youth most likely in their 20s. No surprise there.


Exactly true.



AltaRed said:


> I just know from our blended families and their associates of 30somethings, and 40somethings, most of whom have university degrees and successful careers, that climate change is most definitely not front and center.


No kidding. My kids in their 40's with their university degrees and successful careers have climate change rated about a ten on a 1(high) to 10(low) scale. It just isn't a factor in their lives of child care, mortgages, careers, finances, etc.. This is an issue that has been championed for youth from the education system. It's a form of brainwashing. Many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate. It's such nonsense, but these alarmist cultists want to win children over to their environmental cause.

ltr


----------



## m3s

I think most children would smile and nod to their sweet aging parents and grandparents at that age raving about socialist environmental cults taking over

I highly respected my late grandfather but wouldn't dare discuss politics with him lol. He had a lot of pride and lived a respectable life but his political views were out of touch with the majority by that age. Times have changed and his grandchildren and great grandchildren are bilingual despite his strong beliefs of the french. We sometimes laugh about it and admit he lived in a different era. It's interesting to still find these old topics in the landlocked provinces

Tough love but this seems to apply to many who have children in their 30s and 40s


----------



## like_to_retire

m3s said:


> I think most children would smile and nod to their sweet aging parents and grandparents at that age raving about socialist environmental cults taking over
> 
> I highly respected my late grandfather but wouldn't dare discuss politics with him lol. He had a lot of pride and lived a respectable life but his political views were out of touch with the majority by that age.


Yeah, it must be tough for the Reddit generation like yourself, on a forum, when they can't quickly downvote opposing viewpoints from "the elderly", so their opinions can't be read before being banished to the basement, lost forever. The mob mentality doesn't fly on a forum - everyone gets a voice - even sweet aging parents.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> https://www.google.ca/search?client...ld+at+night?&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> 
> No mention of co2 in the explanations. Deserts get cold at night due to lack of H2O, the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas. Dry desert air gets cold at night.
> 
> If co2 was such a powerful greenhous gas, as is claimed by the Church of NASA, deserts would stay warm at night.


That argument would work if there were more CO2 in deserts. Also, NASA and others fully acknowledge that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It is accounted for in all the climate models.


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> I think most children would smile and nod to their sweet aging parents and grandparents at that age raving about socialist environmental cults taking over
> 
> I highly respected my late grandfather but wouldn't dare discuss politics with him lol. He had a lot of pride and lived a respectable life but his political views were out of touch with the majority by that age. Times have changed and his grandchildren and great grandchildren are bilingual despite his strong beliefs of the french. We sometimes laugh about it and admit he lived in a different era. It's interesting to still find these old topics in the landlocked provinces
> 
> Tough love but this seems to apply to many who have children in their 30s and 40s


Just because your grandfather was biased/racist that doesn't mean everyone on the prairies is. However, the tendency for bias certainly trickled down in your case. And, just like him you probably don't see that your type of bias is bias...but you think you're better than people on the "landlocked prairies" :biggrin:


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> That argument would work if there were more CO2 in deserts. Also, NASA and others fully acknowledge that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It is accounted for in all the climate models.


Yes, it's accounted for. However, the computer models multiply the effect several times. Therefore, the data is falsified to fit the narrative.


----------



## sags

NASA put men on the moon and brought them back safely. They built and operated the Space Shuttle.

I am sure they know how to model statistics and account for variations and other factors.

Virtually every government agency is aware of climate change and exploring how it will affect them.

Virtually every credible scientific body says that climate change is a crisis.

Some people will always challenge anything, but if the overwhelming scientific evidence is that climate change is real and caused by human activity......it is what it is.


----------



## AltaRed

Prairie Guy said:


> Just because your grandfather was biased/racist that doesn't mean everyone on the prairies is. However, the tendency for bias certainly trickled down in your case. And, just like him you probably don't see that your type of bias is bias...but you think you're better than people on the "landlocked prairies" :biggrin:


Am rather disappointed in m3s's response above. Thought more highly of the individual until now. Notwithstanding an uncalled for generational bias, I have no idea what cohorts m3s is even talking about. Clearly my own grandfather and even my parents had old school biases that drove me crazy, but they've all been dead for a long time. I suggest M3s needs to cut boomers (like myself) a little more slack in our objectivity. We are young enough to actually relate to our own 30something and 40something adult children, who we remain mostly in alignment with, on many matters, including the environment. If m3s is talking about 20somethings, well, they haven't lived life yet and cannot objectively relate to anything other than their personal ideology promoted by highly biased and vested educators. There is little consequence for their actions at this time, so talk is indeed cheap.

Nor do I understand this landlocked denigration. It seems misplaced and disrespectful of those who have worked hard to make a living and I'd suggest have a much better balanced view of the world around them. Talk to a farmer, forester, dock worker or miner regardless of geographic location and I suspect they may relate to life better than an intellectual living in a cocoon in the four walls of their mostly academic white collar world. At the very least, their biases are no worse than any other group in society.


----------



## andrewf

I bet you are not well connected to the frontier of social progress. As a thirty-something, I'm already seeing things that I have a hard time accepting.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Am rather disappointed in m3s's response above. Thought more highly of the individual until now. Notwithstanding an uncalled for generational bias, I have no idea what cohorts m3s is even talking about. Clearly my own grandfather and even my parents had old school biases that drove me crazy, but they've all been dead for a long time. I suggest M3s needs to cut boomers (like myself) a little more slack in our objectivity. We are young enough to actually relate to our own 30something and 40something adult children, who we remain mostly in alignment with, on many matters, including the environment.


If the discussion stays at your level I can agree you seem fairly reasonable and I can be as well

When people start claiming lack of water vapour in the dessert disproves the church of NASA and that education is a socialist cult we have dropped to the gutter. It seems to indicate how the polls found a correlation with less educated. We can all agree that higher education correlates with many things such as higher pay in general.. If the discussion stays out of the troll gutter I can as well.



AltaRed said:


> Nor do I understand this landlocked denigration. It seems misplaced and disrespectful of those who have worked hard to make a living and I'd suggest have a much better balanced view of the world around them. Talk to a farmer, forester, dock worker or miner regardless of geographic location and I suspect they may relate to life better than an intellectual living in a cocoon in the four walls of their mostly academic white collar world. At the very least, their biases are no worse than any other group in society.


This discussion has gone on for hundreds of pages and over time it became evident the mob of skeptics here are generally older and from landlocked provinces as well.. just coincidence the poll found the same generalization I suppose. I've lived in SK/AB/MB and know lots of great people there but there are regional differences. It stands out more when you live in different places I suppose.

As I've said before I actually tend to vote more in line with the prairies and invest in energy, but someone has to call out the blatant bs here


----------



## AltaRed

I agree there is quite a bit of blatant bs here, but also need to separate what people may actually believe versus what might be written to irritate or push hot buttons. Key is not to take the bait.

FWIW, I have lived coast to coast almost so also have seen regional differences. But we are all not that far apart.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> What I do see is those who are least likely to have to pay for climate change tend to be the highest supporters, along with ideological youth most likely in their 20s. No surprise there. One can be in favour of anything if *it doesn't cost that person much of anything.*


I would counter it could cost them their entire future.



AltaRed said:


> If m3s is talking about 20somethings, well, they haven't lived life yet and cannot objectively relate to anything other than their personal ideology promoted by highly biased and vested educators. There is little consequence for their actions at this time, so talk is indeed cheap.


I don't disagree, but find it amusing that it's ok to generalize as long as it suits your cause.

I see your point that change has less direct impact to youth, but I would counter this makes them more objective. Someone who has something to lose has a subconscious disposition to resist change. We all have worked with salty old folks who want to keep doing things the way they've done it since before we were born. Yawn. It is conflict resolution 101 that the root cause of endless arguments is the hidden agendas.

I would argue it's not the youth with the hidden agenda.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> NASA put men on the moon and brought them back safely. They built and operated the Space Shuttle.


That's a much easier challenge, than to make accurate models of chaotic, non-linear systems which rapidly diverge on very tiny differences in values. That's why weather forecasts aren't much better than a coin flip after a week or so.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> NASA put men on the moon and brought them back safely. They built and operated the Space Shuttle.
> 
> I am sure they know how to model statistics and account for variations and other factors.
> 
> Virtually every government agency is aware of climate change and exploring how it will affect them.
> 
> Virtually every credible scientific body says that climate change is a crisis.
> 
> Some people will always challenge anything, but if the overwhelming scientific evidence is that climate change is real and caused by human activity......it is what it is.


Lets pretend someone has put together a good climate model. I accept that they tend to promote the most outrageous models as "guarantees" because alarmism is good for business, just ask Al Gore.

Yet nobody has put together a real plan to solve it. Because they don't really want to solve it, they just want the benefits.

Look at the single use plastics and ocean pollution silliness. The oceans aren't being polluted by Canada or the EU, or even the US. Most of the pollution is from countries with lax environmental controls, who have no plans to improve things. 
It's all some sort of twisted political self loathing smoke and mirrors, with no real end game or benefit.


----------



## sags

Some people forget that doing nothing is going to have costs as well.

The Fort McMurray fire cost $10 billion dollars in direct and indirect costs, terrified people and disrupted lives and business.

In their annual statement, our insurance company posted a yearly loss due to claims from the Fort McMurray fire. They are now looking at removing all policy coverage from the area.

Taxpayers are going to be on the hook for these rising costs. We have to face the reality of how we are going to pay for it.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> Lets pretend someone has put together a good climate model. I accept that they tend to promote the most outrageous models as "guarantees" because alarmism is good for business, just ask Al Gore.
> 
> Yet nobody has put together a real plan to solve it. Because they don't really want to solve it, they just want the benefits.
> 
> Look at the single use plastics and ocean pollution silliness. The oceans aren't being polluted by Canada or the EU, or even the US. Most of the pollution is from countries with lax environmental controls, who have no plans to improve things.
> It's all some sort of twisted political self loathing smoke and mirrors, with no real end game or benefit.


Doing nothing passes the rising problem on to future generations. If we don't control out own pollution we can hardly lecture other countries to be responsible.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Some people forget that doing nothing is going to have costs as well.
> 
> The Fort McMurray fire cost $10 billion dollars in direct and indirect costs, terrified people and disrupted lives and business.


As I posted before, Alberta (especially Northern) gets large fires every now and then. If the same fire hit 50 years earlier, damage would have been almost nothing since it was barely populated. And the worst fire seasons in recent Alberta and Canadian history happened decades ago.

And if the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 had hit today, it would be the most expensive hurricane of all time.



sags said:


> Doing nothing passes the rising problem on to future generations.


Increasing wealth, technology, engineering and energy capabilities has made climate a consistently declining problem. Well, except those parts of the world where foolish investments into expensive and unreliable renewables have caused energy costs to shoot up, resulting in energy poverty and increasing deaths in the winter.



> If we don't control out own pollution we can hardly lecture other countries to be responsible.


If even Canada did control our pollution, they wouldn't listen. Rising countries like China and India, and resurgent superpower US continue to grow their CO2 emissions to grow their economies even as the once mighty UK cuts its CO2 emissions by 40% since 1990 as it and most of Western Europe hamstrung itself with energy poverty.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Doing nothing passes the rising problem on to future generations. If we don't control out own pollution we can hardly lecture other countries to be responsible.


We do control our own pollution, quite well, better than the vast majority of other countries.

I'm all for doing the right things to solve a problem and I think we should.
My question is why doesn't anyone come up with a good plan? 

All the plans so far seem to be pretty obvious ploys to bribe voters and benefit friends.
It it happens to make yourself rich at the same time, even better.


----------



## Pluto

m3s said:


> When people start claiming lack of water vapour in the dessert disproves the church of NASA and that education is a socialist cult we have dropped to the gutter. It seems to indicate how the polls found a correlation with less educated. We can all agree that higher education correlates with many things such as higher pay in general.. If the discussion stays out of the troll gutter I can as well.


Well, if co2 is the predominant greenhouse gas, as the Church of NASA claims, why does the temperature drop at night in deserts by some 50F or even more in some cases. Science claims its due to lack of water vapor in the desert air. It is well known that water vapor is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas. You are welcome to try and explain the phenomenon in co2 terms, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> When people start claiming lack of water vapour in the dessert disproves the church of NASA and that education is a socialist cult we have dropped to the gutter.


It's a fact that more than half of university students prefer socialism over capitalism, but you claim that by pointing that out that we have dropped to the gutter? 



> but someone has to call out the blatant bs here


I just did.


----------



## sags

Summer sun + right angled sun rays + no clouds + no water vapor = extreme day/night temperature changes.

The greenhouse effect likely keeps the desert from becoming even cooler at night.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> It's a fact that more than half of university students prefer socialism over capitalism, but you claim that by pointing that out that we have dropped to the gutter?


I just read a great article on why mindfulness and meditation are just ploys to get people to accept the status quo of exploitative capitalism.

There are a lot of really scary ideas being pushed in "education". I just hope some of them finish reading their history books to see what happens when people pursue these bad ideas that "educated" people seem to think are good.

There is a thing about knowledge, there is a certain level where you "know enough to be dangerous". I'd really like it if they went just a bit beyond that to understand the impacts and rule of unintended consequences a little bit better.

I recall seeing people screaming about the methane burning at the dump, and how could they dump all that CO2 into the atmosphere!
Let alone they were burning off the methane to lessen the environmental impact and at the same landfill they were trialing how to create an effective methane capture system, because it's actually not all that easy to safely collect and store the air mixed low pressure methane coming out of a landfill.


----------



## peterk

m3s said:


> I think most children would smile and nod to their sweet aging parents and *grandparents at that age raving about socialist environmental cults* taking over
> 
> I highly respected my late grandfather but wouldn't dare discuss politics with him lol. He had a lot of pride and lived a respectable life *but his political views were out of touch with the majority by that age. Times have changed *and his grandchildren and great grandchildren are bilingual despite his strong beliefs of the french. We sometimes laugh about it and admit he lived in a different era. It's interesting to still find these old topics in the landlocked provinces
> 
> *Tough love* but this seems to apply to many who have children in their 30s and 40s


Aren't you the one who has traveled for 20 years in Europe and Asia? Bothered to take in any history during that time? Doesn't seem like it... Perhaps life perspective and knowledge doesn't come from sex and drugs and youth culture after all? Who would've thought? Tough love. But it's ok, wasted time doesn't mean there still isn't time to change.

I think if you were being completely honest, your sentence would finish like:


> I highly respected my late grandfather but wouldn't dare discuss politics with him lol *because I was too afraid of finding out that my political opinions are nothing new, have been around for centuries, and that wiser men than me have had, grappled with, and ultimately rejected the exact same opinions that I have now.*


But sure, let's go with "times have changed".


----------



## sags

Here is some "education" for some people.

Every country spends a % of their GDP on socialist programs, with 8-10% of GDP as the lowest spending.


----------



## james4beach

Right, there are significant elements of socialism in western countries. America is _almost_ a socialist nation. For example Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are highly desirable programs, with extremely wide support among Americans.

But in my eyes the military is the greatest socialist institution in the US. The US DoD is a giant make-work project in the USA and employs a huge % of Americans. The army, national guard etc alone have huge numbers. There are then civilian branches, the defense business, which employs massive numbers of contractors and private businesses. When you look around it's just amazing how many people directly or indirectly are employed by the US govt.

This proud American socialist institution provides many other hallmarks of socialism, such as free healthcare for its workers, promises to provide employment even in rough times, and countless extra benefits such as big subsidies for university education. The DoD _creates_ work out of thin air when more work is needed. Hell, they even start new wars just to create jobs.

Socialism is a huge part of America and this is a good thing (personally I just don't like their militaristic take on it).


----------



## m3s

peterk said:


> Aren't you the one who has traveled for 20 years in Europe and Asia? Bothered to take in any history during that time? Doesn't seem like it... Perhaps life perspective and knowledge doesn't come from sex and drugs and youth culture after all? Who would've thought? Tough love. But it's ok, wasted time doesn't mean there still isn't time to change.


He was just a bit old school Canada dominion/confederate times. There was a lot of french/english tensions in those times back east. By the time I was growing up the majority of younger generations had embraced a unified Canada distinct from Britain. It's pretty common for older generations to hold on to older sentiments and I think most grandkids have something they smile and nod with the grandparents understanding times have indeed changed

"The nation began to feel far more nationalistic than before, with a generation raised in a country fully detached from Britain. The new Canadian flag served as a symbol and a catalyst for this. In Quebec, the Quiet Revolution was overthrowing the oligarchy of francophone clergy and anglophone businessmen, and French Canadian pride and nationalism were becoming a national political force."

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. It's understandable that people in Fort Mac would be going through tense times lately. People get irrational when their livelihood is at stake and look for anyone else to blame and project that anger on. I think we have another oil boom to come but long term that industry is going to indeed change and it probably won't be good for cities based entirely on fossil fuel. A wealth fund would have mitigated a lot of these tensions but that ship has sailed.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Here is some "education" for some people.
> 
> Every country spends a % of their GDP on socialist programs, with 8-10% of GDP as the lowest spending.


Exactly...small amounts of socialism can usually work because they are only small amounts of socialism AND because they are 100% funded by capitalism. Without capitalism socialism has a 100% failure rate.

It appears that your education was incomplete (was that on purpose?) if you left the most important part of why small doses of socialism can work in certain situations. Or, you are lying by omission.


----------



## m3s

I typically ignore the personal attacks as it's off topic and confirms lack of an actual response, but I realized it has to be addressed as slander/defamation of character. For the record I can't take over-the-counter drugs without a flight surgeon's blessing and get drug tested regularly to work in aerospace. Previous personal attacks have also been completely unfounded bs and ignored as such. It seems to stem from a mix of judgemental religion, pure fabrication or potentially troubled mental state.

It's interesting that the skeptics consider any differing opinion alarmist when they themselves are alarmist about social and environmental policy impacts on the economy. I haven't seen anyone realistically advocate for green party policies here and yet anyone who wants to improve society is immediately dismissed as one. 

Living in different places does give unique perspectives. For example Germany far is more socialist and environmental than Canada and yet their economy is stronger for it (even though they lack our abundance of natural resources) They have subsidized education which seems to pay back spades with intellectual property. Incentives for energy efficiency where most energy is used (simply recovering wasted heat, using geothermal, cooling air underground, shading windows from outside) Well designed buildings can be both more comfortable and efficient than our energy intensive HVAC systems which makes both economic and environmental sense. Yet RE is more affordable and higher quality than our particle board houses. Carbon tax is used to lower income taxes which helps both the economy and the environment. Their waste management, recycling, public transport is all great beyond the imagination of a skeptic who rarely leaves a depressed echo chamber of environmental hate. They do many things worse and haven't found a full solution (at least some nuclear, or simply adapting lifestyle to live with renewable) It's a broadened perspective from typical blind faith that you're the best at everything because your tribe says so (they all say so). I've lived in many places including northern alberta and I've seen the stats of attrition and environmental depression there. Many have to pay our dues and earn our keep in undesirable places at some point but if you want to talk about wasting your life that's a good start.

I figured religious types claiming to be moral and righteous would want to be good stewards of the land themselves and less judgmental but all I could find from the bible was some vague directions about not polluting Israel with blood. I guess you could interpret alberta as not god's country? It seems the bible is more to make you feel superior while acting the opposite

"You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel."


----------



## peterk

m3s said:


> Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. It's understandable that people in Fort Mac would be going through tense times lately. People get irrational when their livelihood is at stake and look for anyone else to blame and project that anger on. I think we have another oil boom to come but long term that industry is going to indeed change and it probably won't be good for cities based entirely on fossil fuel. A wealth fund would have mitigated a lot of these tensions but that ship has sailed.





m3s said:


> I typically ignore the personal attacks as it's off topic and confirms lack of an actual response, but I realized it has to be addressed as slander/defamation of character. For the record I can't take over-the-counter drugs without a flight surgeon's blessing and get drug tested regularly to work in aerospace. Previous personal attacks have also been completely unfounded bs and ignored as such. It seems to stem from a mix of judgemental religion, pure fabrication or potentially troubled mental state.
> 
> It's interesting that the skeptics consider any differing opinion alarmist when they themselves are alarmist about social and environmental policy impacts on the economy. I haven't seen anyone realistically advocate for green party policies here and yet anyone who wants to improve society is immediately dismissed as one.
> 
> Living in different places does give unique perspectives. For example Germany far is more socialist and environmental than Canada and yet their economy is stronger for it (even though they lack our abundance of natural resources) They have subsidized education which seems to pay back spades with intellectual property. Incentives for energy efficiency where most energy is used (simply recovering wasted heat, using geothermal, cooling air underground, shading windows from outside) Well designed buildings can be both more comfortable and efficient than our energy intensive HVAC systems which makes both economic and environmental sense. Yet RE is more affordable and higher quality than our particle board houses. Carbon tax is used to lower income taxes which helps both the economy and the environment. Their waste management, recycling, public transport is all great beyond the imagination of a skeptic who rarely leaves a depressed echo chamber of environmental hate. They do many things worse and haven't found a full solution (at least some nuclear, or simply adapting lifestyle to live with renewable) It's a broadened perspective from typical blind faith that you're the best at everything because your tribe says so (they all say so). I've lived in many places including northern alberta and I've seen the stats of attrition and environmental depression there. Many have to pay our dues and earn our keep in undesirable places at some point but if you want to talk about wasting your life that's a good start.
> 
> I figured religious types claiming to be moral and righteous would want to be good stewards of the land themselves and less judgmental but all I could find from the bible was some vague directions about not polluting Israel with blood. I guess you could interpret alberta as not god's country? It seems the bible is more to make you feel superior while acting the opposite
> 
> "You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel."


Sorry you felt that way - "I typically ignore the personal attacks".

Granted, we're off topic now, but you started it with an insistence on denigrating westerners, making unfounded attacks on any hope of our objectivity "just worried about your jobs", and making self righteous claims that you have perspective that no one else could possibly grasp without your worldly use of many far apart rental apartments. Then changing the subject to show no comprehension of religious wisdom yet, quoting the bible in bad faith to make yourself feel superior by declaring that the bible is used to make its readers feel superior...

Funny how we can both claim the other is searching for ground to stand on in a battle for moral superiority, and come at it from the completely opposite sides. You can totally understand how I'm trapped in my perspective because of my life choices, and I can totally understand how you're trapped in your perspective because of your life choices. Each convinced the other cannot change.

But I won't give in. I can change and grow, and I believe you can too. I didn't say you wasted your life, I said wasted time (I've wasted lots of that too  )

As high-intelligence 30s-40s something men, we are the makers of tomorrow, and I won't give up on discussions with you guys who, in my opinion, might be going down the wrong path towards meaningful participation in this world because of an obsession with enviro-centric nihilism.


----------



## AltaRed

peterk said:


> Funny how we can both claim the other is searching for ground to stand on in a battle for moral superiority, and come at it from the completely opposite sides. You can totally understand how I'm trapped in my perspective because of my life choices, and I can totally understand how you're trapped in your perspective because of your life choices. Each convinced the other cannot change.


I purposely quit my debate with m3s further up thread after getting the '20somethings can be more objective' bit. That is a bold statement from potentially a 20something who has not had the wisdom of sufficient experience in life and by definition, may not have the ability to make a balanced, objective and rational assessment. Teens and 20somethings are idealists, which is not a bad thing as part of their life experience, but it is not the end game for making measured judgement on consequences, and unintended consequences, of various actions. A good reason why they are rarely given ultimate decision making authority. Older and wiser folk, e.g. 40somethings and above, not necessarily 60somethings and above, are not necessarily trying to protect the status quo, albeit some will clearly be biased trying to protect keeping of their economic status. The majority simply have experienced enough life to know more about the damage that can be done going too far one way or the other. 

With that, I will bow out of the inevitable blow back that will no doubt come my way.

Added: I am too old to have much personal stake in this fight, but I have great respect for my (and my spouse's) adult children (and their partners) who all range in age from 36 to 45. I think they now have the wisdom to guide this country's direction and I trust them to use their life experiences accordingly in their judgement.


----------



## m3s

I'm not a fan of heavy moderation and I don't necessarily even have a problem with personal attacks. Slander and defamation of character is where I need to draw the line. Illegal at some point

I don't see any rule on the forum about making generalizations. They can be taken personally but that seems to be lack of objectivity or over sensitivity. There is a line of over generalization but let's be reasonable for a moment

It's interesting that the side who calls the teachers communists (confused with socialism that we live with today) and environmentalists drugged youth snowflakes, are so overly sensitive to any regional generalization even backed up by polls.

Reminds me of the trump supporters seeking safe spaces from micro-aggressions without even realizing it's nothing compared to how they treat others on a daily basis. The irony

You can't really have an objective debate without taking into account the potential ulterior motives, such as your source of income.


----------



## peterk

m3s said:


> I'm not a fan of heavy moderation and I don't necessarily even have a problem with personal attacks. Slander and defamation of character is where I need to draw the line.* Illegal at some point*
> 
> I don't see any rule on the forum about making generalizations. They can be taken personally but that seems to be lack of objectivity or over sensitivity. There is a line of over generalization but let's be reasonable for a moment
> 
> It's interesting that the side who calls the teachers communists (confused with socialism that we live with today) and environmentalists drugged youth snowflakes, are so overly sensitive to any regional generalization even backed up by polls.
> 
> *Reminds me of the trump supporters seeking safe spaces from micro-aggressions* without even realizing it's nothing compared to how they treat others on a daily basis. *The irony*
> 
> *You can't really have an objective debate* without taking into account the * potential ulterior motives, such as your source of income.*


Why do you insist on being dramatic? You are only taking it as defamation because it hurts, nobody else sees it.

Who are Trump supporters seeking safe spaces from micro-aggressions? What is this world salad? Do you know what safe spaces and micro aggressions are? They aren't available places for Trump supporters... But why change the subject?

*Can't* have an objective debate? So you're out? Source of income is an obvious and uninteresting "ulterior motive". I'm plainly saying I think your ulterior motive is a deep seated need to find meaning in something like enviro-centric hedonism because you've turned your back on normal, tradition life (living in one place, having a family, studying objective religious morality) (there's still time) and without these things, the search for a meaningful life is difficult and chaotic, and I hope you can work your way through it, and I wish the best for you.


----------



## peterk

m3s said:


> It's interesting that the side who calls the teachers communists (confused with socialism that we live with today) and environmentalists drugged youth snowflakes, are so overly sensitive to any regional generalization even backed up by polls.


It seems like this is more just turning into a contest of flinging lengthy creative adjectives for you. I am guilty of the same I think. Will try and tone it down.


----------



## sags

Climate change is a regional and age related issue. 

Future elections will likely be decided by regional and age related issues. Young adults have become the biggest voting block, taking over from the baby boomers.

The heavily populated urban areas with the most electoral seats at stake predominantly believe there is a climate change emergency.

Climate change is now the #2 issue for the Federal election, and is rising to the top for the 2020 US election.

Times are changing as young adults take over control.


----------



## AltaRed

I think (not certain) GEN-Xers are the bigger voting block than young adults (millenials), and are more likely to vote as well. GEN-Xers are also generally more astute and objective on 'consequences' than idealistic, inexperienced young adults, so don't be so sure climate change is more significant than jobs, the economy and GDP growth. Recent immigrants are also more interested in the economy than climate change as well and they are an increasing component of heavily populated urban areas. Obviously, a lot will become more known as election rhetoric, lies and misrepresentations get underway.

P.S. It would be a good idea to research your assertions.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Climate change is a regional and age related issue.
> 
> Future elections will likely be decided by regional and age related issues. Young adults have become the biggest voting block, taking over from the baby boomers.
> 
> The heavily populated urban areas with the most electoral seats at stake predominantly believe there is a climate change emergency.
> 
> Climate change is now the #2 issue for the Federal election, and is rising to the top for the 2020 US election.
> 
> Times are changing as young adults take over control.


They say they care about climate change, but they're not willing to actually do anything about it themselves.


----------



## sags

Millennials are the largest voting block in Canada, but have historically been unreliable until the past few elections.

That has changed since they realized that peaceful protesting doesn't get the results they wanted, so they have gone political to change the leaders.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...s-millennial-voting-army-is-at-the-gates.html


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> I think (not certain) GEN-Xers are the bigger voting block than young adults (millenials), and are more likely to vote as well. GEN-Xers are also generally more astute and objective on 'consequences' than idealistic, inexperienced young adults.



it's my understanding that millennials are the bigger voting cohort by far, since they are the children of the baby boomers



> Millennials are sometimes referred to as "echo boomers" due to a major surge in birth rates in the 1980s and 1990s, and because millennials are often the children of the baby boomers - Wikipedia


----------



## sags

From the Toronto Star article linked above.

_How to harness a ‘youthquake?’

Whichever party can divine a way to do that in next year’s federal election will form government, according to some ground breaking data on millennials being released this week by Abacus Data.

*For the first time, millennials will be the dominant voting block in a federal election in 2019.* That’s also the case in this June’s Ontario election.

*That’s 9.5 million voters, those who will be aged 19-39, when federal ballots are cast next year.*

There are signs that political parties understand there’s a revolution underway, one that has the potential to turn Canadian politics on its head.

For years, or so the adage went, parties didn’t court the youth vote, because they didn’t go to the polls. Younger voters said they checked out of the process because politicians had nothing for them.

The dance continued.

That circle is being broken, says David Coletto, the 36-year-old Abacus CEO and author of the study, who says it has been most notable over the past three years at all levels of government._


----------



## AltaRed

Okay, point taken. I guess I was off because we, as fairly leading edge baby boomers, have children who are mostly GEN-Xers, one couple aged 36/38 and the other 4 couples aged 40 and above. I now recognize the average baby boomer mostly have millenial aged children. The youngest baby boomers, born in 1964, would be 55 yrs old.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Okay, point taken. I guess I was off because we, as fairly leading edge baby boomers, have children who are mostly GEN-Xers, one couple aged 36/38 and the other 4 couples aged 40 and above. I now recognize the average baby boomer mostly have millenial aged children. The youngest baby boomers, born in 1964, would be 55 yrs old.


Your kids are what I call xennials like me. Depending on the vague definition we are either/or and share some similarities with both gen x and millennial. We grew up with both new and old technology.



peterk said:


> Why do you insist on being dramatic? You are only taking it as defamation because it hurts, nobody else sees it.


My usual personalty is I will agree with honest criticism rather than get defensive/dramatic. It's different when it's completely unfounded and impacts other's perception of me. Unlikely but I've even been questioned about the most innocuous of online activity in background checks now. It's an eye opener actually. Either way I have no association with drugs and your credibility is 0 here



peterk said:


> Who are Trump supporters seeking safe spaces from micro-aggressions? What is this world salad? Do you know what safe spaces and micro aggressions are? They aren't available places for Trump supporters... But why change the subject?


The point is they laugh at those words, then say they need to go where only other like minded people are to get away from things like bad looks and unfounded treatment that hurts their feelings more than others realize etc. Basically they have created safe spaces from the micro-aggressions without even knowing it. You react to reasonable generalization with unfounded personal attacks. It is defensive and dramatic without realizing it



peterk said:


> Source of income is an obvious and uninteresting "ulterior motive". I'm plainly saying I think your ulterior motive is a deep seated need to find meaning in something like enviro-centric hedonism because you've turned your back on normal, tradition life (living in one place, having a family, studying objective religious morality) (there's still time) and without these things, the search for a meaningful life is difficult and chaotic, and I hope you can work your way through it, and I wish the best for you.


I'd enjoy the lifestyle debate in another thread/topic. You are throwing stones from a weak position here but I do enjoy some of the deep Peterson discussions

Have you had to lead a small team or deescalate conflicts yet? Any management experience? Ulterior motive and hidden agenda is exactly what you want to expose, leverage and negotiate in a civilized debate. If you go around judging people's lifestyle even subtly it will hurt your credibility to lead. Again it would be fun to debate in another context but has nothing to do with an environment debate

If you remove the conflict of interest and localized group think (often requires extensive travel) you can start to debate objectively. Cleaning up the environment by improving efficiency can be reasonable and logical. Done right it can even improve the economy, just not the fossil fuel economy.


----------



## m3s

Full disclosure though I've doubled down on both oil and nuclear because it seems they're unfairly beaten down


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Full disclosure though I've doubled down on both oil and nuclear because it seems they're unfairly beaten down


They're beaten down, but there is a lot of political risk there as well.

I don't know how to quantify political risk, but it is substantial these days.


----------



## m3s

I figure the chances of a green party are slim to none

The liberals don't subsidize energy as much as conservatives, but global demand will overpower that anyways.

The conservatives might even be the higher political risk by inciting backlash to projects


----------



## Prairie Guy

m3s said:


> The conservatives might even be the higher political risk by inciting backlash to projects


Yup...blame the conservatives for leftist violence and vandalism. I'm glad that I don't have to live such a sad and pathetic life where I had so little control over my personal choices and actions.


----------



## peterk

m3s said:


> My usual personalty is I will agree with honest criticism rather than get defensive/dramatic. It's different when it's completely unfounded and impacts other's perception of me. Unlikely but I've even been questioned about the most innocuous of online activity in background checks now. It's an eye opener actually. Either way I have no association with drugs and your credibility is 0 here


Sorry there. I didn't realize that was the point that got your riled up on, drugs. But really, who would've thought a xennial globe trotter who zealously defends enviro-religion and shits on westerners and traditional family values would have no association with drugs? :biggrin:

Course, you end the sentence, again, with being dramatic and antagonistic. An incorrect assumption does not invite a "your credibility is 0 here". Tell me more about your "de-escalation" successes??? 

How are you going about investing in nuclear? It's a great technology I'm 100% behind. Obviously the best way to provide energy to this world is Nuclear and natural gas for all electricity, and oil for all engines and all transportation. Wind and Solar are useless, Hydro is quite problematic for rivers (oops - I build dams), and Coal isn't so clean and probably not necessary with nuclear and NG (though I believe in developing countries coal is still critical, and the best and most ethical option).


----------



## Spidey

A video, from a climate scientist with significant credentials, for those with open minds.


----------



## AltaRed

It is too bad that interview is on Fox News with an opinionated host. It won't get the airing and attention it deserves. It is not the first time experts have 'called out' the politicized IPCC.

It is my not so humble opinion the 'managed' climate models will fall flat on their faces by 2030. I will hopefully still have my cognitive capability by then.


----------



## m3s

peterk said:


> How are you going about investing in nuclear? It's a great technology I'm 100% behind. Obviously the best way to provide energy to this world is Nuclear and natural gas for all electricity, and oil for all engines and all transportation. Wind and Solar are useless, Hydro is quite problematic for rivers (oops - I build dams), and Coal isn't so clean and probably not necessary with nuclear and NG (though I believe in developing countries coal is still critical, and the best and most ethical option).


Mostly Cameco but I apparently Barrick as well. Long game on nuclear replacing aging plants, especially if there advances in tech

Solar has its place. If you live where it's sunny (or are mobile) and use proper application/energy efficient design for it (DC not AC inverter..) then its very feasible.

Everything else is just indirectly solar powered


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> Yup...blame the conservatives for leftist violence and vandalism. I'm glad that I don't have to live such a sad and pathetic life where I had so little control over my personal choices and actions.


Don't mix politics with finance. (Yes I realize I said that, even after saying political risk is a serious investment criteria)

Overreaction against Conservative policy is definitely a risk.


----------



## james4beach

Prairie Guy said:


> Exactly...small amounts of socialism can usually work because they are only small amounts of socialism AND because they are 100% funded by capitalism. Without capitalism socialism has a 100% failure rate.


America's rampant socialism is not funded by capitalism. The federal government borrows (or prints) money, and funds the banking industry, military, massive defense industry, and tons of government workers and contractors in many sectors. It is only partially funded by capitalism. Tax revenue from profitable corporations don't come close to covering the US's bills. The US govt has about $1 trillion shortfall each year.

In addition to that, the US has used their central bank to effectively borrow several trillion $ more and inject that money into the economy as well. More socialism.

The Republicans pretend to criticize socialism and excess government spending, while simultaneously _increasing_ government spending to new heights... they do this because federal spending underpins the entire American economy. The American economy would simply collapse without the government propping it up.

Wall Street and the financial industry would collapse without government support. And the defense industry and those millions of jobs _wouldn't even exist_. This isn't capitalism -- though I think it's really cute how Americans think they are capitalists.

It's socialism. The federal government centrally plans the economy and deliberately injects stimulus money into major sectors (finance, defense, agriculture). They do this in large part to keep people employed, even if it's "make-work" projects.


----------



## sags

It has begun..........

Climate change is making parts of India (and other countries) too hot for humans to survive.

A combined temperature/humidity reading of 35 won't allow humans to perspire, and they overheat and even the fittest humans die.

There are more than 1 Billion people who could be affected.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/asia/india-heat-wave-survival-hnk-intl/index.html


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> A combined temperature/humidity reading of 35 won't allow humans to perspire, and they overheat and even the fittest humans die.


If only there was a way to control the air temperature some how ... like, condition it ... hmmmmm.


----------



## Spudd

cainvest said:


> If only there was a way to control the air temperature some how ... like, condition it ... hmmmmm.


You do realize that many humans on the planet don't have access to air conditioning?


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> It has begun..........
> 
> Climate change is making parts of India (and other countries) too hot for humans to survive.
> 
> A combined temperature/humidity reading of 35 won't allow humans to perspire, and they overheat and even the fittest humans die.
> 
> There are more than 1 Billion people who could be affected.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/asia/india-heat-wave-survival-hnk-intl/index.html


There is going to be mass migration, adaptation, or massive die-offs. The planet is warming despite ANY mankind attempts to do otherwise, so we better get used to the idea. Whether this disruption starts to accelerate by 2050, 2350 or 2550 is not that material in terms of the history of **** sapiens. For our own species' interest, it should be sooner rather than later to avoid catastrophic changes that happens elsewhere with mammal species in nature. 

For example, there are well understood cycles of rabbits and coyote populations... Rabbits overrun, the coyote population eats its way to population growth, the coyotes then over-extend decimating the rabbit population, and coyotes die of starvation. The cycle then begins again.

The sooner we arrest global population growth, the less catastrophic will be the downfall/decline/decimation of our species. The planet will be better for it but few ever really want to mention such heresay, never mind allowing it to happen in any meaningful way. Countries will eventually learn to close their borders when it becomes unsustainable.


----------



## cainvest

Spudd said:


> You do realize that many humans on the planet don't have access to air conditioning?


Might be a good business plan to open up air conditioning stores in India!


----------



## peterk

AltaRed said:


> There is going to be mass migration, adaptation, or massive die-offs. The planet is warming despite ANY mankind attempts to do otherwise, so we better get used to the idea. Whether this disruption starts to accelerate by 2050, 2350 or 2550 is not that material in terms of the history of **** sapiens. *For our own species' interest, it should be sooner rather than later to avoid catastrophic changes that happens elsewhere with mammal species in nature. *
> 
> For example, there are well understood cycles of rabbits and coyote populations... Rabbits overrun, the coyote population eats its way to population growth, the coyotes then over-extend decimating the rabbit population, and coyotes die of starvation. The cycle then begins again.
> 
> *The sooner we arrest global population growth,* the less catastrophic will be the downfall/decline/decimation of our species. *The planet will be better for it* but few ever really want to mention such heresay, never mind allowing it to happen in any meaningful way. Countries will eventually learn to close their borders when it becomes unsustainable.


This is a rather all over the place, bleak, and crazy world view, Altared.

First of all, we're not rabbits, and there's no such thing as natural human population cycles anymore. We're not in nature anymore, and human population is only connected to economy, culture and energy. Nothing natural about that.
Second, there is zero evidence that the global human population is too high currently or will be even in the distant future in relation to concepts like "carrying capacity" of the earth. Back in the 60s the earth's population was half of now and people were worried about starvation, how did that work out? Wide spread food-security and prosperity. This topic is just more unscientific "humans bad" eco propaganda with a dash one-world-government propaganda on top (need it to keep everyone under control and not reproducing too fast).

The only way that the world is going to become a less prosperous, less green, less beautiful place over the next 50 years is if the eco-fascists succeed at shutting down hydrocarbon production, causing the 3rd world to starve, and the western world to slump into energy poverty. Otherwise, that glib scenario notwithstanding, the future is bright.


----------



## sags

Scientists have calculated the free space (leaving enough room for agriculture) on earth and say we can make a huge difference in CO2 emissions by planting 1.5 Trillion trees.

They say it would remove 25 years worth of emissions every decade. It sounds to me like a fantastic opportunity for green infrastructure spending to create jobs and help the climate.

There are currently about 3 Trillion trees on the planet and young trees absorb CO2 faster than mature trees, so there would be an immediate positive impact.

In the meantime, I agree with AltaRed and we should hope for the best but prepare for the worst.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Scientists have calculated the free space (leaving enough room for agriculture) on earth and say we can make a huge difference in CO2 emissions by planting 1.5 Trillion trees.
> 
> They say it would remove 25 years worth of emissions every decade. It sounds to me like a fantastic opportunity for green infrastructure spending to create jobs and help the climate.
> 
> There are currently about 3 Trillion trees on the planet and young trees absorb CO2 faster than mature trees, so there would be an immediate positive impact.


Yeah, I like the tree idea. 

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of places on earth in third world locations where they're cutting down trees faster than anyone could ever plant them. That has to be addressed.

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

peterk said:


> there is zero evidence that the global human population is too high currently or will be even in the distant future in relation to concepts like "carrying capacity" of the earth.


I'm led to understand that we've actually broken the population growth problem quite a few years ago, but it will take some time to dial down the actual population totals. 

In developed first world countries, they can't maintain their populations without immigration. The sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman.

I really like this web-site for a great overview of population and it's growth for the future and some really interesting graphs. There are lots of ways to look at things.

The long and the short says:

_"The global population growth rate peaked long ago. The chart below shows that global population growth reached a peak in 1962 and 1963 with an annual growth rate of 2.2%; but since then, world population growth has halved."_









Another way to look at it is, world population versus annual growth rate. 

You can see it's going to take a while to lower the population totals even though growth has dropped so much, but it's a done deal.









It's also interesting that China and India completely overwhelm the population by country stats. They really need to get their **** together.









Climate change, takes thousand of years to make a difference as we've seen from the many ice ages so far. We have a ridiculous amount of time to deal with this issue. We'll have solved the population problem by the time climate change is a real issue. So no, it ain't an emergency. It's just the natural cycle of the earth, and the timeline is so much greater than climate emergencies proclaimed by city councils.

ltr


----------



## humble_pie

like_to_retire said:


> Unfortunately, there are also a lot of places on earth in third world locations where they're cutting down trees faster than anyone could ever plant them. That has to be addressed.




but _how_ to address?

that is the question

croaking complaints at justin trudeau because brazil is cutting down its amazon rainforest is dysfunctional

many have said We got to try ourselves

Be what we Want, even though we are a tiny country

parties saying canada can't make a difference so let's continue dumping plastic in the ocean, dial up our swimming pool temperatures night & day, luxury travel vietnam, southeast asia & norway for months on end while cursing the prime minister who dares to go surfing one weekend in tofino - those parties are setting a certain example & maybe it's not the best one imho

.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> but _how_ to address?
> 
> that is the question
> 
> croaking complaints at justin trudeau because brazil is cutting down its amazon rainforest is dysfunctional
> 
> many have said We got to try ourselves
> 
> Be what we Want, even though we are a tiny country
> 
> parties saying canada can't make a difference so let's continue dumping plastic in the ocean, dial up our swimming pool temperatures night & day, luxury travel vietnam, southeast asia & norway for months on end while cursing the prime minister who dares to go surfing one weekend in tofino - those parties are setting a certain example & maybe it's not the best one imho
> 
> .


The thing is we're not dumping plastic in the ocean, and most of us aren't taking luxury vacations around the world.


----------



## like_to_retire

humble_pie said:


> but _how_ to address?
> 
> that is the question
> 
> croaking complaints at justin trudeau because brazil is cutting down its amazon rainforest is dysfunctional
> 
> many have said We got to try ourselves
> 
> Be what we Want, even though we are a tiny country


Humble, I really don't know what the answer is..

I do know I'm sad when I see TV programs where these idiots are cutting down rain-forests and I wish the governments in those regions would take it more seriously. 

I also hate to see counties that don't seem to care about dumping their waste in the water system.

What I don't care about is some silly government that puts their efforts into taxing its citizens for some sort of carbon offense that doesn't actually exist and will have zero effect on world pollution.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

like_to_retire said:


> I'm led to understand that we've actually broken the population growth problem quite a few years ago, but it will take some time to dial down the actual population totals.
> 
> In developed first world countries, they can't maintain their populations without immigration. The sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman.
> 
> I really like this web-site for a great overview of population and it's growth for the future and some really interesting graphs. There are lots of ways to look at things.
> 
> The long and the short says:
> 
> _"The global population growth rate peaked long ago. The chart below shows that global population growth reached a peak in 1962 and 1963 with an annual growth rate of 2.2%; but since then, world population growth has halved."_
> 
> View attachment 19498
> 
> 
> Another way to look at it is, world population versus annual growth rate.
> 
> You can see it's going to take a while to lower the population totals even though growth has dropped so much, but it's a done deal.
> 
> View attachment 19500


Indeed global growth rate has been decelerating over time, but it has a long ways to go, to get to zero growth rate, or better yet, negative growth rate. Me thinks it is optimistic to continue the trend line down as shown in that graph. Current projections currently suggest 11-12 billion people, although the UN keeps talking about 9 billion. 

Either way, at the rate the current human population is polluting/contaminating our air, land and water, and stripping the planet of resources of all kinds (organic and inorganic), even at a current population, I believe we will reach a day of reckoning as more and more resources deplete. As an example, we simply are not paying attention to the potential collapse of our marine food chain. When it's disrupted and gone, e.g. the cod fishery on the Grand Banks, it is gone.


----------



## james4beach

Looks like Alberta has decided to waste millions of $ of taxpayers money to try and find a scapegoat for their economic problems
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-war-room-public-inquiry-1.5200549

Classy move, Alberta! Make your population feel better by finding some environmentalists to blame.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Either way, at the rate the current human population is polluting/contaminating our air, land and water, and stripping the planet of resources of all kinds (organic and inorganic), even at a current population, I believe we will reach a day of reckoning as more and more resources deplete. As an example, we simply are not paying attention to the potential collapse of our marine food chain. When it's disrupted and gone, e.g. the cod fishery on the Grand Banks, it is gone.


Alta, Alta, don't worry about that practical stuff. The important thing to focus on is obviously Carbon. We have to tax it it and destroy our economy first before we can concern ourselves about actual pollution. Sigh.....................

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Looks like Alberta has decided to waste millions of $ of taxpayers money to try and find a scapegoat for their economic problems
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-war-room-public-inquiry-1.5200549
> 
> Classy move, Alberta! Make your population feel better by finding some environmentalists to blame.


Much of the anti-pipeline protest funding comes from sources external to Canada from folks like the Koch Brothers behind it, i.e. corps that benefit by constraining Canadian oil exports. It is naive for Canadians to think the 'anti' movement is mostly home grown and funded. Several links have been uncovered over the past several years. Canadian business and governments have just been very slow to pick up on it.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Much of the anti-pipeline protest funding comes from sources external to Canada from folks like the Koch Brothers behind it, i.e. corps that benefit by constraining Canadian oil exports. It is naive for Canadians to think the 'anti' movement is mostly home grown and funded. Several links have been uncovered over the past several years. Canadian business and governments have just been very slow to pick up on it.


So it's protesters holding back the whole industry? Is that why Cdn energy started tanking during Stephen Harper's years and picked up steam as US production increased?

Was Harper also oblivious to these nasty, organized foreign funded protesters then? I presume you're not going to tell me that Harper was an energy-hating, Alberta-hating carbon fool.

US energy production -- as I understand it, a higher quality grade than what the oil sands produces -- has increased dramatically and is hitting new all time highs. I'm not convinced that it's "protesters" holding back Alberta & oil sands.


----------



## AltaRed

I suggest you don't really understand the story and are hung up on your political bias. The anti bias started back circa 2011/2012, with roots even further back than that, and neither the politicians nor business saw it, or didn't consider it a threat.

It's the constant litigation by varied groups, funded from external sources, that is holding up pipelines. Front line protestors are just the pawns in the game. If I had the inclination, I'd look up legitimate links to some key examples. That is all the AB public inquiry is intended to do... to prove non-Canadian interests are funding the show. That is clear interference in domestic affairs. 

Rather than railing from your desk chair, perhaps read "The Patch" by Chris Turner as I have suggested numerous times. It is plodding and sometimes excruciating reading in the early chapters but it all comes together in the last third of the book.


----------



## james4beach

I think Kenney is making a fool of himself and the province. It's sad.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> I think Kenney is making a fool of himself and the province. It's sad.


Maybe but there is some fire behind the smoke. I am no fan of Kenney by any stretch of the imagination, but this is a legitimate fact finding mission. We, collectively as Canadians, should want to know if we are being taken for fools.


----------



## sags

If the Koch brothers and powerful people in the US are so intent on thwarting oil exports from Canada, what will happen if the TMP gets completed and we try to sell our oil to China ?

We offer for $50 a barrel and the US oil establishment offers their oil for $40 a barrel ?

It seems to me that the Koch brothers and others lobbying will probably intensify if we complete the pipeline.

Still, I am in favor of the pipeline as it is much safer than shipping by other methods and since it is going to be shipped one way or the other......pick the safest way.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> We offer for $50 a barrel and the US oil establishment offers their oil for $40 a barrel ?


It simply never happens that way. Oil, no matter what, is priced at the marginal barrel that is in demand. It is only 'fixed' transactions like what Venezuela might do with Cuba that are not 'market priced'. 

FWIW, the USA still uses about 20 million barrels per day of oil and only produces 12 million barrels per day. A long ways to go before self-sufficiency whether by shrinking demand, increasing production, or both.


----------



## peterk

AltaRed said:


> Either way, at the rate the current human population is polluting/contaminating our air, land and water, and stripping the planet of resources of all kinds (organic and inorganic), even at a current population, I believe we will reach a day of reckoning as more and more resources deplete. As an example, we simply are not paying attention to the potential collapse of our marine food chain. When it's disrupted and gone, e.g. the cod fishery on the Grand Banks, it is gone.


Why do you _believe_ this?

You understand the need for getting the message out about our great strides in pollution reduction, responsible business and environmental stewardship leadership in the resource extraction.

But you don't think we can't figure out (or already know) how to effectively and responsibly grow more fish to eat?

"Population reduction" isn't the answer or solution to anything.


----------



## AltaRed

You have your views and I have mine.... The impact of human neglect on our planet in the developing world is incredible. Seen plenty of it and I thus don't have much regard for a great portion of our species actually. Just 2 examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmryr65iTwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVnMBGXVVUI

On and on it goes... and that is just the visible stuff. When you see shite like that, you have to know the 'carrying capacity' of this planet is limited, and our species has no particular right to it.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

james4beach said:


> I think Kenney is making a fool of himself and the province. It's sad.


Since you don't have any idea WTF you are talking about, you may want to read this: Corbella: Krause questions why Trudeau changed charity laws for activists

And this: Anti-pipeline campaign was planned, intended, and foreign-funded: Vivian Krause

Government investigation of the connections Vivian Krause has dug up over the years makes sense. Countering US-funded anti-sector lobbying makes sense. Clearly Gerald Butts' puppet in Ottawa will not support the sector. Its time some politician did.


----------



## james4beach

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Since you don't have any idea WTF you are talking about...


Well, I know that (a) Alberta and the energy industry suffers from severe groupthink, (b) has a victimhood culture despite being some of the most privileged people in Canada, and (c) there is a right wing political bias.

Political ideology clouds good decision making. And there is strong political ideology here.

Here's one of the experts mentioned by AltaRed



AltaRed said:


> Rather than railing from your desk chair, perhaps read "The Patch" by *Chris Turner* as I have suggested numerous times. It is plodding and sometimes excruciating reading in the early chapters but it all comes together in the last third of the book.


On today's CBC World at Six, there was an interview with Chris Turner. The segment begins at 13:30 into the broadcast. Here's the transcript starting at 15:25.



> _Anchor_: But one expert says there is nothing new in [Kenney's] proposal.
> 
> _Chris Turner_: The basics facts of the case are disputed by no-one.
> 
> _Anchor_: Calgary-based Chris Turner is the author of The Patch. He says researchers have pointed out the links between foreign funding and pipeline opponents for years.
> 
> _Chris Turner_: As far as I can tell, this is just a provincial government that wants to make a fairly elaborate gesture of defending the oil sands as we go into a federal election campaign.


So there we go. Chris Turner himself says there is nothing new here, and that this is just a political gesture as part of a conservative campaign. This is your right wing political ideology that is now wasting taxpayers money, to please the angry oil & gas people, whip up some blame towards environmentalists... and ultimately change nothing.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> Well, I know that (a) Alberta and the energy industry suffers from severe groupthink,


Not unique in Canada, or most countries for that matter.



> (b) has a victimhood culture despite being some of the most privileged people in Canada,


Most successful province (fortunate to be rich with most valuable resource in the history of mankind), but far from the most privileged. One would say the least privileged given Alberta's overwhelming importance in providing excess revenue that the Federal Government can spend elsewhere yet lack of political clout.



> Political ideology clouds good decision making. And there is strong political ideology here.


Sounds like the rest of Canada.


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, I like the tree idea.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are also a lot of places on earth in third world locations where they're cutting down trees faster than anyone could ever plant them. That has to be addressed.
> 
> ltr


Not true, fully automated.
It takes minutes to chop down a tree, and less than a minute to plant a tree.

Assuming equivalent logistics, you can plant trees faster, the problem is those countries don't have reforestation plans.


----------



## sags

It is naive to target one side of political activism (charitable organizations) without considering the other side (industry and political lobby groups).

Business in foreign countries (especially American business) have always lobbied against Canada in favor of US business interests. 

example........Auto makers close plants in Canada because of political pressure in the US. Tariffs imposed on Canadian exports are examples of political pressure.

If people like Ms. Krause and Jason Kenney advocate to stop all political and public lobbying it would be more credible, but I doubt Americans are much interested in their views.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Not true, fully automated.
> It takes minutes to chop down a tree, and less than a minute to plant a tree.


Not "fully automated" here in Manitoba and typically faster to remove than replant. You also have to account for seedling growth for the area to be replanted.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> So there we go. Chris Turner himself says there is nothing new here,


James, you are blind to your partisan beliefs. Of course there is nothing new here in foreign funding, but no one really knows about it because it has been kept suppressed by the very vested interests that benefit from it!!! This whole exercise is about exposing this dirty agenda to the public at large, and exposure of 'bought' political agendas from folks like Gerald Butts. What do you think this is about? It is about getting the word out! The public has a right to know. 

C'mon James. Be objective once in a while.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> ... no one really knows about it because it has been kept suppressed by the very vested interests that benefit from it!!



except it hasn't been suppressed at all. Vivian Krause has been posting about donations from big US charities to canadian causes since the early years of this century, when she PR'd for BC salmon farms & accused US charities of "de-marketing" canadian farmed salmon in a deliberate attempt to promote US alaskan fisheries.

by 2012 krause had moved on to the "de-marketing" of alberta tar sands by the same big US charities. That same year, she cheerfully tweeted that payments from the canadian oil & gas industry, as well as from canadian mining interests, were making up 90% of her income.

that was seven (7) long years ago. Full confession. There's nothing suppressed about kraus' story.

in 2014, kraus tweeted once again that her 2013 & 2014 incomes had also been 90% paid by canada's energy & mining industries. Reportedly she is also paid by right-wing think tanks & speaking engagements.

https://twitter.com/FairQuestions/status/460558696150335488

https://twitter.com/fairquestions/status/311484446048149505






> Be objective once in a while.



being objective means finding out who & what is funding vivian krause's vigilante campaign

being objective means exposing ms krause for the paid political propaganda artist that she is

jason kenney can "investigate" til he's blue in the face. There's nothing new to discover. The only surprise is that certain cmffers - who should know better - never noticed or paid any attention to all those krause "fair questions" & tweets across nearly a decade


----------



## AltaRed

The message needs to get more mainstream exposure than it has in the past. Pro and con, just like the MMIWG public inquiry, When the full discussion hits local digital media here in the Okanagan, then there is hope.

Mainstream Canada doesn't look at Twitter nor Facebook nor The Rebel nor (pick your choice). Don't know why it should be difficult for some folks to understand that.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> When the full discussion hits local digital media here in the Okanagan, then there is hope.



^^ the most ethnocentric sentence this poor forum has ever seen each:


*"if it didn't happen in the Okanagan then it didn't happen"*


PS like i said everybody knew about vivian krause for years & years & years & years. Good old fashioned hard line propaganda, is our Vivian.

PPS some of her touches are truly artistic. Like the non sequitur about gerald butts. Or the real villains in the alberta saga are those 100 surviving white Kermode spirit bears.


----------



## AltaRed

I am using the Okanagan (Southern BC Interior) as an example of when we know discussion has reached the mainstream. Pick your region of choice then. Digital media in Niagara peninsula? Annapolis Valley? Gaspe peninsula?


----------



## Prairie Guy

humble_pie said:


> being objective means exposing ms krause for the paid political propaganda artist that she is


CBC is the taxpayer funded political arm of the Liberal party but I bet the thought never once crossed your mind to criticize them.


----------



## sags

CBC has been around since Confederation, reporting on news and politics relevant to Canadians.

They have interviewed Robert Stanfield for goodness sakes, and there is nobody who represented conservatives more than Bob.

Remember Stanfield was not only a worthy opponent for Pierre Eliott Trudeau, but his family gave us underwear.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> CBC has been around since Confederation, reporting on news and politics relevant to Canadians.
> 
> They have interviewed Robert Stanfield for goodness sakes, and there is nobody who represented conservatives more than Bob.
> 
> Remember Stanfield was not only a worthy opponent for Pierre Eliott Trudeau, but his family gave us underwear.


The CBC is blantantly pushing the Liberal agenda, and pocketting billions for their trouble.

Few caveats there, any taxpayer funded group is going to lean towards big government money.
Unions, teachers, schools, CBC, government employees in general. They all understand the more money the government spends, the more likely they'll pick up a piece of it.

With the recent "fake news" problems, the CBC is of course working to "help" government control of the media. Some of the biggest threats to popular media are small teams or individual reporters who stream news.
Nothing scares CBC more than some guy in a van with a videocamera who has a million followers and well over 200 million views, and the Liberals are promising to help them compete with these guys.


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> CBC is the taxpayer funded political arm of the Liberal party but I bet the thought never once crossed your mind to criticize them.



are there any thoughts crossing your mind tyg?

ever?


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Nothing scares CBC more than some guy in a van with a videocamera who has a million followers and well over 200 million views




yea that guy faith goldy makes the very stones of the Peace Tower quake when he shows up in his van w cameraman

alas poor tyg here, no van no cam no followers


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> yea that guy faith goldy makes the very stones of the Peace Tower quake when he shows up in his van w cameraman
> 
> alas poor tyg here, no van no cam no followers


I wasn't talking about Faith Goldy, there are far more moderate voices, and those are the ones they're scared of.


----------



## humble_pie

could we please have an example of a moderate canadian voice driving around in his van all by himself streaming 200 million views to 100 million faithful viewers & causing fear, disarray, mayhem, havoc & general panic among traditional media


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> I am using the Okanagan (Southern BC Interior) as an example of when we know discussion has reached the mainstream. Pick your region of choice then. Digital media in Niagara peninsula? Annapolis Valley? Gaspe peninsula?




altaRed IMHO there is nothing to be gained from a sidebar excursion into the relative merits of media in annapolis royal, the gaspesie & the okanagan valley, not to speak of the fact that such sidebar will likely give our thread-controlling friend a case of cardiac arrest; so let us not go there.

surely it's enuf to say that ms Krause & Co with their US charities that they say are secretly controlling ottawa are just one of several well-known conspiracy memes that some western canadians have been voicing for a number of years now.

but instead of wasting time & energy on useless paranoia, why not concentrate on real problems where ordinary canadians pulling together can try to make a difference.

right now - this very minute - the biggest danger to alberta oil export is the possible shutdown of enbridge pipeline through michigan to sarnia ontario. Evidently the new michigan governor has vowed to shut down enbridge in her state.

i for one don't even know whether alternative transport can be arranged via rail or lake tanker. However these are all issues canadians should be discussing, in order to help with the situation should the worst outcome prevail in michigan. 

at the same time experienced trade negotiators in the mid-west will be doing everything they can to communicate w michigan (believe the basic network is the canadian consulate general in chicago, has responsibility for michigan)

very many others can pull together to parlay with madame governor. Enbridge faced the same criticism with its aging pipeline in quebec when it began to transport alberta dilbit a few years ago. My understandiing is that enbridge responded by repairing/reinforcing some quebec sections & reducing pressure the length of the pipeline. Same or similar can be done in the midwest. Evidently there is a crucial underwater pipeline segment through the mackinac strait. Enbridge is said to have already offered an improved solution, so the dialogue has begun.

the state of michigan & the provinces of ontario & manitoba have one of the densest commercial trade relationships along the entire canadiaan border, so there are countless reasons to see room for dialogue & negotiation. Let's put our energy there, not in backward-looking complaints.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> altaRed IMHO there is nothing to be gained from a sidebar excursion into the relative merits of media in annapolis royal, the gaspesie & the okanagan valley, not to speak of the fact that such sidebar will likely give our thread-controlling friend a case of cardiac arrest; so let us not go there.
> 
> surely it's enuf to say that ms Krause & Co with their US charities that they say are secretly controlling ottawa are just one of several well-known conspiracy memes that some western canadians have been voicing for a number of years now.
> 
> but instead of wasting time & energy on useless paranoia, why not concentrate on real problems where ordinary canadians pulling together can try to make a difference.
> 
> right now - this very minute - the biggest danger to alberta oil export is the possible shutdown of enbridge pipeline through michigan to sarnia ontario. Evidently the new michigan governor has vowed to shut down enbridge in her state.
> 
> i for one don't even know whether alternative transport can be arranged via rail or lake tanker. However these are all issues canadians should be discussing, in order to help with the situation should the worst outcome prevail in michigan.
> 
> at the same time experienced trade negotiators in the mid-west will be doing everything they can to communicate w michigan (believe the basic network is the canadian consulate general in chicago, has responsibility for michigan)
> 
> very many others can pull together to parlay with madame governor. Enbridge faced the same criticism with its aging pipeline in quebec when it began to transport alberta dilbit a few years ago. My understandiing is that enbridge responded by repairing/reinforcing some quebec sections & reducing pressure the length of the pipeline. Same or similar can be done in the midwest. Evidently there is a crucial underwater pipeline segment through the mackinac strait. Enbridge is said to have already offered an improved solution, so the dialogue has begun.
> 
> the state of michigan & the provinces of ontario & manitoba have one of the densest commercial trade relationships along the entire canadiaan border, so there are countless reasons to see room for dialogue & negotiation. Let's put our energy there, not in backward-looking complaints.


One of the potential solutions would have been a Canadian pipeline, but we know they won't ever approve it.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> One of the potential solutions would have been a Canadian pipeline, but we know they won't ever approve it.



this ^^ is exactly what i mean by backward-looking complaints

they are useless, they serve only to express personal vengeance, they waste valuable time & worst of all they waste precious energy.

the enbridge pipeline through central midwest US of A to sarnia is 70 years old. Everybody - canadians & americans alike - wants it to be in the best repair condition possible. Let's focus on that goal, stop bitching about fantasy worlds that might have seemed possible once upon a time.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> CBC has been around since Confederation, reporting on news and politics relevant to Canadians.
> 
> They have interviewed Robert Stanfield for goodness sakes, and there is nobody who represented conservatives more than Bob.
> 
> Remember Stanfield was not only a worthy opponent for Pierre Eliott Trudeau, but his family gave us underwear.


Wow...CBC once interviewed a Conservative!! That's definitely proof of...something?

Trudeau is the first prime minister in Canadian history who has to pay the media to report in his favour. He has also promised to ban media that he doesn't like.


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> Trudeau is the first prime minister in Canadian history who has to pay the media to report in his favour. He has also promised to ban media that he doesn't like.



utter balderdash & baloney :biggrin:

"Trudeau to pay the media?" "Trudeau to ban media?" 

tyg why not stop with the fake fairytales. This is a financial forum. You haven't got a leg to stand on.


----------



## like_to_retire

humble_pie said:


> utter balderdash & baloney :biggrin:
> 
> "Trudeau to pay the media?" "Trudeau to ban media?"
> 
> tyg why not stop with the fake fairytales. This is a financial forum. You haven't got a leg to stand on.


You might be skeptical, but utter balderdash & baloney may be going a bit too far?

I'd be interested how you would spin the Liberals’ $600M aid package for news media.

_"Liberal government has agreed to supply the nation’s news media with pots of cash"._

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

My comment was factual.

Trudeau created a $600 million fund to fund media that his government approves of. Trudeau is also demanding that major tech companies to ban was he considers "toxic" content.

He's paying off media that support him and trying to censor media that doesn't toe the line.


----------



## AltaRed

That $600M media fund is an egregious example of media manipulation on ideological grounds by Liberal appointees. It needs to be the one of the first things to be wiped out by a change of government. This attack on democracy is little different than Trump's Fox News or Putin's control of the Russian press, or any other encroaching examples on supposedly democratic governments.


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> My comment was factual.
> 
> Trudeau created a $600 million fund to fund media that his government approves of. Trudeau is also demanding that major tech companies to ban was he considers "toxic" content.
> 
> He's paying off media that support him and trying to censor media that doesn't toe the line.



you are twisting the facts with obscene perversion

of course the gummint is supporting major media. The 5th estate has honourably endured for hundreds of years, one could say since the invention of a printing press in western europe.

leading journalists are highly trained. Most have graduate degrees, are multilingual, never cease continuous education with advanced fellowships & study sabbaticals.

major western journalism schools teach scrupulous objectivity (something the tygrus does not understand). Major media reporters are trained to sniff out stories long before they break, to report all sides to a conflict, to question, to re-question, to double-check facts, to submit to editorial review, to re-write.

that's why they're called the 5th estate. A free press is the best guarantor of democracy any country could have.

what has happened in this century is that communication has abruptly gone digital. In a nothing of time, the internet has dealt a death blow to traditional hard copy print media (interestingly, niche radio seems to be surviving nicely.)

the gummint is modestly helping major media during this period while they seek to ground themselves in their new 100% digital world. 

canada needs investigative journalists. Canada needs factual reporting. Canada needs truth. 

as for "censoring media," that indeed is a false accusation. Authorities all over the democratic world - including europe & the US as well as canada - are concerned with the toxic lies that are so frequently spewed out in social media, right there on everybody's phone. It's a ghastly phenomenon, one that human beings have never had to deal with before.

a few Liberal cabinet members have been mandated to undertake preliminary efforts to consider how social media can be stopped from - for example - posting bomb threats, death threats, gender abuse, racial abuse, prescriptions for extreme social violence.

over & over again, recent mass killings have shown how the perpetrators obtained their methodologies directly from the internet. Some have even used the internet to load videos of their atrocities. This violence has to stop. 

we know that canadian police & rcmp are monitoring social media to a greater extent than even 5 or 10 years ago. There is a very delicate trade-off between maintaining social safety & impinging upon civil liberty. Here is where citizens can play a role. Can communicate with their local elected politicians, meet with their local police (all police forces have community relations officers), get involved, speak their minds.

to turn desire for a healthy, constructive, non-violent social media into some fantasy that justin trudeau is censoring or banning all media is sick. There's no other word for it. It's the extreme right once again, yelling that the colour of trudeau's socks proves that he's guilty of state treason ...


----------



## sags

The CBC is "mom and apple pie" to Canadians.

We are brought up watching the CBC news and sports, and it is an honest reflection of Canada's fondness for social democratic values.

Some traditions are worth keeping and the CBC is one of those in Canada. 

Of course the government provides funding to public broadcasting, in the same way the US subsidizes public television and radio.

CBC radio is second to none in the world for interesting and informative content.

I think if put to a vote, Canadians would overwhelming vote to keep and fund the CBC.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> That $600M media fund is an egregious example of media manipulation on ideological grounds by Liberal appointees. It needs to be the one of the first things to be wiped out by a change of government. This attack on democracy is little different than Trump's Fox News or Putin's control of the Russian press, or any other encroaching examples on supposedly democratic governments.




^^ this is where, as m3 says, the grandchildren patiently roll eyes while dear sweet Oompapé rants ...

altaRed you yourself have said that you want & need the accurate information which high quality major media - the globe, the NY Times, reuters, bloomberg, etc - can deliver. 

my add-on is that we are benefiting from these quantities of accurate daily information strictly because of the armies of talented, highly trained international media reporters & their ever-vigilant editors.

but very suddenly, only in the past 10-15 years, many major media have had to fold up & quit, because their print editions had lost advertisers to the internet & their fledgling on-line editions were still gathering advertising revenue steam. Just like that, many vital media were gone. Survivors today are hanging on by their financial teeth.

it's to prevent disappearance of the very best of the 5th estate that governments are temporarily lending assistance. We still do not know if major media will be able to make it over to 100% digital self-sustainablity. 

if they fail, human communication will regress to the stone age. You, for example, would be dependent on whatever lies paid propagandists - like some i could name here in cmf forum - would mouth out in social media.

it's true that the ultra-right wing of the conservative party appears anxious to eliminate media like the globe, the toronto star, the cbc, possibly even the natPost. However, i for one am surprised to find one such as yourself embracing such extremist views.

the 5th estate right now is like hospital emergency rooms. Either we lend a hand financially because we want to keep their services going, or it's a chaotic regression back to the caves.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> you are twisting the facts with obscene perversion
> 
> of course the gummint is supporting major media. The 5th estate has honourably endured for hundreds of years, one could say since the invention of a printing press in western europe.
> 
> leading journalists are highly trained. Most have graduate degrees, are multilingual, never cease continuous education with advanced fellowships & study sabbaticals.
> 
> major western journalism schools teach scrupulous objectivity (something the tygrus does not understand). Major media reporters are trained to sniff out stories long before they break, to report all sides to a conflict, to question, to re-question, to double-check facts, to submit to editorial review, to re-write.
> 
> that's why they're called the 5th estate. A free press is the best guarantor of democracy any country could have.
> 
> what has happened in this century is that communication has abruptly gone digital. In a nothing of time, the internet has dealt a death blow to traditional hard copy print media (interestingly, niche radio seems to be surviving nicely.)
> 
> the gummint is modestly helping major media during this period while they seek to ground themselves in their new 100% digital world.
> 
> canada needs investigative journalists. Canada needs factual reporting. Canada needs truth.
> 
> as for "censoring media," that indeed is a false accusation. Authorities all over the democratic world - including europe & the US as well as canada - are concerned with the toxic lies that are so frequently spewed out in social media, right there on everybody's phone. It's a ghastly phenomenon, one that human beings have never had to deal with before.
> 
> a few Liberal cabinet members have been mandated to undertake preliminary efforts to consider how social media can be stopped from - for example - posting bomb threats, death threats, gender abuse, racial abuse, prescriptions for extreme social violence.
> 
> over & over again, recent mass killings have shown how the perpetrators obtained their methodologies directly from the internet. Some have even used the internet to load videos of their atrocities. This violence has to stop.
> 
> we know that canadian police & rcmp are monitoring social media to a greater extent than even 5 or 10 years ago. There is a very delicate trade-off between maintaining social safety & impinging upon civil liberty. Here is where citizens can play a role. Can communicate with their local elected politicians, meet with their local police (all police forces have community relations officers), get involved, speak their minds.
> 
> to turn desire for a healthy, constructive, non-violent social media into some fantasy that justin trudeau is censoring or banning all media is sick. There's no other word for it. It's the extreme right once again, yelling that the colour of trudeau's socks proves that he's guilty of state treason ...


Sorry, many of the major media personalities are clearly biased and left leaning. I honestly don't think it's realistic to expect an intelligent, educated person to not have or develop an opinion and bias on an issue they're familiar with.
Overall I do think CBC news is pretty decent, they're clearly not as bad as the BBC has become.

We do need facts, but even then on important and controversial issues we can't even agree on them. More importantly we need to be honest about the bias of the person sharing them.
Try as you might, there is almost always a bias in summarizing and reporting an issue. You have to make value judgements to summarize the important parts.

However to close, I'll link to one of those "highly educated" journalists 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/media-bailout-1.5147053


----------



## like_to_retire

humble_pie said:


> but very suddenly, only in the past 10-15 years, many major media have had to fold up & quit, because their print editions had lost advertisers to the internet & their fledgling on-line editions were still gathering advertising revenue steam. Just like that, many vital media were gone. Survivors today are hanging on by their financial teeth.


Then so be it. News will evolve naturally and come out ahead in the end. I only need to look as far as the CBC to know what government funding does to a news organization.

And the idea to include Unifor, the largest private sector union in Canada, on the panel to pick “independent" representatives for this $600M is enough to at least raise eyebrows.

Unifor outwardly campaigns against the Conservatives and Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and has billed itself as “the resistance” to Scheer, and his “worst nightmare.” 

An independent media is required for democracy to remain strong. They're having a tough time right now competing against digital. Find a way other than government fingers involved.

ltr


----------



## humble_pie

like_to_retire said:


> News will evolve naturally and come out ahead in the end.



strongly disagree. Most countries on the planet have captive, censored, propaganda media.

we're fortunate with our free press here in the west. High quality independent journalism handed down from hundreds of years experience in western europe, then transposed to canada & US.






> They're having a tough time right now competing against digital.


yes, that's what i said






> Find a way other than government fingers involved


there is no other way at the present time. Quality media are on life support. Can you suggest an alternative financial support system that would work?


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> it's true that the ultra-right wing of the conservative party appears anxious to eliminate media like the globe, the toronto star, the cbc, possibly even the natPost. However, i for one am surprised to find one such as yourself embracing such extremist views.


Lots of rhetoric and inaccuracies in your responses, but I will focus on this clearly partisan bias. Until, and unless, there is balanced funding from the fund to both sides of the political/social spectrum, including the National Post, and the likes of Sun media and Huffington Post, it will be nothing but left-of-center bias. FWIW, I want a healthy non-partisan press. I subscribe digitally to the NYT to help keep it going and I would subscribe digitally to G&M is they had decent pricing. I actually detest the likes of the Toronto Star and Sun Media. I have a 'hot and cold' relationship with the CBC. There is some very good investigative reporting that I'd like to see remain healthy, but there is also a lot of very leftist crap that should never be supported with taxpayer money. Global news seems to be as neutral as can be of the major networks but they clearly are a very weak sister to the other mainstream media.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/media-bailout-1.5147053

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/journalists-question-media-bailout-1.5147761

When one has the likes of Jerry Dias involved, one knows there is absolutely zero chance of non-bias. The unions should have no input whatsoever. Nothing but a blatant attempt to swap NDP votes.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> ...it's true that the ultra-right wing of the conservative party appears anxious to eliminate media like the globe, the toronto star, the cbc, possibly even the natPost. However, i for one am surprised to find one such as yourself embracing such extremist views.
> 
> the 5th estate right now is like hospital emergency rooms. Either we lend a hand financially because we want to keep their services going, or it's a chaotic regression back to the caves.


That appears to me to me an extremist view hp. What I am seeking is a balance. 

As I say to one of my diehard liberal friends, for every red star article you quote, I will counter with a blue post article. I subscribe to Knowhere Briefing which attempts to supply a balance. Even The Daily Wire supplies some balance if you apply your skeptical judgement.

But it has never been more polarized in my lifetime. And the proponents seem to be mindlessly supporting their sources.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> strongly disagree. Most countries on the planet have captive, censored, propaganda media.
> 
> we're fortunate with our free press here in the west. High quality independent journalism handed down from hundreds of years experience in western europe, then transposed to canada & US.
> 
> 
> yes, that's what i said
> 
> 
> there is no other way at the present time. Quality media are on life support. Can you suggest an alternative financial support system that would work?


You're somewhat correct.

I agree, "Most countries have captive, censored, propaganda media." I'll add government funded.
Those countries typically suck.

Western Europes free and independant media is under attack by the government. Those attacks are migrating here.
You can actually be charged for saying things that are true, or publishing already publicly known facts.

I think we can all agree that government funded propaganda is bad. 
There is a big reason that the first step is always push propaganda and attack independent media. This is exactly what Trudeau is pushing here.

I think subscriber powered media may work.
I think people want to know the facts, and they want the tools to find the truth. If you don't believe that, you don't believe in democracy.

As far as that, you don't have to look for the "trusted media" to get it wrong. Virtually the entire mainstream media blatantly lied about what happened.
The full video was available, they had it, they just never watched what happened before reporting. FYI, some independent journalists actually watched the video before reporting.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/covington-stand-off-1.4987065


----------



## sags

Unifor is a predominant union for the employees of the CBC, so it isn't surprising that one of the stakeholder groups should sit at the table when decisions are made.

The other option is to consider only the management's views of any value, which doesn't usually end well.


----------



## AltaRed

Nonsense. What makes CBC special here? Favored treatment perhaps? There should be NO one present that has entity specific bias (vested interest) and that is clearly what is in play here.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Unifor is a predominant union for the employees of the CBC, so it isn't surprising that one of the stakeholder groups should sit at the table when decisions are made.
> 
> The other option is to consider only the management's views of any value, which doesn't usually end well.


Well listening to unions usually doesn't end well either.

Another option is to not give hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to the media.

Why do corporations and unions get to decide where my tax money goes?
That is the job of the elected representatives to sort out.

Has it gotten to the point where the federal government is taking so much money they're sitting there saying "There are only 300 of us elected guys, and we can't spend this much money by ourselves, we better ask for some help!"


----------



## james4beach

The National Post has a strong bias, both pro conservative and pro energy. Totally biased reporting and cannot be trusted for anything in politics or oil & gas:

Kenney is starting up a $30 million propaganda arm for his government this summer, to push his right wing and pro-industry agenda. Postmedia (owners of National Post) have engaged in lobbying and want to contribute to the effort. In fact they want to create a separate spin-off that is detached from Postmedia's regular editorial process.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/aband...re-s-what-that-means-for-journalism-1.5147158

That's the country's largest newspaper chain, lobbying to produce propaganda for the right wing government and explicitly for oil & gas! A special pro-corporate, pro right wing propaganda arm of Postmedia / National Post.

A bigger picture observation is that the right wing is using more innovative new media (as evidenced by things like Rebel and the far right channels all over Youtube). The right wing currently dominates the media message that many Canadians see, for example on places such as Facebook which have been expertly leveraged by right wing sources. In addition of course Postmedia, one of the strongest media presences in the country, is explicitly right wing and pro energy.

It's important to educate Canadians about just how right-biased the media they experience is. For heaven sakes, even a founder of Rebel Media (an alt-right outlet that pushes racist content) advises the Scheer compaign. Hamish Marshall is the _national campaign manager_.

I think other political parties should be reminding Canadians that Scheer's campaign manager founded an alt-right wacko broadcaster that employed several neo-Nazis (one of whom now runs an American right wing terrorist group) and pushed racist content.

Wake up, Canada. The right wing controls the messages you hear... nearly everywhere.


----------



## AltaRed

There has to be a balance on both sides of the spectrum. So if you are in love with the CBC, Toronto Star, etc., you have to accept the NP, Sun media, etc. Start being objective and balanced if you care about credibility.

Otherwise it is nothing more than a loud whine.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> The National Post has a strong bias, both pro conservative and pro energy. Totally biased reporting and cannot be trusted for anything in politics or oil & gas:
> 
> Kenney is starting up a $30 million propaganda arm for his government this summer, to push his right wing and pro-industry agenda. Postmedia (owners of National Post) have engaged in lobbying and want to contribute to the effort. In fact they want to create a separate spin-off that is detached from Postmedia's regular editorial process.
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/aband...re-s-what-that-means-for-journalism-1.5147158
> 
> That's the country's largest newspaper chain, lobbying to produce propaganda for the right wing government and explicitly for oil & gas! A special pro-corporate, pro right wing propaganda arm of Postmedia / National Post.
> 
> A bigger picture observation is that the right wing is using more innovative new media (as evidenced by things like Rebel and the far right channels all over Youtube). The right wing currently dominates the media message that many Canadians see, for example on places such as Facebook which have been expertly leveraged by right wing sources. In addition of course Postmedia, one of the strongest media presences in the country, is explicitly right wing and pro energy.
> 
> It's important to educate Canadians about just how right-biased the media they experience is. For heaven sakes, even a founder of Rebel Media (an alt-right outlet that pushes racist content) advises the Scheer compaign. Hamish Marshall is the _national campaign manager_.
> 
> I think other political parties should be reminding Canadians that Scheer's campaign manager founded an alt-right wacko site that employed several neo-Nazis (one of whom now runs an American right wing terrorist group) and pushed racist content.
> 
> Wake up, Canada. The right wing controls the messages you hear... nearly everywhere.


Google Twitter Facebook are 3 of the biggest information controllers in the digital age, and they are all overwhelmingly left wing. 
They've also been quite blatant in their support for left wing ideology, and are actively enforcing it, going as far as blocking and banning right leaning content that doesn't' violate any stated policy.

Quite honestly the level of trust in traditional media is falling, and after fake news stories like Covington, where they totally failed in objectivity, it's their own fault.

I think it's going to take active censorship from the government and big tech to stop alternative media. 
Right now they're attacking credibility and I expect their next vector of attack will be the finances, they'll block funding/donations and likely try to regulate crypto currency.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> The National Post has a strong bias, both pro conservative and pro energy. Totally biased reporting and cannot be trusted for anything in politics or oil & gas:


I personally don't enjoy media with a strong bias for either side. I don't particularly enjoy the Toronto Star or CBC, and I don't like the Sun or the Rebel and its ilk.

My favorite for the USA is New York Times and in Canada I really like National Post. To label it pro conservative and totally biased reporting and cannot be trusted for anything in politics is perhaps pushing the envelop a bit. I would put it generally slightly right of center. They have supported both Liberal and Conservative governments over time. I do remember they supported the Liberal government of prime minister Paul Martin, and were often highly critical of the Conservatives and their leader at the time, Stephen Harper. 

There are some great contributing writers to the Post. My favorites would be Terence Corcoran, Christine Blatchford, Andrew Coyne, Rex Murphy, and John Ivison, but I read both left and right views all the time, so labelling this paper as right wing or _"totally biased reporting and cannot be trusted"_ is incorrect in my view.



james4beach said:


> Wake up, Canada. The right wing controls the messages you hear... nearly everywhere.


No, just the opposite. The right has very few controls on the message you hear. Mostly it's left.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Your post is so far out of line and off base that I don't even know where to begin. My ex specifically asked me to help her manage her portfolio despite my desire she seek advice elsewhere. I have no skin in her game beyond her desire to be financially secure for the next 30 years and to help ensure a legacy for our sons. Her wish of me specifically. And at our mutual preference, converted it all to couch potato 7 ETFs over the last 5 years that no longer needs any ongoing oversight. She only asks about buy/sells and executes them herself.
> 
> I have supported more women professionally than you will ever know, both during my career and with my 2 professionally established step-daus and one DIL, providing them with wisdom and guidance if or when they ask. I happen to be spending most of my time the last 6 months with my DIL who is trying to survive ovarian cancer et al, raise a toddler and re-establish a professional career in our region. I have been her chemo partner and taxi for her, and her toddler daughter. How dare you make completely unfounded allegations. I would normally expect an apology but that is surely beyond your capability, nor would I consider it genuine. Have a good day!


They're just being a troll, or they're sexist/feminist.

Feminism today is ignoring the higher education, higher pay, and greater education of women, and still insisting they're an oppressed minority. 
They believe no matter what a woman decides, in any circumstance, it's always because a man, or male power structures, or male systems, exerted power over her.
It's a really sad way to live, fortunately more women are rejecting that and choosing to live their lives on their own terms.


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> No, just the opposite. The right has very few controls on the message you hear. Mostly it's left.


The money all comes from the right-leaning sources. There is no money on the left to fund media... it's not like a bunch of philosophers and social scientists earning 40K a year in their academic or research jobs can fund anything, let alone run media empires.

On the other hand, there's tons of money from the energy industry, defense industry, Wall Street/Bay Street, and multinational tech flowing into lobbying, government influence, and public influence via media.


----------



## AltaRed

James, we are specifically discussing Canada but your post is an incredible non-credible partisan post. Much of the money is on the left, e.g. taxpayer funded CBC for example. Even the G&M is somewhat left leaning but I will give them equal time with the National Post.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> The money all comes from the right-leaning sources. There is no money on the left to fund media... it's not like a bunch of philosophers and social scientists earning 40K a year in their academic or research jobs can fund anything, let alone run media empires.
> 
> On the other hand, there's tons of money from the energy industry, defense industry, Wall Street/Bay Street, and multinational tech flowing into lobbying, government influence, and public influence via media.


CBC is heavily subsidized and clearly leans left to far left, with a few right leaning opinions thrown in for balance.

Internationally, Big Tech is all far left. 
Their executives are pushing ideas like UBI.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> James, we are specifically discussing Canada but your post is an incredible non-credible partisan post. Much of the money is on the left, e.g. taxpayer funded CBC for example. Even the G&M is somewhat left leaning but I will give them equal time with the National Post.


Yeah, come on James. You're the smart guy in the room that I take time to try and understand, compared to the usual moronic left wing contributor. 

Why would you label the National Post with your "right wing" moniker when so many of the contributors of this publication are considered left or at least centrists?

You should be promoting this publication, but instead you malign it. Remember, this is Canada - this may have impacted your opinions.. I know you have a heavy USA influence, but we're talking about Canada here.

Take a step back and actually read this newspaper, and offer an unbiased view.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Would say both national post and globe and mail are centre right. But you probably think Andrew Coyne is a commie.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Would say both national post and globe and mail are centre right. But you probably think Andrew Coyne is a commie.


No, I think Andrew Coyne is an excellent journalist and contributor to the National Post. I quite enjoy his articles.

He's a member of the "At Issue" panel on CBC's The National and a columnist at the National Post.

That's the beauty of the National Post. It looks at both sides and isn't either left or right wing exclusively.

Posters such as James calling the National Post as: "Totally biased reporting and cannot be trusted for anything in politics" is absolutely wrong and shows that he doesn't actually read the Post, he just offers his opinion that I just don't understand.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

MrMatt said:


> Feminism today is ignoring the higher education, higher pay, and greater education of women, and still insisting they're an oppressed minority.
> They believe no matter what a woman decides, in any circumstance, it's always because a man, or male power structures, or male systems, exerted power over her.
> It's a really sad way to live, fortunately more women are rejecting that and choosing to live their lives on their own terms.


Once people understand that the only way the left can exist is with a never ending pool of victims that they can "save" by taxing people into oblivion and seizing more control over our daily lives then it all makes sense. The last thing the left wants is racial and gender harmony because then they have nothing. 

If you dare to be a successful black person in the US who votes Republican they will tear you to shreds.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> Once people understand that the only way the left can exist is with a never ending pool of victims that they can "save" by taxing people into oblivion and seizing more control over our daily lives then it all makes sense. The last thing the left wants is racial and gender harmony because then they have nothing.
> 
> If you dare to be a successful black person in the US who votes Republican they will tear you to shreds.


That's why the knives are out for Candace Owens.
Smart, witty, eloquent, attractive, black and female. Not being an entitled victim is disastrous for the modern left.


----------



## AltaRed

I have always been interested in what both Andrew Coyne and Chantal Herbert say on the At Issue panel. Watched them for years.


----------



## RBull

AltaRed said:


> Your post is so far out of line and off base that I don't even know where to begin. My ex specifically asked me to help her manage her portfolio despite my desire she seek advice elsewhere. I have no skin in her game beyond her desire to be financially secure for the next 30 years and to help ensure a legacy for our sons. Her wish of me specifically. And at our mutual preference, converted it all to couch potato 7 ETFs over the last 5 years that no longer needs any ongoing oversight. She only asks about buy/sells and executes them herself.
> 
> I have supported more women professionally than you will ever know, both during my career and with my 2 professionally established step-daus and one DIL, providing them with wisdom and guidance if or when they ask. I happen to be spending most of my time the last 6 months with my DIL who is trying to survive ovarian cancer et al, raise a toddler and re-establish a professional career in our region. I have been her chemo partner and taxi for her, and her toddler daughter. How dare you make completely unfounded allegations. I would normally expect an apology but that is surely beyond your capability, nor would I consider it genuine. Have a good day!


Good for you.

I can relate. It is a shame.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> How dare you make completely unfounded allegations. I would normally expect an apology but that is surely beyond your capability, nor would I consider it genuine.



again, i am aware that you will not likely be able to understand this; but in my view it is yourself who should apologize to the parties you have attacked & insulted with ever-more-frequent outbursts & tirades over the past year.

these include young men with considerable financial & sociopolitical knowledge. They are a tiny remaining cohort of young males that is now at risk of total extinction in this forum, so irascible & so vociferous have some angry old-timers on here become.

as for myself, in the past few days alone you have attacked with "hyperbole" "boring" "don't bother to read" "rhetoric" "inaccurate" & "clearly partisan bias," when in reality i am a coherent poster who simply does not happen to share your politics. Your insults against my former profession appear to be inappropriate, to say the least.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> again, i am aware that you will not likely be able to understand this; but in my view it is yourself who should apologize to the parties you have attacked & insulted with ever-more-frequent outbursts & tirades over the past year.
> 
> these include young men with considerable financial & sociopolitical knowledge. They are a tiny remaining cohort of young males that is now at risk of total extinction in this forum, so irascible & so vociferous have some angry old-timers on here become.
> 
> as for myself, in the past few days alone you have attacked with "hyperbole" "boring" "don't bother to read" "rhetoric" "inaccurate" & "clearly partisan bias," when in reality i am a coherent poster who simply does not happen to share your politics. Your insults against my former profession appear to be inappropriate, to say the least.


I disagree.
I think yo're generally coherent, you rarely capitalize letters, but that's just grammer, not really impacting the message itself.

But you're clearly Pro-Trudeau to an astounding degree.
https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/...ntration-camps-in-China?p=2025888#post2025888

Trudeau has been a disaster of a PM.
He's pushing identity politics and dividing the country, yet you somehow see that as a good thing.



> utter balderdash & baloney
> 
> "Trudeau to pay the media?" "Trudeau to ban media?"


https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/...warming-for-250-million?p=2026620#post2026620

The Trudeau government is actively dumping hundreds of millions into friendly big media. They're also working to block other media that they disagree with.
That's is simply factually inaccurate.


On some issues you comment with valid factual points. With others you just simply parrot the Liberal Party line.
I'm okay with your partisanship, we all know you think the Liberal party is the greatest.
I think they didn't learn a darn thing from their exile during the Harper years.

They're failing on every single file, except tax hikes, opaque government, increasing corruption, damaging our international relationships and attacks on national unity. 
It's really not surprising, the current leader said that there is no Canadian identity and they put in a French citizen, in as leader of the party, 
But you think they're "doing a good job"


----------



## humble_pie

*contrary to the false accusations & disinformation posted in this thread by certain rightwing members of the forum, the National Post as flagship of Post Media is indeed benefiting from $6 million in federal media support.
*



> Paul Godfrey, the CEO of Postmedia, which publishes the National Post and daily broadsheets in many of Canada’s largest cities, said that tax credit “could be looked upon as a turning point in the plight of newspapers in Canada.”
> 
> “I tip my hat to the prime minister [justin trudeau] and the finance minister [bill morneau]. They deserve a lot of credit,” said Godfrey. “Everyone in journalism should be doing a victory lap around their building right now.”
> 
> Canadians who subscribe to eligible news media will also get a small break on their taxes. The plan includes a temporary, non-refundable 15 per cent tax credit on subscriptions.
> 
> The measures add up to a total five-year cost of $595 million and follow a five-year $50 million fund for local news announced in the 2018 budget.





> The government is pledging nearly $600 million over the next five years to help news organizations struggling to adapt to a digital age that has disrupted traditional business models.



the media grants are designed so that not only all major national media will benefit, but also independent community weeklies under creative commons licensing.

notice that media subscribers also receive a personal tax credit. Bref, everybody wins in this positive media rollout towards digital, except for the usual far rightwing cmf forum suspects.


https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...g-point-in-the-plight-of-newspapers-in-canada



.


----------



## like_to_retire

> “I tip my hat to the prime minister [justin trudeau] and the finance minister [bill morneau]. They deserve a lot of credit,” said Godfrey.


Yep, the buying of the media's message has already started to pay off. Only positive and glowing reporting for Mr. Trudeau and company.

ltr


----------



## sags

I would think fair minded people would concede the Trudeau government has done a lot of good things, while also holding Trudeau accountable for some of his problems.

In the minds of most Canadians, I would think raising child benefits, restoring the OAS at age 65, increasing GIS benefits, reducing EI waiting time from 2 weeks to 1 week, enhancing CPP benefits for future retirees, restoring pensions for military veterans, marijuana legalization and justice reform, are positive improvements. Some may be upset the government will fund the CBC, or settle more immigrants and refugees than they would like, or dress funny in India, but at the end of the day Canadians will ask themselves....is Canada better today than when Trudeau was first elected ?

On climate change, the Trudeau government has put forward their solution which involves a tax on pollution (carbon tax) and greater focus on renewable energy.

It is what it is.

PC Andrew Scheer has finally publicly announced the official Conservative policy on climate change. 

It is what it is.

Canadians can now decide whose plan they will support at the polls.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> ... that's just grammer, not really impacting the message itself


it's spelled grammar





> The Trudeau government is actively dumping hundreds of millions into friendly big media. They're also working to block other media that they disagree with.


more false accusations. Ottawa is offering $6 million in subsidies across 5 years to all national media, including media known to be hostile to one political party or another, to help all of them transition to 100% digital. The 5th estate, with its proud traditions of investigation & objective reporting, is a critical pillar of democracy.





> ... they put in a French citizen, in as leader of the party


this ^^ is priceless. No canadian comes more wrapped in maple leaves than the current PM. His father & his maternal grandfather both served in parliament, one as prime minister, the other as MP from vancouver capilano & as federal minister of fisheries.

grandfather james sinclair was an RCAF hero of World War II, one of the few canadian fighter pilots who flew in the rommel campaign over north africa, said to be a turning point in what became the eventual Allied victory. 

i must confess to a special fondness for that historical vignette, as a member of my family is also an RCAF veteran of that same 1943 africa campaign.

he's still alive at the age of 97 years, the grandfather. Possibly the last survivor of his squadron. Doing wonderfully well. Fit & sharp. A lion king. I'm going to ask him if he remembers his fellow pilot captain james sinclair, grandfather of the prime minister.


----------



## sags

Without a strong Canadian public broadcaster, much of Canada would receive nothing but American news and local channels.

CBC Radio is a nationwide sounding board for Canadians. There are regular shows where Canadians call in and voice their opinions.

Cross Country Checkup https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup and As It Happens https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens come immediately to mind.

Their content and discussion contain some great information on news and issues that Canadians care about, and they are available as podcasts.

Good quality Canadian content on issues would not be carried by US news media. If the CBC were to vanish it would leave a big void.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Maybe the media is losing audience because people are tired of their lies. Two full years screaming Russian collusion and when it was proven false not even an apology for being wrong. The Covington kids lies, Jussie Smollet, Kavanaugh smears...the list is endless. The media has chosen a path that has turned reasonable people away and their ever shrinking audience is people on the left who won't pay for anything.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Masked Antifa thugs in Portland recently beat up a reporter and most of the media completely ignored it. Far left news sites like the Washington Post go as far as to defend them. And they wonder why they're losing their audience?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> abut at the end of the day Canadians will ask themselves....is Canada better today than when Trudeau was first elected ?
> 
> .


I think the answer is clearly no. 
We have less trust in our institutions, and we're more divided than ever.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> *contrary to the false accusations & disinformation posted in this thread by certain rightwing members of the forum, the National Post as flagship of Post Media is indeed benefiting from $6 million in federal media support.
> *
> .


Nobody said that the Liberals weren't offering some bribes to other outlets.
I would like to point out that 6 million is a sliver of the 600 million total package, and far less than the billions handed to the CBC.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

CBC certainly has a left of centre bias, but I don't mind my tax money supporting them. Not so much for the CBC news, which I do watch often enough, but for their documentary series. The Fifth Estate, and the Passionate Eye series both cover some excellent issues that private money wouldn't dare dive into and would't have the resources to if they wanted to. There is a slight bias in these series, but I'm usually surprised at how balanced they are.


----------



## MrMatt

5Lgreenback said:


> CBC certainly has a left of centre bias, but I don't mind my tax money supporting them. Not so much for the CBC news, which I do watch often enough, but for their documentary series. The Fifth Estate, and the Passionate Eye series both cover some excellent issues that private money wouldn't dare dive into and would't have the resources to if they wanted to. There is a slight bias in these series, but I'm usually surprised at how balanced they are.


I don't think tax money should fund your entertainment.
Tax money should fund the essential functions of government.


----------



## andrewf

Isn't it for voters to decide what is essential? Many would argue that health and education are not essential and everyone should be left to fend for themselves with the private sector.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

MrMatt said:


> I don't think tax money should fund your entertainment.
> Tax money should fund the essential functions of government.


I'm not sure if you've ever given these series a fair chance or would even be willing to, but they are much more important source of information than "entertainment". They provide quite vital information that effects everyday people in regards to consumer choices, industry and business practices, environment, and much more that for me, can affect my choices made on a daily basis. They also have many random but interesting topics. Point being, without them, nobody else is out there investigating and getting this information to the public. 

I have a centre-right political leaning myself, but I would say this is tax money well spent (at least for the investigative documentary series). There are countless other things that should be cut before this. Do you watch sports? Do you play sports, if so, I don't thing tax dollars should be spent on your entertainment.


----------



## kcowan

I agree that the Trudeau Pravda Fund should be used to provide tax relief to subscribers of digital media in equal measure regardless of political bias. Then the citizens get to vote with their own money. If they did that, I would stop calling it the Pravda Fund. But as long as there are direct subsidies, even Rebel Media will play nice with political funding sources.


----------



## MrMatt

5Lgreenback said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think tax money should fund your entertainment.
> Tax money should fund the essential functions of government.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you've ever given these series a fair chance or would even be willing to, but they are much more important source of information than "entertainment". They provide quite vital information that effects everyday people in regards to consumer choices, industry and business practices, environment, and much more that for me, can affect my choices made on a daily basis. They also have many random but interesting topics. Point being, without them, nobody else is out there investigating and getting this information to the public.
> 
> I have a centre-right political leaning myself, but I would say this is tax money well spent (at least for the investigative documentary series). There are countless other things that should be cut before this. Do you watch sports? Do you play sports, if so, I don't thing tax dollars should be spent on your entertainment.
Click to expand...

Ahh whataboutism, the last defence of a bad idea. 
I don't think pro sports should be subsidized at all.
I think it is appropriate for local governments to build parks and some facilities for the local community.
In my city they actually turn a profit on facility rentals. There are both private and publicly owned facilities.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> ...Many would argue that health and education are not essential and everyone should be left to fend for themselves with the private sector.


Seriously? Care to provide supporting survey link(s).


----------



## MrMatt

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> andrewf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Many would argue that health and education are not essential and everyone should be left to fend for themselves with the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Care to provide supporting survey link(s).
Click to expand...

Many believe vaccines are poison, many more believe socialism and communism are the cure for our society. There are no end of silly things that people believe. Just look here some people even think Trudeau is doing a good job.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

A service that privates insightful investigative journalism and information/education to the public (should they choose to partake), in ways that private money would never choose to dig into (theres no incentive). Yep, horrible idea. Who wants people to be informed? I mean, sometimes, that can even be bad for business!


----------



## Prairie Guy

Independent journalist Mike Cernovich's actions led to the recent arrest of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The left leaning media had no interest in Epstein due to his close ties with Bill Clinton.


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Seriously? Care to provide supporting survey link(s).


Check out Fraser institute and similar organizations.


----------



## Spudd

Prairie Guy said:


> Independent journalist Mike Cernovich's actions led to the recent arrest of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The left leaning media had no interest in Epstein due to his close ties with Bill Clinton.


Here's an article from December in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...60ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.ff000f504cf9


----------



## james4beach

Actually the CBC is excellent at holding the government itself to account which is exactly what we need from media. They are not agents of the government nor of corporations. Here's an example:

(copy & pasting from news article today)
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has released thousands of heavily redacted documents by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in regards to allegations the agency had spied on peaceful protesters of the now-defunct Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

It appears that CSIS has been spying on environmental groups and protesters and sharing the information with big energy companies. This shows how powerful these energy companies are. They not only run the Alberta government, had Harper running the federal government for them, but also have police and intelligence services working for them!

In fact, with all that assistance, they still can't win over public opinion. Just shows you the power of what the public really wants, versus what business interests want and try to bully them into doing. If using the federal power + provincial + intelligence agencies together to push a corporate energy agenda can't convince the public... maybe it's just not meant to be?


----------



## AltaRed

Some of what you say is a red herring James. Don't blow your credibility reaching and speculating and concluding based on what you think it to be. That is the domain of conspirators and vested agendas. 

Law enforcement services have always kept businesses, especially industrial complexes appraised of potential physical threats to geographic specific life and property. Especially with dangerous goods or public safety. The same applies to airports, power plants, cement plants, and municipal infrastructure to suggest just a few examples. WHAT gets shared is the key issue. Only that which can relate to potential physical harm and public safety should be shared, and gosh, site protests will definitely be in that category of what is shared. The membership and structure of the potential threat wouldn't/shouldn't be shared based on privacy legislation/concerns. Just ask some law enforcement friends yourself.

Example: Even back in the '70s, we had both law enforcement and private security firms advise of threats, and provide training on responses to mitigating potential threats to nuclear plants when I worked there. The same is true with pipelines, oil sand plants, Edmonton area refineries, etc, etc. There is nothing new here.

Edit: Another example. During the last World Petroleum Congress in Calgary some 20? years ago, law enforcement and private security kept energy businesses physically located in the Calgary area informed (only as necessary) during the Congress on potential threats. I was there and had pre-Congress briefings. As it turned out, there was nothing urgent to communicate to people like myself as a company representative.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Independent journalist Mike Cernovich's actions led to the recent arrest of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The left leaning media had no interest in Epstein due to his close ties with Bill Clinton.


And Donald Trump and Prince Andrew and Allan Dershowitz, and.........

If all these men were involved in what Epstein is charged with, I hope they all go to jail for life, including Clinton.

Incidentally, the guy who made the prosecution deal with Epstein is Rene Alexander Acosta who is now Trump's labor secretary, and who overseas child exploitation as such.

Also lobbying for the sweetheart deal for Epstein was AG William Barr. He recused himself from the case today.

Small world eh ?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Actually the CBC is excellent at holding the government itself to account which is exactly what we need from media. They are not agents of the government nor of corporations. Here's an example:
> 
> (copy & pasting from news article today)
> The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has released thousands of heavily redacted documents by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in regards to allegations the agency had spied on peaceful protesters of the now-defunct Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.
> 
> It appears that CSIS has been spying on environmental groups and protesters and sharing the information with big energy companies. This shows how powerful these energy companies are. They not only run the Alberta government, had Harper running the federal government for them, but also have police and intelligence services working for them!
> 
> In fact, with all that assistance, they still can't win over public opinion. Just shows you the power of what the public really wants, versus what business interests want and try to bully them into doing. If using the federal power + provincial + intelligence agencies together to push a corporate energy agenda can't convince the public... maybe it's just not meant to be?


I honestly don't expect unionized CBC staff to write a great expose on corruption in UNIFOR.
We need multiple sources, and not just government approved ones.

Controlling the media is the first step!


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer announced he will cancel regulations requiring cleaner fuel to reduce emissions. 

Scheer is following in Harper's footsteps of doing the bidding of the big oil lobby (CAPP). Canadians know who controls the PC party.


----------



## AltaRed

I stand to be corrected, but as far as I can tell, the only way to reduce CO2 by way of cleaner fuel is to reduce the energy content of gasoline and diesel, which proportionately will result in higher consumption on a litre/100km basis. That would be a zero sum game since energy is neither created nor destroyed, and perhaps worse since more product volume would have to be shipped to petrol stations. The optics would look good on paper though.

Added: The bigger challenge though is how to apply that cleaner fuel standard to imported gasoline. Would US refineries actually produce it for a small export market? As I understand it, one of the reasons fuel currently costs so much in the GVR is because Washington refineries have to 'specially' refine gasoline that is exported to GVR. See https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/gas-prices-explainer-1.5103973


> Not all fuel is created equally and B.C.'s emission standards are some of the highest you'll find anywhere.
> 
> All gas and diesel that is sold in B.C. must include renewable materials and meet the province's carbon targets.
> 
> Jason Parent with the petroleum consulting company the Kent Group says this adds to the refining cost which ultimately gets passed along to consumers.
> 
> "We've seen that cost increase as regulations become more stringent over the years," he said.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> Many believe vaccines are poison, many more believe socialism and communism are the cure for our society. There are no end of silly things that people believe. Just look here some people even think Trudeau is doing a good job.


I think this podcast (from the CBC believe it or not) can help us to understand why some people will delude themselves into thinking they are doing the right things.

How ignorance can make us feel we are right!


----------



## cainvest

Maybe they should make it illegal for politicians to propose such things unless they have a complete (and detailed) plan to back it up.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> And Donald Trump and Prince Andrew and Allan Dershowitz, and.........
> 
> If all these men were involved in what Epstein is charged with, I hope they all go to jail for life, including Clinton.
> 
> Incidentally, the guy who made the prosecution deal with Epstein is Rene Alexander Acosta who is now Trump's labor secretary, and who overseas child exploitation as such.
> 
> Also lobbying for the sweetheart deal for Epstein was AG William Barr. He recused himself from the case today.
> 
> Small world eh ?


Trump never once visited Epstein's island, but Clinton is on record visiting several times. In fact Trump banned Epstein for life from one of his properties when he hit on an underage girl. You're grasping at straws trying to link the two because they were once in the same room. All the left media is trying to link Trump to Epstein but it's just another pathetic smear job. And you're just as bad.

Crooked cop Robert Mueller was in charge of the FBI when Epstein got his sweetheart deal. Now James Comey's daughter is the prosecutor in Epstein's case. Coincidence or by design?


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> In fact Trump banned Epstein for life from one of his properties when he hit on an underage girl.


Trump didn't want the competition. Trump has exhibited plenty of creepiness around underage girls.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

james4beach said:


> Actually the CBC is excellent at holding the government itself to account which is exactly what we need from media. They are not agents of the government nor of corporations. Here's an example:
> 
> (copy & pasting from news article today)
> The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has released thousands of heavily redacted documents by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in regards to allegations the agency had spied on peaceful protesters of the now-defunct Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.
> 
> It appears that CSIS has been spying on environmental groups and protesters and sharing the information with big energy companies. This shows how powerful these energy companies are. They not only run the Alberta government, had Harper running the federal government for them, but also have police and intelligence services working for them!
> 
> In fact, with all that assistance, they still can't win over public opinion. Just shows you the power of what the public really wants, versus what business interests want and try to bully them into doing. If using the federal power + provincial + intelligence agencies together to push a corporate energy agenda can't convince the public... maybe it's just not meant to be?


This is troll sh!t. Uninformed troll sh!t at that.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Trump didn't want the competition. Trump has exhibited plenty of creepiness around underage girls.


Wrong. Trump has a well known history of liking attractive women that are well over legal age. The media spin on this looks like Russian Collusion Part 2...there's nothing there but that doesn't matter because they will slander him every day and the same gullible people who fell for Russian collusion for 2 full years only to be disappointed will eagerly eat it up every Epstein lie they're fed.

Save yourself some anguish and don't so gullible as to fall for lies from the same people who lied to you the first time.


----------



## AltaRed

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> This is troll sh!t. Uninformed troll sh!t at that.


There is noting in the article that suggests CSIS went beyond their mandate though there is a reference whether they were 'close'. SIRC reviewed everything and didn't see anything out of order. Whether pursuit in the courts will go anywhere is anyone's guess but either way, James' post clearly went off the Richter scale.


----------



## Pluto

AltaRed said:


> When it's disrupted and gone, e.g. the cod fishery on the Grand Banks, it is gone.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-theyre-eating-the-shrimp-that-had-taken-over

Alarmism!

Now I suppose humans will be blamed for the return of cod that are gobbling up the shrimp.


----------



## james4beach

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> This is troll sh!t. Uninformed troll sh!t at that.


You're nuts. I quoted the article, then pointed out a series of facts

- The Alberta premier quite clearly represents the interests of the energy industry
- As PM, Stephen Harper directly took directions from the Alberta energy industry
- (according to the new evidence presented) CSIS is also assisting the energy industry

I then pointed out that these are very powerful forces in combination. And still, the public is not on side.

You conservative types like tough talk, so here's some tough talk: you're unable to take any criticism of oil & gas, and this is really unhealthy. No individual should identify so strongly with an industrial sector that they can't even handle hearing unwelcome viewpoints.



AltaRed said:


> James' post clearly went off the Richter scale.


In what way? These are pretty straightforward observations. I think the reaction from OnlyMyOpinion and you show just how indoctrinated you guys are in the pro-corporate-energy cause.

The only thing that appears to have changed in Canada is that Trudeau's government _does not_ bow to every demand from the energy industry, for once. That's a nice refreshing change, good for democracy, and good for Canada.


----------



## james4beach

Prairie Guy said:


> Independent journalist Mike Cernovich's actions led to the recent arrest of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The left leaning media had no interest in Epstein due to his close ties with Bill Clinton.


Prairie Guy, I normally ignore you and your conspiracy theory ramblings but I'm going to call you out on this one because what you're posting is Republican propaganda meant to direct attention away from the Trump circle.

Epstein faced federal indictments in Florida over 10 years ago. He got a plea deal with the prosecutor at the time, Alexander Acosta, who let the pedophile go free. *This person is now Trump's Labor Secretary.*

Time to wake up, Prairie Guy. Stop watching FOX News and stop falling for their attempts to distract your attention away from the horrible things going on in the Trump circle. Trump appointed a man who let the pedophile go free. In February, a judge also ruled that Acosta broke the law by failing to keep the underage victims informed about the plea deal.

It gets worse actually. One of the women who was abused said she was recruited by Epstein to work at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. Epstein has been photographed with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago.



> Mr. Trump told New York magazine in 2002 that Mr. Epstein was a “terrific guy” whom he had known for 15 years.


So what do you think, Prairie Guy? Are you now incredibly angry at Trump for (a) letting girls be sexually exploited at his resort and (b) hiring the man responsible for letting Epstein go free?

And why aren't Republicans getting on Trump's case for his links to Epstein? Why aren't they on his case for hiring such a bad character to a top government role? Let me guess... FOX News doesn't tell you to be angry at them. Right?


----------



## sags

There were specific allegations against Trump, Dershowitz and others from young girls that were swept away when Epstein was offered the plea deal.

There are additional allegations coming forward.

It isn't going to be so easy to avoid public scrutiny and prosecution this time.


----------



## sags

James......

The oil industry lobby group admit they sent the letter, a government cabinet minister criticized environmental groups, the Harper government enacted the legislation the oil industry wanted, and CSIS was involved in spying on environmental groups. I think it will be very clear to the Canadian public what the situation is.

And now, the PC party releases a "do nothing" climate change policy plan, and Andrew Scheer advocates for cancelling a research study on adopting cleaner fuels legislation.

The Conservatives find themselves in a difficult position, and this latest news is going to be a problem for them.

They know climate change is a top issue for Canadians and they have to appear to be addressing it, while they continue to follow directions from the oil industry lobby.

Concern about the health of the oil industry is appropriate, but the Conservatives appear more interested in the desires of the oil industry than those of the people.

The Liberals seem to have struck a more appropriate balance.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> There were specific allegations against Trump, Dershowitz and others from young girls that were swept away when Epstein was offered the plea deal.
> 
> There are additional allegations coming forward.
> 
> It isn't going to be so easy to avoid public scrutiny and prosecution this time.


Just like fake Russian collusion, the only people guilty are Democrats. You'll believe anything that the media tells you...just like the fake toilet water lie you told a few days ago that you still haven't corrected.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Maybe they should make it illegal for politicians to propose such things unless they have a complete (and detailed) plan to back it up.


Care to name a single proposal that is fully researched, and who would decide if the plan is good enough. 

Sorry, but I think half assed ideas by moronic pandering politicians is actually the least bad solution we've got.


----------



## sags

Listening to a local radio station at home this morning, in a matter of a couple of hours there was a story on the latest Forum poll showing climate change is the top issue for the Federal election, an interview with an energy expert who says there are more jobs in the green energy sector than in the oil industry, a story on the carbon tax and how 5 Conservative Premiers are opposed and the other Premiers are in favor, and a story that the huge Yorkdale mall in Toronto announced it will be totally "green" in a few years.

There has been a sea change of public opinion. The word is out and climate change is a daily topic of discussion for Canadians now.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Just like fake Russian collusion, the only people guilty are Democrats. You'll believe anything that the media tells you...just like the fake toilet water lie you told a few days ago that you still haven't corrected.


The source is the documents themselves and presentations by prosecutors in open court.

We will see if Epstein decides he better start talking to save his butt. He is looking at life in prison for convictions that can't be pardoned by Trump.


----------



## sags

Perpetual motion could be the solution in the future.

An energy system that operates on some of the energy it creates and disperses the balance into the grid.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The source is the documents themselves and presentations by prosecutors in open court.
> 
> We will see if Epstein decides he better start talking to save his butt. He is looking at life in prison for convictions that can't be pardoned by Trump.


Why would Trump pardon Epstein? He's put more government resources in the fight against pedophilia than any other president, something the media completely ignores or lies about. Once again you simply repeat what the lying media tells you just like the fake toilet water story:

https://townhall.com/columnists/liz...gnoring-trumps-sex-trafficking-busts-n2290379

Epstein may name names but Trump isn't one of them. The media is still trying to link the two of them together while pretending that Clinton was never a frequent visitor to his island. It wouldn't be surprising if Epstein died suddenly of Arkancide.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

That's fine James. Shut down the O&G sector in Canada asap as is the intention, and see whether Canada becomes a better place to live or not.

My comment was related to your rant about CSIS colluding with industry, blah, blah, blah. Clueless comments.

Added: oh, and see if it makes an iota of difference to your global warming crisis.


----------



## kcowan

james4beach said:


> The only thing that appears to have changed in Canada is that Trudeau's government _does not_ bow to every demand from the energy industry, for once. That's a nice refreshing change, good for democracy, and good for Canada.


I am so glad you will not vote in October!


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Listening to a local radio station at home this morning, in a matter of a couple of hours there was a story on the latest Forum poll showing climate change is the top issue for the Federal election, an interview with an energy expert who says there are more jobs in the green energy sector than in the oil industry, a story on the carbon tax and how 5 Conservative Premiers are opposed and the other Premiers are in favor, and a story that the huge Yorkdale mall in Toronto announced it will be totally "green" in a few years.
> 
> There has been a sea change of public opinion. The word is out and climate change is a daily topic of discussion for Canadians now.


Most of these polls on "climate change" mix the environment and climate change. 

Second if there are way more jobs in green energy, it will cost way more.

I actually agree, there will be a lot more jobs and much higher cost to green energy. 

If not, can you explain how the green energy will give a lot of money to even more people without raising the price?


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> You're nuts. I quoted the article, then pointed out a series of facts
> 
> - The Alberta premier quite clearly represents the interests of the energy industry
> - As PM, Stephen Harper directly took directions from the Alberta energy industry
> - (according to the new evidence presented) CSIS is also assisting the energy industry
> 
> I then pointed out that these are very powerful forces in combination. And still, the public is not on side.
> 
> You conservative types like tough talk, so here's some tough talk: you're unable to take any criticism of oil & gas, and this is really unhealthy. No individual should identify so strongly with an industrial sector that they can't even handle hearing unwelcome viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> In what way? These are pretty straightforward observations. I think the reaction from OnlyMyOpinion and you show just how indoctrinated you guys are in the pro-corporate-energy cause.
> 
> The only thing that appears to have changed in Canada is that Trudeau's government _does not_ bow to every demand from the energy industry, for once. That's a nice refreshing change, good for democracy, and good for Canada.


James....james....james... You really would help yourself by stopping the digging. Readers of this forum can see your post for what it is. A tirade of ideological hyperbole and innuendo that doesn't represent the facts. I actually have no problem with differing viewpoints, and have such discussion with both friends and family, but I do and will challenge erroneous bullshite.

The O&G industry is an important part of Canada's GDP and a continued sustainable O&G industry will be important for decades to come. Global oil demand continues to grow and may do so for a few decades before potentially rolling over into a gradual decline. It will still be here when you are drooling pablum in assisted care in your old age. What there needs to be is a reasonable balance between limited growth (I have no problem with that) and a healthy contribution to our economy and standard of living. If we become so ideological vis-a-vis the way the world really works, we will simply be undergoing our own demise relative to the rest of the world. No other government in the world is interested in curtailing or constraining their own O&G production contribution to their economies, not even Norway with their green initiatives.

Added: I may owe much of my career to the O&G industry but I have minimal skin in this game. I own no commodity stocks and don't live in a province with much of a stake in oil (but yes, a major stake in gas and LNG), but I, like everyone else in this country, needs O&G to help the Feds pay the bills for their grandiose spending, health transfers and if we are lucky, income taxes from soaring. It is Econ101.


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> I am so glad you will not vote in October!



ummmm ... why wouldn't he vote in october


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Prairie Guy, I normally ignore you and your conspiracy theory ramblings but I'm going to call you out on this one because what you're posting is Republican propaganda meant to direct attention away from the Trump circle



wondering why the moderators would call him prairie guy though

i mean there are at least 2 known usernames & quite a few claimed ages


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> I am so glad you will not vote in October!


lol, you better believe I _will_ be voting. Not only that but now that I see how strong the attacks are against environmental groups, I'm also considering starting regular donations to environmental groups. They clearly need as much assistance as they can get.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Added: I may owe much of my career to the O&G industry but I have minimal skin in this game. I own no commodity stocks and don't live in a province with much of a stake in oil (but yes, a major stake in gas and LNG), but I, like everyone else in this country, needs O&G to help the Feds pay the bills for their grandiose spending, health transfers and if we are lucky, income taxes from soaring. It is Econ101.


Help pay bills for grand spending? The Canadian economy is doing great currently, despite a very weak energy sector. Even the CAD is very stable over the last 4 years. I think Canada is proving that its economy is not dependent on energy. Of course it's an important sector, but just one among many.

Besides, there was such incredible wealth created by the past phases of the oil & gas boom, that everyone should have been able to save and invest nicely for their future (as you have). Again, this is conservative-land right? So let's emphasize a key conservative value: *self responsibility*.

When you get to live and earn income through a mega boom, you're responsible for saving for a rainy day. Everyone knows that the energy industry is not constantly in a boom.

It's time for all the conservatives in Alberta to suck it up and stop blaming other people.


----------



## AltaRed

James, I agree Albertans and Alberta gov't (never mind SK and NF) should have been putting away more money for a rainy day, and they deserve what they didn't do, but you also know (except if you are extremely partisan) that a good portion of Alberta's wealth is sucked up by Ottawa through federal corporate and personal income taxes, never mind equalization payments. Never mind all the income taxes and spending power camp jobs (residents of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes) take home to spend in their home provinces, and never mind the profits and jobs from Central Canada industry that have benefited from the manufacture and supply of goods to the oil sector.

Partisans conveniently skip over the fact that Alberta et al is not nearly in the position of sovereign nations. But I don't expect you to even acknowledge that, never mind understand it. Misinformed or deliberately false rhetoric doesn't become more factual just because it is said over and over again. Again, readers of this forum can decide for themselves.

Added: FWIW, I never liked the boom and bust cycle myself and there was way too much overheating in economy in the 2011 - 2014 period. Much rather a 'steady as she goes' scenario to minimize economic disruption. NF experienced this in spades thinking the high royalty gravy train offshore would last forever and they've blown their brains out. A tough lesson.

FWIW, I support TMX to diversify our markets to Asia and Enbridge Line 3 to replace the reduced capacity existing Line 3. I don't care much about Keystone XL and it may well have excess capacity that will take some time to fill up. But it probably will eventually be built anyway.

Added: Context for oil sands spending ex-Alberta https://context.capp.ca/infographic...wtH3DBsgiiZFWNlmW56MoBibMRcExijpoggSUxfRmVt70


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> You're nuts. I quoted the article, then pointed out a series of facts
> 
> - The Alberta premier quite clearly represents the interests of the energy industry
> - As PM, Stephen Harper directly took directions from the Alberta energy industry
> - (according to the new evidence presented) CSIS is also assisting the energy industry
> 
> I then pointed out that these are very powerful forces in combination. And still, the public is not on side.
> 
> You conservative types like tough talk, so here's some tough talk: you're unable to take any criticism of oil & gas, and this is really unhealthy. No individual should identify so strongly with an industrial sector that they can't even handle hearing unwelcome viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> In what way? These are pretty straightforward observations. I think the reaction from OnlyMyOpinion and you show just how indoctrinated you guys are in the pro-corporate-energy cause.
> 
> The only thing that appears to have changed in Canada is that Trudeau's government _does not_ bow to every demand from the energy industry, for once. That's a nice refreshing change, good for democracy, and good for Canada.


The PM and the Premiers should represent and defend the major industries in their area.

One role of CSIS is to protect from domestic terrorism. Some environmental groups have engaged in domestic terrorism. Alerting the targets to the threats is reasonable and appropriate.

So far there has been no evidence made public that they went too far.
There are claims by the Protesters claiming that CSIS went too far.
There are claims that CSIS questioned if their actions were appropriate, that is a question EVERYONE should be asking.

In short there has been no "evidence presented" that CSIS did anything wrong. Any evidence and document is under seal.
There was an investigation of Dogwood, and they've already been cleared. Are you referring to another case?


In short your complaint can be summarized as.
1. The Alberta Premier is doing his job.
2. The former PM did his job.
3. A group is claiming that another group exceeded their mandate. But there is no public information to support these accusations. 


I'm completely able to take criticism, but I didn't see criticism. 
Canada has a very long history of permitting illegal protests to proceed.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> lol, you better believe I _will_ be voting. Not only that but now that I see how strong the attacks are against environmental groups, I'm also considering starting regular donations to environmental groups. They clearly need as much assistance as they can get.


Of course you're voting, not living here.
Be sure to dump as much of that US money over here as you can.


----------



## kcowan

16 pages and no progress. Us moderates on the right are still there. Moderate lefties are quiet. Extreme leftists are still here and vocal. We have seen intelligent people calling other people names or ascribing attributes to them that do not exist. The moderators are absent as usual.

I have been away and busy but when I come back, it all seems too clear.


----------



## RBull

^Interesting. I was away too. While purusing the forum and this thread the last few days your comments ring a bell here too.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> 16 pages and no progress. Us moderates on the right are still there. Moderate lefties are quiet. Extreme leftists are still here and vocal. We have seen intelligent people calling other people names or ascribing attributes to them that do not exist. The moderators are absent as usual.
> 
> I have been away and busy but when I come back, it all seems too clear.


Who would you consider to be moderate lefties on this issue?


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Of course you're voting, not living here.
> Be sure to dump as much of that US money over here as you can.


I am living in Canada. I have residences in both countries and am shifting things towards being only a resident of Canada, not the US any longer.


----------



## m3s

Voting is a matter of citizenship rather than residency. Canadian citizens 18+ living abroad can register online to vote by mail.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

I agree, calling James' post troll sh!t does seem harsh. But let's consider what he said:



james4beach said:


> _*It appears that CSIS has been spying on environmental groups and protesters and sharing the information with big energy companies. This shows how powerful these energy companies are. They not only run the Alberta government, had Harper running the federal government for them, but also have police and intelligence services working for them!*
> 
> In fact, with all that assistance, they still can't win over public opinion. Just shows you the power of what the public really wants, versus what business interests want and try to bully them into doing. If using the federal power + provincial + intelligence agencies together to push a corporate energy agenda can't convince the public... maybe it's just not meant to b_e?


What are the reported facts?



> After a February 2014 complaint to the CSIS watchdog (the Security Intelligence Review Committee), the committee reviewed documents and took testimony and in September 2017 dismissed the civil liberties association complaint.
> 
> Ultimately, the review committee concluded CSIS’s information collection fell within its mandate, and that the service did not investigate activities involving lawful advocacy, protest or dissent. The report indicates that any information on peaceful groups was gathered “in an ancillary manner, in the context of other lawful investigations.”
> 
> The report also says there was no “direct link” between CSIS and the chilling effect groups mentioned in testimony before the committee.
> 
> The committee also concludes CSIS did not share information concerning the environmental groups in question with the National Energy Board or non-governmental members of the petroleum business.


Now of course I am counting on James proving to us the that SIRC is a big sham, colluding and conspiring with the oil industry and government, etc. He will demonstrate to us that his comment was not as ludicrous as I suggest.
I won't hold my breath, given his conclusions re/ the Gerald Butts/PMO SNC-Lavalin issue, it's clear that the facts don't get in the way of his politics.


----------



## james4beach

I stand by what I wrote. There has been information sharing between energy companies and CSIS, and the same absolutely does not occur between environmental groups and CSIS. Do you think CSIS would take reports from an environmental group about interference or infiltration by a corporate entity? No way... this would not be seen as the business of the nation's spy agency or police.

Let's be real here. Institutions such as police and intelligence services are staffed by conservative-minded people, and have long seen left leaning groups or protesters as enemies. In the past, they spied on university campuses and student groups, and of course, spied on labour movements and unions.

This is why CSIS, and probably RCMP, track environmental groups and protesters. What's been reported about CSIS is completely consistent with the conservative history of these groups and the strong bias that exists in these circles.


----------



## m3s

To be fair if the government approves a major project after reassessing environmental impacts, then governmental agencies will tend to support the government's objectives. There would be public outcry if they didn't try to prevent extremist threats to employees or property etc

Protesting a pipeline doesn't really make sense when it is safer, more efficient and has less impact than the alternative. Wildlife can even pass underneath undisturbed by trucks and trains. Seems to only be a target because it's a project in progress with a concentrated location

Protesting approved projects like this is futile. There's a lot of policy that could help incentivize a gradual societal/cultural change like a sin tax offset with subsidies for technical innovation and renovation/improved design projects. Tax the sinful imports and export the tech.


----------



## humble_pie

spectacular photographs! the first & so far the only pictures of a working pipeline in cmf forum.

doesn't it look like a terrific piece of engineering? show pictures like these to enviro protestors & i bet they'll end up clamouring to adopt their very own section of pipe.

m3 you should sell those pictures to the oil industry. More than any others i've seen, they perfectly illustrate the juxtaposition of majestic, pristine canadian wilderness with minimally intrusive, equally pristine pipeline engineering.

but i'm curious. What are those red truncheons with what appear to be antennae on top, alongside the pipe in the first photograph? are those safety devices, designed to ward off saboteurs or at least communicate their presence to the RCMP?

& if they are live alert communicators, how on earth did you manage to climb up on top of the pipe itself to take that gorgeous picture?



here they are again, 3 professional quality photographs, unsigned but they could not be from anyone else:




m3s said:


>


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I stand by what I wrote. There has been information sharing between energy companies and CSIS, and the same absolutely does not occur between environmental groups and CSIS. Do you think CSIS would take reports from an environmental group about interference or infiltration by a corporate entity? No way... this would not be seen as the business of the nation's spy agency or police.
> 
> Let's be real here. Institutions such as police and intelligence services are staffed by conservative-minded people, and have long seen left leaning groups or protesters as enemies. In the past, they spied on university campuses and student groups, and of course, spied on labour movements and unions.
> 
> This is why CSIS, and probably RCMP, track environmental groups and protesters. What's been reported about CSIS is completely consistent with the conservative history of these groups and the strong bias that exists in these circles.


Lets be real, some people become violent. CSIS and RCMP are responsible for defending us.
If there are legitimate threats they have an obligation to protect us and in some cases provide information to the potential target.
There are investigations, and AFAIK they've cleared CSIS.


Yes the structures that build and support the foundations of society tend to be those whos personalities who believe in structure and stability, and work in those fields.

Those who want to tear it all down, regardless of the impact on society have a different personality who don't believe those things, and don't work in those fields.


----------



## james4beach

As long as big corporate interests continue to define public policy and tell government what to do, younger Canadians will (correctly) pick up on the fact that the interests of wealthy industrialists are put ahead of the interests of Canada, the environment, and our health.

Giving priority to corporate energy interests is very popular here at CMF, but I assure you it's not popular throughout Canada especially among younger people. Their lobbying power and close connections to government is (correctly) seen as a corruption of democracy.

And using police and intelligence services to intimidate/weaken groups opposed to energy projects is also undemocratic.

I am impartial on these matters and am not biased one way or the other. I hold over $20,000 in Suncor stock so I'm not exactly anti-energy, and I also work in a highly conservative industry myself. However it is clear as day to me that Alberta's government (and past federal governments like Harper's) are corrupted by energy lobbyists.


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I agree, calling James' post troll sh!t does seem harsh. But let's consider what he said



let's not consider anything, the outburst was a flippin tirade

onlyMO is not the only energy lobbyist who does flippin tirades but he is the only one w a sense of humour, so we forgive him


----------



## sags

CSIS should be a stand alone intelligence agency, not directed by any government at the behest of lobby groups. CSIS should operate without political interference.

It seems the same people who assail the government for intruding into judicial matters before the Attorney General, have no problem with government intruding into security matters.

If CSIS conducted the investigations on their own initiative......so be it. If they did so at the direction of the government......that is a problem.


----------



## sags

I don't believe it is possible to be a "moderate" on issues like climate change or pipelines.

A "halfway" attempt at reducing climate change won't be near enough, and you can't build part of a pipeline.

People are being politically divided for one side or the other because there really isn't any middle ground to occupy.

At the end of the day.........Political parties will take a position. Voters will cast their ballots. Canadians will respect the outcome.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> a good portion of Alberta's wealth is sucked up by Ottawa through federal corporate and personal income taxes, never mind equalization payments.




??

the situation may have changed in recent years but all of my life alberta has been known as one of the lowest income taxed provinces in canada

i've known persons who moved to alberta for that exact reason. Pay less personal income tax.

a few years a cmffer from ontario fixed up an alberta address so he could file personal income tax as an alberta resident. Bought a condo in canmore IIRC. He had other residences in downtown toronto, kawartha lakes & arizona, but canmore was supposed to be the epicentre.

has the above situation changed in recent years, so suddenly nowadays albertans are paying *more* federal income tax than the ROC?


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> ??
> the situation may have changed in recent years but all of my life alberta has been known as one of the lowest income taxed provinces in canada
> 
> i've known persons who moved to alberta for that exact reason. Pay less personal income tax.


Yes that was true. But AR was referring to the many workers who maintained residences elsewhere and commuted to Alberta for high paying jobs. They paid their higher taxes at home. Because without the Alberta jobs, they would have paid no taxes.


humble_pie said:


> a few years a cmffer from ontario fixed up an alberta address so he could file personal income tax as an alberta resident. Bought a condo in canmore IIRC. He had other residences in downtown toronto, kawartha lakes & arizona, but canmore was supposed to be the epicentre.
> 
> has the above situation changed in recent years, so suddenly nowadays albertans are paying *more* federal income tax than the ROC?


Yes he has homes in Canmore, Phoenix and Kawartha Lakes with a condo (pied a terre) in downtown Toronto. He spends 3 months in Arizona and 4 months in Kawartha with 4 months in Canmore, including December 31. The condo is only used for visits.

Yes the tax advantage of holding a place in Canmore has evaporated in recent years when the NDP was in power, but he loves the place.

He left CMF because he found the alt-left contingent to be a waste of time. Too many words and not enough facts. But, after all, he was one of those nasty corporate executives before he retired!


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> I stand by what I wrote. There has been information sharing between energy companies and CSIS, and the same absolutely does not occur between environmental groups and CSIS. Do you think CSIS would take reports from an environmental group about interference or infiltration by a corporate entity? No way... this would not be seen as the business of the nation's spy agency or police.
> 
> Let's be real here. Institutions such as police and intelligence services are staffed by conservative-minded people, and have long seen left leaning groups or protesters as enemies. In the past, they spied on university campuses and student groups, and of course, spied on labour movements and unions.
> 
> This is why CSIS, and probably RCMP, track environmental groups and protesters. What's been reported about CSIS is completely consistent with the conservative history of these groups and the strong bias that exists in these circles.


This is where you continue to be wrong and you cannot either see it, or do not want to see it. Potential physical threats to life and property are always monitored, and where a threat may be imminent, appropriate information needs to be shared between law enforcement and the potential victim. As long as protestors and associated organized groups threaten another entity, they bear being monitored. While I agree there has been excessive monitoring in the past, e.g. commie political groups in past decades, I truly believe there is much less (perhaps zero) ideological type surveillance today of benign entities.

No personal, institutional or corporate entity is physically threatening NGOs and their paid cadres of protestors. What part of common sense do you not understand?

Added: The key here is "benign" entities and/or people. Anyone or anything that demonstrates a potential threat should be fair game for surveillance.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> ??
> 
> the situation may have changed in recent years but all of my life alberta has been known as one of the lowest income taxed provinces in canada
> 
> i've known persons who moved to alberta for that exact reason. Pay less personal income tax.
> 
> a few years a cmffer from ontario fixed up an alberta address so he could file personal income tax as an alberta resident. Bought a condo in canmore IIRC. He had other residences in downtown toronto, kawartha lakes & arizona, but canmore was supposed to be the epicentre.
> 
> has the above situation changed in recent years, so suddenly nowadays albertans are paying *more* federal income tax than the ROC?


Most of the thousands of camp jobs in the oil patch are held by personnel that have families and residential addresses in other provinces. Whole towns in the Maritimes count on their residents holding good jobs in the oil patch so that these residents pay taxes and spend their money in their home provinces. One example https://business.financialpost.com/...l-the-way-to-canadas-far-flung-eastern-shores The Cape Breton Post, as an example, also has articles related to how much local economies count on oil sands camp jobs.

This is repeated over and over again in many communities across the Maritimes, Newfoundland, etc. Thousands of British Columbians commute (or did commute) to oil sands jobs in Alberta, but pay BC income and property taxes, and spend their money in BC. Suncor runs (or did run) a scheduled 737 service to/from places like Kelowna and Abbotsford to shuttle workers to/from Fort Mac area. That may have ended with the downturn in the past 4 years. I think Canadian Natural Resources did the same thing with 737s, Would have to dig further to see what has changed in the past 2-3 years. In addition, there are (were) about 8 flights a day to each of Edmonton and Calgary from Kelowna alone, many of which were loaded with crew changes to the work camps. A lot of that has changed with the sharp reduction in capital projects. 

This jobs infographic provides some perspective of jobs that end up paying taxes and buying goods and services back home. https://context.capp.ca/infographics/2018/infographic_jobs-across-canada Many of these jobs in the picture are directly associated with the goods and services from the oil industry, but many of them are commuting camp workers who maintain their families and residences 'back home'. 

I posted this link earlier about how much capital is spent ex-Alberta in the oil sector https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/...-to-end-global-warming-for-250-million/page62 and how it has decreased. It continues to dramatically decrease in years since then due to winding down of projects. I have no idea if the data has been updated to more recent years. 

Bottom line: Canada suffers when the oil industry in Alberta suffers. Despite so many attempts to get the message out, the message has mostly been lost on (or unimportant to) Canadians at large. James was dismissive about GDP impacts the industry has on Canada earlier, and also rather derogatory to everything in Alberta being Alberta's fault, but I chose to limit my response since that comment was either entirely ideological, intentionally vicious, or completely ignorant to the facts.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Most of the thousands of camp jobs in the oil patch are held by personnel that have families and residential addresses in other provinces. Whole towns in the Maritimes count on their residents holding good jobs in the oil patch so that these residents pay taxes and spend their money in their home provinces. One example https://business.financialpost.com/...l-the-way-to-canadas-far-flung-eastern-shores The Cape Breton Post, as an example, also has articles related to how much local economies count on oil sands camp jobs.
> 
> This is repeated over and over again in many communities across the Maritimes, Newfoundland, etc. Thousands of British Columbians commute (or did commute) to oil sands jobs in Alberta, but pay BC income and property taxes, and spend their money in BC. Suncor runs (or did run) a scheduled 737 service to/from places like Kelowna and Abbotsford to shuttle workers to/from Fort Mac area. That may have ended with the downturn in the past 4 years. I think Canadian Natural Resources did the same thing with 737s, Would have to dig further to see what has changed in the past 2-3 years. In addition, there are (were) about 8 flights a day to each of Edmonton and Calgary from Kelowna alone, many of which were loaded with crew changes to the work camps. A lot of that has changed with the sharp reduction in capital projects.
> 
> This jobs infographic provides some perspective of jobs that end up paying taxes and buying goods and services back home. https://context.capp.ca/infographics/2018/infographic_jobs-across-canada Many of these jobs in the picture are directly associated with the goods and services from the oil industry, but many of them are commuting camp workers who maintain their families and residences 'back home'.





sorry but i don't see that "camp jobs" whereby workers worked in the oil industry in alberta but paid income taxes in their home provinces ever caused true albertans to pay excessive income taxes to ottawa.

by true albertans i mean albertans with permanent residences in alberta, paying federal income taxes as residents of alberta. 

it is my understanding that federal income taxes paid by albertans were, indeed, on the lowest scale in canada.

sorry i have difficulty believing that recent NDP governments in edmonton ever corralled increased albertans' tax dollars to ottawa. That idea is too ludicrous to bother mentioning. It is the federal minister of finance who adjusts federal tax rates, not individual provincial premiers.

what i am willing to believe is that recent NDP governments in edmonton may have increased alberta taxes that are. paid. into. provincial. alberta. coffers. In other words, those additional taxes are paid to edmonton, not to ottawa.

such a scenario could or would have increased total albertans' income and/or other taxes payable; but i for one doubt that any of the increase was ever earmarked for the federal government, although that is what you posted upthread, in what i believe may be an exaggeration:




AltaRed said:


> a good portion of Alberta's wealth is sucked up by Ottawa through federal corporate and personal income taxes



s


----------



## m3s

University in Ontario the Alberta kids got $$$ cheques from Alberta every year and they spent it like drunken sailors (drunken university students) While students from other provinces would file as residents on Ontario because it had one of the lowest income taxes, but just didn't give surplus money away on top! This made no sense to anyone with fiscal sense.

Alaska is now slashing public services due to the decline of oil revenue (google Dunleavy cuts). People ask why not just pay some state income tax like everyone else? People definitely move to Alaska for the low tax and free money just for living here and it is starting to strain the system as oil declines. It's not sustainable but low taxes gets votes.



humble_pie said:


> m3 you should sell those pictures to the oil industry. More than any others i've seen, they perfectly illustrate the juxtaposition of majestic, pristine canadian wilderness with minimally intrusive, equally pristine pipeline engineering.
> 
> but i'm curious. What are those red truncheons with what appear to be antennae on top, alongside the pipe in the first photograph? are those safety devices, designed to ward off saboteurs or at least communicate their presence to the RCMP?
> 
> & if they are live alert communicators, how on earth did you manage to climb up on top of the pipe itself to take that gorgeous picture?


The fins on top act as a radiator to cool the ammonia filled structure so it doesn't sink and damage the permafrost. This is a perfect example of simple passive design for cooling.

We use most of our peak energy on active cooling/heating when there are many simple solutions. For example just drawing air into your house underground to cool it while shading windows from the outside.

They have security sensors in some locations which I shouldn't explain. Through work I had access to the underground and closer along the pipeline but it is right beside a public road anyways.

I was impressed when it goes under rivers you'd never know it was there. In some places the forest has grown back up to the edge and they only clear the brush underneath. Being below the tree line you barely see it compared to a hydro line.

It is design to withstand forest fires and earthquakes. This is the Alaska pipeline from the '70s. I would hope that a pipeline built in Canada nearly 50 years later would be as good or better

Elon Musk is designing pipelines to transport people and cargo now (hyperloop) I believe the first one is to be between Dubai and Abu Dhabi


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

james4beach said:


> ... Giving priority to corporate energy interests is very popular here at CMF, but I assure you it's not popular throughout Canada especially among younger people...


Perhaps you could ask them if they have thought about the impact of shutting down the sector? After all, there are only so many Starbucks barista jobs to go around.
Specifically, ask them what they learned in their university macroeconomics course about the impact of removing $84 billion of oil and related exports or 20% from the Canadian economy (the single largest value category). Oh, and the resulting trade deficit and affect on the Canadian dollar. And of course what they propose the lost government revenue will be replaced by to allow them to continue their first-world lives.

Your younger friends have surely figured this stuff out?

Maybe I'm missing something, maybe Trudeau's legalization of pot is hoping to resurrect the decade of love. Don't worry, be happy. We can live on love? Perhaps he found one of dad's old Karl Marx books and read the bit about 'religion is the opium of the people', and thought, "hey, if we keep them all stoned with legal pot we'll have a good gig going here!" :smiley_simmons:


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> The fins on top act as a radiator to cool the ammonia filled structure so it doesn't sink and damage the permafrost. This is a perfect example of simple passive design for cooling.
> 
> We use most of our peak energy on active cooling/heating when there are many simple solutions. For example just drawing air into your house underground to cool it while shading windows from the outside.
> 
> They have security sensors in some locations which I shouldn't explain. Through work I had access to the underground and closer along the pipeline but it is right beside a public road anyways.
> 
> I was impressed when it goes under rivers you'd never know it was there. In some places the forest has grown back up to the edge and they only clear the brush underneath. Being below the tree line you barely see it compared to a hydro line.
> 
> It is design to withstand forest fires and earthquakes. This is the Alaska pipeline from the '70s. I would hope that a pipeline built in Canada nearly 50 years later would be as good or better
> 
> Elon Musk is designing pipelines to transport people and cargo now (hyperloop) I believe the first one is to be between Dubai and Abu Dhabi




thankx for the explanation. Those photographs prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a pipeline is minimally intrusive. One could even say that this pipeline marries as gracefully into the towering natural wilderness landscape as if it had been placed there in a masterpiece by leonardo da vinci.

there is a kind of Sistine Chapel feeling to your beautiful photographs & da vinci himself was a great scientific inventor as well as artist.

i had a hard time finding the pipe in the 2nd photograph but there it is, that faraway silver curving line on the upper left hand side. 

there's been so much carping from Tweedledum, Tweedledee & their irritable alberta followers in this thread that i feel it might be a good idea to post the photographs again. May their fresh air & sunshine help to blow away some of those frowns, glares, slurs & tirades from our crotchety seniors.




m3s said:


>


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Maybe I'm missing something





the global oil industry went into a decline. Global, not just alberta.


canadian economy is decent-to-booming in other provinces despite doom-&-gloom claims by western oil-fixated folks that such a thing cannot happen


royal bank economist telling global tv reporter last week that even newfoundland & PEI economies are showing signs of revival lately due to inflow of new immigrants. This is not happening in maritime NS or NB but economists are measuring very recent upturn in NL & PEI she said. And wasn't Pluto posting that the cod fisheries are reviving?


get over it alberta oil seniors. For your own good, please stop complaining.


----------



## AltaRed

No idea what you are trying to address in your post #620. James was blathering on about how Alberta and Albertans did such a terrible job of saving for a rainy day. That is partly true of course, but Alberta is not a sovereign nation so a goodly portion of Alberta companies and residents pay income taxes to the federal government that they never see come back in transfers (Norway keeps it all within its own entity). These funds are not available to be deposited into an Alberta sovereign wealth fund. Plus since Albertans, on average, have higher taxable incomes than the ROC, they pay more to Ottawa than the average Canadian taxpayer. 

Overall, Alberta gets back from Ottawa less than they provide, by the amount of equalization payments. It is pretty obvious there is a net cash flow drain from Alberta to the ROC and all that takes away from an ability to fund a sovereign wealth fund like Norway. Alberta provincial income tax rates have nothing to do with intra-Alberta wealth, so I don't know what the discussion of Alberta provincial income tax rates is about.

The other points about camp jobs and goods and services were all related to James ignorance about the impact of the oil sector to Canada's GDP. That is a different question than the one about the sovereign wealth fund. All those ex-Alberta residents and companies do very well because of the oil sector.

None of this should be hard to understand. It is simply Econ101.

Added later: There was a point somewhere about Alaska cutting back on their benefits due to declining revenue from the oil sector, and the need? for a VAT. Alaska's oil related revenues have been going down ever since Prudhoe Bay oil production has gone into decline and other production has not made up for it. I don't know all the 'ins' and 'outs' of fiscal regime changes over the years but it is been known that the annual bonus cheques to permanent residents (minimum 2 year residency I believe) were going down and had to go down some more. Not just because of fluctuating global oil price changes, but decreases in production. Not many people migrate to Alaska just for the bonus cheques. Cost of living is high there (I lived in Anchorage about 2 years) so wages, lower taxes, etc. doesn't from my recollection make up for the cost of living. People who move to Alaska do it mostly for personal reasons, e.g. getting away, off-the-grid, the great outdoors and the like.

That said, Alaska needs a VAT. So does Alberta and I've repeatedly told my remaining friends and relatives that. They don't yet get the understanding that VAT is the most consistent source of relatively stable revenue. It has to come sometime but it will have to be a gov't that is willing to be voted out in the next election. That will be a tough sell.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> No idea what you are trying to address in your post #620.



i was replying to your claim that albertans are paying excessive income tax to ottawa. I posted your quote verbatim.

i don't agree with your claim & i find it ludicrous. You tried to evade by going on about camp jobs & camp workers' taxes but they have nothing to do with your bald claim that albertans are paying excessive federal income tax to ottawa.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> i was replying to your claim that albertans are paying excessive income tax to ottawa. I posted your quote verbatim.
> 
> i don't agree with your claim & i find it ludicrous. You tried to evade by going on about camp jobs & camp workers' taxes but they have nothing to do with your bald claim that albertans are paying excessive federal income tax to ottawa.


Albertans are indeed paying more per capita in income taxes to Ottawa than the ROC...simply because they have higher per capita income than the ROC. There are numerous articles and papers written on that. That would not be the case if Alberta was a sovereign entity unto itself.

Example link: https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...eeced-by-ottawa-just-not-in-the-way-you-think


> In 2015, Alberta had Canada’s highest median income at $100,300, compared to $80,940 for Canada generally.


Another one: https://business.financialpost.com/...lberta-for-granted-thats-dangerous-for-us-all The point I started with was the wealth that was leaving Alberta that couldn't be used to fund (better fund) a sovereign wealth fund. Go back and start with James original gross assertion if you really want to understand the chain of thought.

The original discussion about camp jobs and goods and services purchased ex-Alberta has to do with oil's contribution to Canada's GDP, a somewhat separate discussion from that of a sovereign wealth fund. I believe what I have written is pretty clear to most objective readers.


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> The fins on top act as a radiator to cool the ammonia filled structure so it doesn't sink and damage the permafrost. This is a perfect example of simple passive design for cooling.
> 
> We use most of our peak energy on active cooling/heating when there are many simple solutions. For example just drawing air into your house underground to cool it while shading windows from the outside.
> 
> They have security sensors in some locations which I shouldn't explain. Through work I had access to the underground and closer along the pipeline but it is right beside a public road anyways.
> 
> I was impressed when it goes under rivers you'd never know it was there. In some places the forest has grown back up to the edge and they only clear the brush underneath. Being below the tree line you barely see it compared to a hydro line.
> 
> It is design to withstand forest fires and earthquakes. This is the Alaska pipeline from the '70s. I would hope that a pipeline built in Canada nearly 50 years later would be as good or better


Much of this technology you mention was being adapted (and being improved) in the feasibility studies conducted on: 1) proposed gas pipelines from the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thompson to Edmonton, and 2) the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline. Not as much permafrost protection was necessary due to the lower heat capacity and temperature of gas transportation, but some would obviously be necessary especially near compressor stations. None of these feasiblity studies got into FEED due to lack of economics and it is a good thing neither of these projects ever got committed too. Gas prices simply are nowhere close to what is needed. I suspect the "new" answers will be LNG liquefaction plants and terminals on the Beaufort Sea someday if icebreaking LNG tankers become feasible. Otherwise, gas may well transit in parallel to Alyeska to Valdez. I've traversed a good portion of the Alyeska route to Valdez.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Albertans, on average, have higher taxable incomes than the ROC, they pay more to Ottawa than the average Canadian taxpayer.
> 
> Overall, Alberta gets back from Ottawa less than they provide.




you've said all this in cmf forum, several hundred times

i'm not prepared to seriously entertain any snivelling drivel about how albertans are paid so highly that now the poor dears have to pay higher income taxes to ottawa. Their federal tax rates are still among the lowest in canada, are they not. I'll still counter that an equally highly paid ontario resident will pay more federal income tax.

might i add that both should consider themselves incredibly fortunate.

equalization payments can/should be on the table at the next election, i agree. Every canadian can see that albertans feel indignant.

but some western oil spokespersons are handicapping their cause by - no other word for it - aggressively attacking other canadians sinstead of working constructively for change.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> the global oil industry went into a decline. Global, not just alberta.
> 
> 
> canadian economy is decent-to-booming in other provinces despite doom-&-gloom claims by western oil-fixated folks that such a thing cannot happen
> 
> 
> royal bank economist telling global tv reporter last week that even newfoundland & PEI economies are showing signs of revival lately due to inflow of new immigrants. This is not happening in maritime NS or NB but economists are measuring very recent upturn in NL & PEI she said. And wasn't Pluto posting that the cod fisheries are reviving?


Yes, the global oil industry has been affected, not just Alberta. That was entirely due to global oil prices that affects everyone proportionately similarly. The added problem Alberta and Saskatchewan have/had since 2015 is the extra wide differential producers have suffered due to lack of sufficient transportation capacity. Had there been adequate pipeline space for fair and equal access to markets, there would have been no issues/complaints at all from AB and SK producers.

NF's oil industry has been picking up simply because oil production there is not transportation constrained and they don't suffer the differentials caused by lack of takeaway capacity.

Someone else mentioned what the oil industry has contributed to Canada's economy. Without that, all these budget deficits the past 4-5 years would have had to be funded by others. It really is pretty simple arithmetic.


----------



## m3s

Why didn't Alberta build a pipeline back when they had more money than they knew what to do with?

It seems like they didn't want outsiders to get any more than they already took. Again I think if they branded it as Canadian oil and at least pretended to consider other provinces and natives as deserving of some of the proceeds rather than give it away to Albertan residents in spite. Calling it Alberta oil has only ostracized themselves in a landlocked province.

I would be all for reform of the equalization system but I think provinces should acknowledge the efficiencies of a larger country.


----------



## RBull

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I agree, calling James' post troll sh!t does seem harsh. But let's consider what he said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the reported facts?
> 
> 
> 
> Now of course I am counting on James proving to us the that SIRC is a big sham, colluding and conspiring with the oil industry and government, etc. He will demonstrate to us that his comment was not as ludicrous as I suggest.
> I won't hold my breath, given his conclusions re/ the Gerald Butts/PMO SNC-Lavalin issue, it's clear that the facts don't get in the way of his politics.


Agree. Laughable. 

Not much wonder so many voted for Liberals last election. With facts like that who needs comedy?


----------



## AltaRed

M3s, private industry builds a pipeline based on 15-20 year take-or-pay (or ship-or-pay) transportation contracts with individual producers. That's the way it has always been done on a global scale. Alyeska, for example, was built by the shareholder companies who had production on the North Slope.

Alberta companies did plan appropriately. That is indeed what was attempted with Northern Gateway (application to NEB in 2010), Keystone XL (application to NEB 2009), and TransMountain (application to NEB 2013). And those applications were preceded by probably at least 2 years of studies, engineering feasibility, economics and producer expressions of interest). All those applications were made in anticipation of production from major developments that would come online circa 2014+ to use contracted space in the new lines (take or pay invoices start once the pipeline is commissioned and given an operational certificate by NEB). Producers have been hooped ever since with shortage of shipping capacity. That sure worked out well......


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Why didn't Alberta build a pipeline back when they had more money than they knew what to do with?
> 
> It seems like they didn't want outsiders to get any more than they already took. Again I think if they branded it as Canadian oil and at least pretended to consider other provinces and natives as deserving of some of the proceeds rather than give it away to Albertan residents in spite. Calling it Alberta oil has only ostracized themselves in a landlocked province.
> 
> I would be all for reform of the equalization system but I think provinces should acknowledge the efficiencies of a larger country.


I'm assuming they didn't build a pipeline because the business case didn't support it.


----------



## sags

A few years ago, Alberta renegotiated their oil royalty regime so the royalties increase as the price goes up and decreases as the price goes down.

The Alberta PC governments said the new regime would increase investment and create more prosperity.

That idea hasn't worked out so well.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> A few years ago, Alberta renegotiated their oil royalty regime so the royalties increase as the price goes up and decreases as the price goes down.
> 
> The Alberta PC governments said the new regime would increase investment and create more prosperity.
> 
> That idea hasn't worked out so well.


No idea of what year and what changes you are talking about. The latest royalty review was under the NDP https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/alberta-royalty-oilpatch-oilsands-1.3905075 That said, how could reduced royalties do anything when producers cannot ship the oil they already produce at a reasonable cost? Pipeline takeaway capacity is required first to alleviate current bottlenecks and decrease the differentials. Sags, even you should know grade 12 economics.

Added: If you are talking about https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2...-legislation-guarantee-oil-and-gas-royalties/ that will simply provide assurance that royalty regimes won't change willy nilly allowing an investor to be somewhat confident of the economics being the economics. That is inherent in any development that has, for example, a 10 year cost recovery.


----------



## humble_pie

i'm always surprised by the neverending shuffling & whining from western oil industry apologists

canadian taxpayers across the nation have already paid 4.5 billion dollars to buy a generous gift for the oil industry of alberta

$4.5 billion for transMountain pipeline. That's serious coin. There's no guarantee of ever getting it any of it back.

wondering why alberta oil industry keeps on asking for more.


----------



## AltaRed

You know full well it is a fully operating pipeline with profits. NEB tolls and tariffs guarantee a return on such regulated pipelines so the taxpayer is doing just fine with this investment. It is readily marketable in its current form and even if TMX doesn't go, there could easily be competing bids for the existing line. The only reason KM sold it is because they were not prepared to continue with the risks of TMX and the expansion needs to be an integral part of the existing line. Just more unsupportable innuendo.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> the taxpayer is doing just fine with this investment. It is readily marketable in its current form and even if TMX doesn't go, there could easily be competing bids for the existing line.


just more unsupportable innuendo each: 






> The only reason KM sold it is because they were not prepared to continue with the risks of TMX and the expansion needs to be an integral part of the existing line.


those risks are the very risks all canadian taxpayers are now carrying on alberta's behalf


----------



## AltaRed

The existing line is of no risk to the Canadian taxpayer. It is fully marketable just like 407 would be for return on investment. The existing line plus the expansion once under construction is also of no risk to the Canadian taxpayer. Besides indigenous interest, a pipeline operator like TRP or ENB or possibly even PPL might step up, or a consortium of owners with at least one seasoned and experienced pipeline operator.

The only real risk being taken by the Canadian taxpayer is some sunk costs associated with getting ready for construction of the expansion in the event  construction does not proceed and then only to the extent NEB does not allow all those costs to go into the existing rate base (traditionally some won't be allowed). Overhead costs of the current project expansion team are an example of ongoing sunk costs. We won't know exactly what they would be until after the fact of an NEB hearing.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> i'm always surprised by the neverending shuffling & whining from western oil industry apologists
> 
> canadian taxpayers across the nation have already paid 4.5 billion dollars to buy a generous gift for the oil industry of alberta
> 
> $4.5 billion for transMountain pipeline. That's serious coin. There's no guarantee of ever getting it any of it back.


Agreed, it's endless whining! First they whine that the rest of Canada is freeloading off great Alberta energy (during the good times). And at the time, the province itself was squandering the massive profits by not investing in a rainy day / heritage fund. Incomes for oil & gas workers was sky high. Anybody earning that kind of income can (and should have) saved and invested it for their own future, as people were earning substantially more than elsewhere in Canada... and it was known *to be a boom phase* of a boom & bust cycle.

Then they whine that the market has slowed down. Instead of accepting a bear market like a man, they whine about Justin Trudeau, they whine about environmentalists, they whine about foreign influence ruining the industry.

Conservatives are supposed to take responsibility for their own actions, be business innovators, and solution people. Texas is already rapidly expanding renewables, with wind generation setting new records as % of the electric grid (source).


----------



## AltaRed

It seems to me the only real beef is the lack of pipeline takeaway capacity with much of the delay associated with cumbersome regulatory processes and lack of political will. Most everything else might just be long standing beefs that have become raw wounds opened up again.

Pipelines shouldn't take 8-9 years to get through the regulatory system before they get into construction. I know of no precedent for that anywhere else. That is the real tragedy.

P.S. Billions of dollars in pipelines are being built in Texas to move Permian oil to tidewater refineries and terminals. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-crude-stocks-to-four-month-low-idUSKCN1QB1Y2


----------



## m3s

james4beach said:


> Texas is already rapidly expanding renewables, with wind generation setting new records as % of the electric grid (source).


Saudi Arabia is reportedly selling O&G assets to diversify billions into renewables with a goal of 40GW solar, 16GW wind and 3GW nuclear over the next 10 years.

Norway doubled its sovereign wealth fund exposure into renewables up to 14 billion.


----------



## Just a Guy

humble_pie said:


> $4.5 billion for transMountain pipeline. That's serious coin. There's no guarantee of ever getting it any of it back.
> 
> wondering why alberta oil industry keeps on asking for more.


Sags and humble, my vote for best pure fiction writers. 

Alberta asked for them to approve the expansion, not buy the pipeline. 

As for not getting their money back, bids already coming in at 6.9B...

https://globalnews.ca/news/5355180/alberta-indigenous-rival-bid-trans-mountain/

As for not planning the pipelines when they had money, they did...what they didn’t get is approval which killed off all the pipelines except TMX.

But then again, no one wants to confuse the issues with facts right?


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> Saudi Arabia is reportedly selling O&G assets to diversify billions into renewables with a goal of 40GW solar, 16GW wind and 3GW nuclear over the next 10 years.
> 
> Norway doubled its sovereign wealth fund exposure into renewables up to 14 billion.


Meanwhile, Norway continue to approve O&G developments. Examples: 
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2019/06/27/norway-approves-three-north-sea-projects/
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-...Approves-Equinors-61B-Arctic-Oil-Project.html

And on it goes. Norway knows how to continue to grow its GDP growth with investments in O&G. So does Aramco in Saudi Arabia. https://www.energia16.com/saudi-aramco-has-over-70-major-projects-under-development/?lang=en

What sovereign wealth funds are doing is targeting investments in renewables to hedge their bets, and diversify, as they should. Otherwise, it's called double jeopardy (don't buy the stock of the company you work for). 

These countries seem have got it figured out versus the seemingly inability of Canadians to understand the most basic of strategies.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> Agreed, it's endless whining! First they whine that the rest of Canada is freeloading off great Alberta energy (during the good times).


Canada is still free-loading off great Alberta energy. The difference between Federal revenues collected in Alberta and spent or transferred back to Alberta were:

2013: $23.586B
2014: $28.051B
2015: $25.304B
2016: $20.450B
2017: $21.937B

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl...045001&pickMembers[0]=1.10&pickMembers[1]=2.2



> Then they whine that the market has slowed down. Instead of accepting a bear market like a man, they whine about Justin Trudeau, they whine about environmentalists, they whine about foreign influence ruining the industry.


Alberta would accept it if it could always get prices comparable to other heavy oil blends. The inability to get that is in part due to Trudeau and foreign influence. 



> Conservatives are supposed to take responsibility for their own actions, be business innovators, and solution people. Texas is already rapidly expanding renewables, with wind generation setting new records as % of the electric grid (source).


Electricity doesn't compete with oil in any real manner, and besides high wind and solar penetrations leads to expensive local electricity. We've seen it happen in Ontario, California, Germany, Denmark, Australia, etc..


----------



## accord1999

AltaRed said:


> Meanwhile, Norway continue to approve O&G developments.


The Johan Sverdrup oil field that comes online this year was only discovered in 2010. It also includes several hundred km of under sea pipelines for oil and gas. If this was Canada, it'll still be on paper.


----------



## accord1999

m3s said:


> Saudi Arabia is reportedly selling O&G assets to diversify billions into renewables with a goal of 40GW solar, 16GW wind and 3GW nuclear over the next 10 years.


40GW*25% capacity factor + 16GW*30% capacity factor + 3GW*95% capacity factor = ~155 TWh of electricity. Or only about 0.6% of 2018 global electricity demand (which itself is only a fraction of total energy consumption).

Chinese electricity generation from thermal sources went up by 324 TWh just last year:










https://chinaenergyportal.org/2018-electricity-other-energy-statistics/


----------



## m3s

accord1999 said:


> Electricity doesn't compete with oil in any real manner, and besides high wind and solar penetrations leads to expensive local electricity. We've seen it happen in Ontario, California, Germany, Denmark, Australia, etc..


Growing pains of grids that were never designed for fluctuating demands and end users that haven't adapted to manage distributed energy

It seems backwards to me that we micromanage the MBs of mobile data yet I can use all the power from the grid I want on a whim without such overage fees. Telecoms don't even produce data they just provide bandwidth. Data should be sold more like energy rates while energy usage is what should be managed/planned

Say you sign up for X kw of energy/month and agree to pay higher rates for overage, you would learn pretty quick to install batteries and manage peak usage like data. Then the power grid would have a much better forecast and the extra cost goes to those who failed to plan/manage. Too much thinking outside the box

Also solar is DC power but most people convert it to AC at a loss of efficiency, then back to DC at additional loss for all their portable DC electronics. DC appliances exist for DC power such as solar, people just don't understand the constant loss from inverters

If the military can run x MW radars on backup battery storage that used to require their own coal power plants.. energy management has come a long way in 20 years!


----------



## moderator2

I removed several posts in this thread that were a personal argument, referencing another member's spouse and arguments from the past -- these are not appropriate content for the forum.

Debating the issues is OK, but don't attack other members. There's some derogatory language recurring in this thread.


----------



## sags

Just a Guy said:


> Sags and humble, my vote for best pure fiction writers.
> 
> Alberta asked for them to approve the expansion, not buy the pipeline.
> 
> As for not getting their money back, bids already coming in at 6.9B...
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5355180/alberta-indigenous-rival-bid-trans-mountain/
> 
> As for not planning the pipelines when they had money, they did...what they didn’t get is approval which killed off all the pipelines except TMX.
> 
> But then again, no one wants to confuse the issues with facts right?


The pipeline was for sale for a long time and there were no buyers. The "buyers" in the story you linked to are a consortium of indigenous people who have no money.

They want the Federal Government to give them 100% of the "profits" from the pipeline and have taxpayers pay the full cost of purchase and development. (est. $10 billion)

Personally, I want the government to stick to the current plan of building the pipeline, maintaining ownership and investing the profits in renewable energy.

The government shouldn't give the pipeline to indigenous people or sell it cheaply to pipeline companies. They all had their chance to buy it and build it.

Canadians bought it. Canadians will build it. Canadians should receive all the profits.


----------



## sags

Norway demanded and collects much higher royalties than Alberta. They pump far fewer barrels daily and collect more revenue from them.

Norway established a sovereign fund for the future that has almost $1 Trillion dollars in it. Alberta has a few billion left in their fund.

Alberta had 40 years of PC governments who chose to have no sales tax, reduce income taxes and mail out prosperity cheques. 

They fulfilled their ideological wish list, but cost Albertans a more secure future.


----------



## humble_pie

Just a Guy said:


> Sags and humble, my vote for best pure fiction writers.
> 
> Alberta asked for them to approve the expansion, not buy the pipeline.
> 
> As for not getting their money back, bids already coming in at 6.9B...
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5355180/alberta-indigenous-rival-bid-trans-mountain/
> 
> But then again, no one wants to confuse the issues with facts right?




alas it is yourself who is confused & ignorant. Here are the facts:


1) kinder morgan, longtime former owner of the transMountain pipeline, announced they were planning to shut the business down as it was unprofitable for them (they are a large US energy company, the transmountain was only a minor canadian sidebar for them)

kinder morgan said they could not find any buyers, therefore when they stopped transMountain operation they would have to mothball the entire business.

to prevent this disastrous black hole for alberta oil export, the federal government was forced to become the buyer. It paid close to $5 billion for existing transMountain (a 50-year-old pipeline) plus its tentative plans to expand. 

critics said that ottawa overpaid, since there were no other offers to buy. Certainly the delighted kinder morgan shareholders approved the sale of TMP to the canadian government at warp speed. For them, it was a question of collecting $4.5 billion from canadians or else collecting nothing at all.


2) in the 2nd place, there is no bid to buy transMountain at $6.8 billion or at any price. You are spouting fake news. Please read your own linked global news article.

it's a brief story about one of the several indigenous nations that are jockeying to partner with transMountain expansion.

that stale-dated 5 june/19 story says the tiny nation sent invitations to other indigenous & metis groups to form a coalition - to be called Project Reconciliation - which would attempt to purchase a 51% stake in transMountain.

in a piece of grandiose fiction, PR suggested they could bid $6.8 billion for the half-stake.

global news was careful to report that no other indigenous nation had joined the PR coalition. The project has no financial backing. Like other indigenous groups, any partnership it they might form with the federal government would have to be financed by the federal government.

please use your head Just A Guy. There is no way ottawa is going to lend 6.8 billion dollars to a handful of indigenous locals with no pipeline or engineering expertise. Why are you wasting time even talking about this fairytale. 

as of yet, there is no offer whatsoever to buy transMountain, expanded pipeline or not. There is no way of knowing whether canada can ever recoup any part of the $4.5 billion which all canadian taxpayers did generously pay to bail one province, namely alberta, out of what would have been a disastrous oil export shutdown.

finance minister Bill Morneau has said that ottawa will not discuss or consider any plans to tell the total TMPX operation until after construction of the new pipeline is safely underway.


.


----------



## sags

Good post Humble, and I am happy to learn the Liberal government has no current plans to build the pipeline to sell it. Any private buyer is going to perform due diligence, calculate how much profit they can make and the price they will offer to pay the government. There is little doubt in my mind that the "offers" will be low ball offers.

Ontario's sale of Highway 407 was mentioned as an example of the government building a project and then selling it to a private business.

The sale of that highway was a disaster for the people of Ontario, and they have never been happy about it. The private company immediately started raising the toll rates and they are ridiculously high today. The toll road is not like toll roads in the US where you drop some change into a basket at the toll booths along the route. The 407 uses transponders to record licence plates and they send bills in the mail. I recently received a bill for $32.05 for a short one-way trip on the highway of a few kilometers. The only reason people use it all is to avoid the inevitable traffic congestion traveling the 401 through Toronto. Commuters have to be at work on time, so they are forced to use it. 

If the government sold the finished pipeline to a private company, it surely would raise the toll rates to recoup their capital expense and provide a profit and that would further raise the cost of production. The cost of production is already a problem for the oil sands.

Ontario's experience of building public infrastructure and selling them to private interests is not confined to the poor results of Highway 407. Years ago, Ontario build a brand new maximum security prison in mid-north Ontario and contracted a private company to run it. It became such a disaster the public demanded the government not renew the contract and return the prison to the public service running it.

Ontario also privatized the Minister of Transportation licencing offices and that was a big problem as they were always short staffed to save money.

Personally, I have no interest in further privatizing anything in Ontario or Canada. It has never worked out well for consumers and taxpayers.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Personally, I have no interest in further privatizing anything in Ontario or Canada. It has never worked out well for consumers and taxpayers.


Interesting, it sounds like you would like the government to take over all private enterprise since they would do a much better job of it. More fiscally efficient and working out better for the public.

My experience has been that every time the state gets involved, it's an expensive mess.

ltr


----------



## humble_pie

sags you'll notice that there is plenty of rumour about indigenous nations' potential partnerships with the federal government to develop the expanded TMP.

plenty of rumour but almost no hard facts.

i for one think this is as it should be. It's pretty much a given that ottawa will have to finance any partnerships they do create. What we don't know is to what extent canadian financial institutions - chartered banks for example - will be drawn into those partnerships.

so i believe that, at this first stage of the partnership strategy - i suspect we're past the "early" stage & now we are firmly into the full-blown "first" stage - the cabinet in ottawa should be sheltered from the glare & the second-guessing of the public eye.

of course the journos are going to find things out. But right now is too early for the federal government to start releasing news communiques on how indigenous nations negotiations are proceeding.

will canadian banks participate? i for one believe they will. Most already have advanced indigenous loan divisions. For example, for many years the Bank of Montreal has had an aboriginal vice-president who heads up their indigenous loan division (i don't know who holds the office at present, but the first VP was a member of the prominent mohawk Jamieson family from the six nation reserve at brantford ontario)

the fact is that loans to first nations have proved to be very good business for our banks. I for one believe that any nation eventually chosen to ally with ottawa on new expanded transMountain is going to be a serious, hardworking & positive partner.

i can see the win-win-win potential. Everyone will benefit.

for the indigenous nation, skilled work both to build & to maintain the pipe. Technology transfer. Training. Job promotion. Royalties & income for the nation for decades to come. Pride of ownership. M3's photographs have shown us how sleek & beautiful a pipeline can be, as it snakes silently & peacefully across a landscape. It's less intrusive than a hydro line, m3 says.

benefits to canada include: a lasting financial leg up to indigenous nations as they earn their rights to ownership. Permanent partners on or near the site who will assure pipeline security.

most importantly of all, partnering positively with indigenous nations now, at these early & first stages, will speed up the approval process. Will diminish the risk of protests. Will gather more people on board, together, faster, better.


----------



## sags

like_to_retire said:


> Interesting, it sounds like you would like the government to take over all private enterprise since they would do a much better job of it. More fiscally efficient and working out better for the public.
> 
> My experience has been that every time the state gets involved, it's an expensive mess.
> 
> ltr


Government should build, maintain and operate public infrastructure and services. Business should build, maintain and operate private ventures.

Public services are motivated by better services. Private companies are motivated by profits. I don't think the two are compatible or interchangeable.


----------



## AltaRed

KM was never going to shut down the existing operation. It would always be there as it has been for decades. That is an absurd assertion. It was only the expansion project they were going to throw the towel in on. Couldn't keep spending new money if there was no certainty of a project construction date. There was nothing more to it that that. If AB and Canada wanted the expansion to proceed, someone else was going to have to take it on. 

https://www.kamloopsmatters.com/loc...ork-on-trans-mountain-pipeline-project-886952

https://business.financialpost.com/...-from-pipeline-buyout-a-great-problem-to-have The equity component tied up in the KM Canada business was $2B. So of the purchase price, $2B was the equity component. Just like any other business, it is capitalized by both debt and equity. KM used the equity to reduce corporate debt elsewhere. That same article said the company had spent $1.3B so far on the expansion project so far and could not continue to do so without certainties that capital could be recovered via NEB set tolls and tariffs in an operating expansion.

The critics that voiced opinions about paying too much for the pipeline were all armchair quarterbacks who were not in the M&A business to determine what the total business was worth, i.e. the installed rate base of the pipeline, and terminals at both ends. They would have had to have access to the 'data room' for a full disclosure of the assets of the company as is done in the due diligence process of any major M&A. Tire kickers don't count. I've been party to many M&A activities in a former life being responsible for the sale/purchase of O&G properties, production, plant, pipelines. Further, KM would almost always 'book' a profit for the sale of an asset like TransMountain simply because market value would exceed the NAV of the asset (PP&E) on the books for valuation purposes, and more importantly, the book value of the depreciated asset for tax purposes. 

Sags has it wrong about how the NEB sets tolls and tariffs on pipelines. The only capital that is allowed to be included in any tariff is that related to the building and operation of the pipeline. It is dissected every which way in NEB tolls and tariff public hearings that can last weeks. Shippers get to challenge every aspect of the proposed rate base for legitimacy as part of the process. When I was in the business, we had staff that did little else other than prepare for and cross-examine Westcoast, Enbridge and TransCanada in tolls and tariff hearings. If a company pays too much for the shares of the corporation holding the asset (the pipeline), that is to the shareholders account. The price of the shares has nothing to do with tolls and tariffs. Please research for facts first.


----------



## andrewf

accord1999 said:


> Canada is still free-loading off great Alberta energy. The difference between Federal revenues collected in Alberta and spent or transferred back to Alberta were:
> 
> 2013: $23.586B
> 2014: $28.051B
> 2015: $25.304B
> 2016: $20.450B
> 2017: $21.937B
> 
> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl...045001&pickMembers[0]=1.10&pickMembers[1]=2.2
> 
> 
> Alberta would accept it if it could always get prices comparable to other heavy oil blends. The inability to get that is in part due to Trudeau and foreign influence.
> 
> 
> Electricity doesn't compete with oil in any real manner, and besides high wind and solar penetrations leads to expensive local electricity. We've seen it happen in Ontario, California, Germany, Denmark, Australia, etc..


Is electricity expensive in Ontario? Last I checked it was pretty average for North America. This is just an unchallenged talking point.


----------



## Just a Guy

Humble you are right, no one would buy the pipeline when there was no chance of expansion. You also couldn’t sell it, so the feds could have done something called NEGOTIATION and gotten it at a firesale. It’s a PROFITABLE pipeline they weren’t just going to walk away from it. You probably also missed the part that there are several bids being prepare, though that may have been a different article, I just pulled up one there have been many (all of which you’ve either ignored or never read because it’s reality and some people don’t like getting in the way).

Just like the new buyers, as soon as the expansion actually gets approved, it will sell. 

Sags, as for government run organizations, while we’re on the patch, how’d petro Canada work out under government control, CBC, the post office...all excellent examples of government control and success compared to private industry I’m sure.


----------



## sags

Canada Post made a $144 million dollar profit in 2017 but it makes no matter. 

The difference is the public services are responsible for providing the best service to customers while private corporations are responsible for providing the best returns to investors.

Private business is only interested in public services when they see the opportunity to make a profit. 

They will never choose improving services to the public over increasing profits for the owners or shareholders.


----------



## sags

A little revisionist history in play here.

There was no buyer interest in the pipeline when it was for sale, so the Federal government stepped in and bought it.

Had the Federal government waited they could have purchased the pipeline for a fraction of what they paid.


----------



## sags

Build the thing, keep it and collect to pay off the debt. At least, the government will control the toll rates and who gets space on the pipeline.


----------



## Just a Guy

No that why courier companies are providing better services than canada post, or CBC is continually the lowest rated in broadcasting. 

As for it’s profits, most is coming from purolator, not Canada post...even still profits fell by nearly half from 2017 and continue to...decrease according to the trend. Nice healthy company there, an investors dream for a monopoly to go broke is some impressive management. Notice you didn’t talk about about all their lay-offs as well...had a private company cut, you’d be all over them.

As for best service, try getting Canada post to stop delivering garbage mail, be it for your benefit or the environments, they won’t because it’s their most profitable business...truly motivated by the public. 

Also did you remove the government support which they booked?

https://lfpress.com/opinion/columnists/canada-post-back-to-a-subsidized-social-service


----------



## andrewf

Postal monopolies are generally far cheaper for mail delivery than private couriers. This is a bit of a public good, particularly for rural areas that would see astronomical postal rates or severely degraded service if not for the cross subsidy from urban areas. Similar to when phone and electricity infrastructure was being built out. It would not have reached rural areas if not for that cross subsidy.


----------



## Just a Guy

When is the last time you mailed a letter?

When is the last time you got a letter?

When is the last time you used Canada post other than to get junk mail and bills (and most bills are going electronic so they don’t get lost in the mail and it’s cheaper)?

As for cheaper, then why isn’t purolator the number one courier?


----------



## cainvest

Just a Guy said:


> When is the last time you used Canada post other than to get junk mail and bills


I use Canada Post fairly often, always been good to me.


----------



## Just a Guy

Technically you didn’t answer the question. You’re also in the minority by Canada posts own stats.

https://www.canadapost.ca/assets/pdf/aboutus/financialreports/2017_ar_complete_en.pdf

https://www.canadapost.ca/cpc/en/ou...eports/2018-annual-report/story-of-2018.page?

$135M loss in 2018...excellent management. Wiped out all the 2017 “profits” and still managed to lose the same amount. Good thing the Canadian population gets automatic profit sharing as a crown corporation...


----------



## cainvest

Just a Guy said:


> Technically you didn’t answer the question. You’re also in the minority by Canada posts own stats.


Based on my recent tracking numbers, received 8 packages so far this year.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> A little revisionist history in play here.
> 
> There was no buyer interest in the pipeline when it was for sale, so the Federal government stepped in and bought it.
> 
> Had the Federal government waited they could have purchased the pipeline for a fraction of what they paid.


There was no buyer for the operating pipeline AND the sunk costs to date of the expansion as it stood at the time. The expansion and existing line operation really cannot be separate ownership in any meaningful way. If there was to be no expansion, there could be a number of buyers for the existing line and operation as it stands. That is what y'all choose to ignore, or not understand.

And to your post $659, did you not read where the NEB sets the tolls and tariffs based on public hearings, and/or negotiated settlements, with arguments from the pipeline and shippers alike? Do you not understand this is a quasi-judicial process? The government CANNOT control toll rates and who gets space on the pipeline. Shipping contracts are a transparent process in an 'open access' pipeline. Try reading some definitions if you choose to ignore me. https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/whwr/rspnsblt/trffctlltrff-eng.html

Added: The dilemma for KM was, in the event they cancelled the expansion which is what they were in the process of doing, how much of the ~$1B in sunk costs could be recovered through tolls and tariffs on the existing line (likely not much), and how much from the sale of any pipe, etc. already in purchase commitments (some depending on who else could use those materials). They could have just cancelled the expansion and then wrote off on the corporate books any sunk costs they could not recover and still operate the existing line as they have for decades. For a potential buyer, that buyer would not want to pick up any of the sunk costs unless the probability of an expansion was high enough to take that corporate risk. Hence no deal to be had for the existing line PLUS sunk costs of the expansion to date. Very simple to understand actually.


----------



## Just a Guy

cainvest said:


> Based on my recent tracking numbers, received 8 packages so far this year.


So just over a package a month, sounds like an essential service to me...packages can be, and are, shipped by many companies all about the same price point too. 

What about traditional “mail”?, their monopoly and reason for being.


----------



## cainvest

Just a Guy said:


> So just over a package a month, sounds like an essential service to me...packages can be, and are, shipped by many companies all about the same price point too.
> 
> What about traditional “mail”?, their monopoly and reason for being.


Essential no but cheaper shipping than with the others. They also play well USPS.
For regular mail, best guess would be under 8-10 actual letters, double that if I include investment type mail.


----------



## Just a Guy

Is it worth the $135M loss your on the hook for as a taxpayers? Your parcel may not be as cheap as you think. 

You should probably switch your investment statements to email and electronic posts on your account. Probably won’t get charged the paper fee on your account every month. Another benefit is you can easily reprint them at tax time. If your anything like me, you tend to misplace the paper copies every time you actually need them and have to spend hours looking for them at say tax time.


----------



## nathan79

I find the service of private couriers is generally poorer and the price is noticeably higher than Canada Post. I've never had Canada Post lose a package, but I had UPS lose two. Couriers are exponentially worse for cross-border shipments. The one courier I have had good results from is FedEx. Good service, but still too expensive to use regularly. Canada Post definitely fills a need, we'd be worse off without them.


----------



## cainvest

Just a Guy said:


> Is it worth the $135M loss your on the hook for as a taxpayers? Your parcel may not be as cheap as you think.
> 
> You should probably switch your investment statements to email and electronic posts on your account. Probably won’t get charged the paper fee on your account every month. Another benefit is you can easily reprint them at tax time. If your anything like me, you tend to misplace the paper copies every time you actually need them and have to spend hours looking for them at say tax time.


What have been their yearly profits/loses over the past 5 years?

BTW, I have no issues losing stuff and most things I do electronically but some things can only be done by mail still.


----------



## Eclectic12

m3s said:


> ... Say you sign up for X kw of energy/month and agree to pay higher rates for overage ...


I'll have to check what is in place now. When my home was heated by electricity, the useagel levels were so high that a cheaper, not more expensive rate rate per KWh was charged.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> Humble you are right, no one would buy the pipeline when there was no chance of expansion. You also couldn’t sell it, so the feds could have done something called NEGOTIATION and gotten it at a firesale. It’s a PROFITABLE pipeline they weren’t just going to walk away from it ...


A PROFITABLE pipeline would sold at firesale prices?
Seems more likely they'd drop the expansion part and keep the existing line churning out the profits than sell everything for a firesale price.

A money losing pipeline or a change in corporate business might sell for firesale prices.


The gov't might have been able to negotiate a better price but I doubt it would be anything that could be called "firesale".


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy

cainvest said:


> What have been their yearly profits/loses over the past 5 years?
> 
> BTW, I have no issues losing stuff and most things I do electronically but some things can only be done by mail still.


The trend is losing more than 100M more in each year going back 3 years, so they went from 137M in subsidized profits in 2016 to 37M in subsidized profits in 2017 to 242M loss in 2018...I didn’t look more, but feel free to use google. 

The links to their annual reports were provided above.

Here’s another link from canada post for you.

https://www.canadapost.ca/web/en/bl...ment subsidy is before they cover the losses.


----------



## m3s

The only Canadian mail I can think of needing lately is credit cards and vehicle registration/insurance. I also got a vehicle recall for airbags. Some US states accept PDF for insurance now but I wonder if that means letting a cop take my phone.. or what airdrop it to them?

Parcels are the future of mail service. I've always found Canada Post/Purolator better than UPS/FedEx. If I miss UPS/FedEx it's a +30min drive vs a drive to the corner store for Canada Post/Purolator and they work great with USPS vs UPS/FedEx brokerage fee scams

Europe has electronic delivery boxes in parking lots for parcels and now amazon is installing those in the US. Canada Post should have built those instead of community boxes with only 1 parcel box. amazon US can deliver to garage/house/vehicles now anyways

Internet should have been an essential service. Rural areas in Canada still have poor internet because there is no incentive for telecoms to upgrade services to them. This should change soon with Starlink coming online


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> A little revisionist history in play here ...
> Had the Federal government waited they could have purchased the pipeline for a fraction of what they paid.


A private company is going to sell the profitable operational pipeline "for a fraction"?

Seems easier to deep six the expansion and keep the operational profits rolling in versus take a hair cut on the price.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> When is the last time you mailed a letter?
> When is the last time you got a letter?


Mailed about a week ago, received two days ago.




Just a Guy said:


> When is the last time you used Canada post other than to get junk mail and bills (and most bills are going electronic so they don’t get lost in the mail and it’s cheaper)?


Both of the above aren't junk mail nor a bill ... if we are including those, it is yesterday and probably today. :biggrin:


Cheers


*PS*
My birthday is coming up so there'll be about five cards arriving soon.


----------



## m3s

Eclectic12 said:


> I'll have to check what is in place now. When my home was heated by electricity, the useagel levels were so high that a cheaper, not more expensive rate rate per KWh was charged.


When I heated by electric in QC the price went from 6c/kWh to 9 after 33kWh per day (got more expensive with usage)

I mean with mobile/internet you pay a flat rate for x GB/month and then additional fees if you go over. This seems more relevant to energy usage impacted by fluctuations in usage than telecoms who don't produce internet content/data

When energy usage spikes it impacts the grid but when internet usage spikes the telecoms don't ramp up production of internet data


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> When energy usage spikes it impacts the grid but when internet usage spikes the telecoms don't ramp up production of internet data


No but data delivery slows down and/or they can throttle bandwidth at anytime.


----------



## AltaRed

Eclectic12 said:


> A private company is going to sell the profitable operational pipeline "for a fraction"?
> 
> Seems easier to deep six the expansion and keep the operational profits rolling in versus take a hair cut on the price.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Sags appears to have no knowledge about the pipeline business, i.e. no concept of pipeline operations, pipeline regulation, or M&A activities.... OR he is willfully choosing to be bombastic simply to be bombastic.


----------



## Eclectic12

m3s said:


> The only Canadian mail I can think of needing lately is credit cards and vehicle registration/insurance. I also got a vehicle recall for airbags ...


Didn't think about the recall mail I have received through Canada Post.




m3s said:


> ... I've always found Canada Post/Purolator better than UPS/FedEx. If I miss UPS/FedEx it's a +30min drive vs a drive to the corner store for Canada Post/Purolator and they work great with USPS vs UPS/FedEx brokerage fee scams ...


+1 ... FedEx specially set a delivery time them "attempted" to deliver, without calling the number on file, about an hour before the time window. It looked great as the depot where the slip said to pickup the parcel was open on Saturday, about twenty minutes away (Canada Post stop was about five minutes away). 

Trouble was on arriving at the depot, "that class" of parcel has a separate depot an hour away that it was shipped to. The "correct" depot was only open Monday to Friday.

Arranged to have FedEx re-ship the package to a business with a mail department. Instead of following instructions - they left the package at a service entrance where an honest employee let the mail room know about.


Canada Post/Purolator had no issues delivering to the same business address.



Cheers


----------



## cainvest

Just a Guy said:


> The trend is losing more than 100M more in each year going back 3 years, so they went from 137M in subsidized profits in 2016 to 37M in subsidized profits in 2017 to 242M loss in 2018...I didn’t look more, but feel free to use google.


A quick search turned out the following,
2013 - $37 m
2014 + $259 m
2015 + $136 m
2016 + $81 m
2017 + $144 m

Some of those values are pre-tax but overall doesn't look to bad.


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> When I heated by electric in QC the price went from 6c/kWh to 9 after 33kWh per day (got more expensive with usage)
> 
> I mean with mobile/internet you pay a flat rate for x GB/month and then additional fees if you go over. This seems more relevant to energy usage impacted by fluctuations in usage than telecoms who don't produce internet content/data
> 
> When energy usage spikes it impacts the grid but when internet usage spikes the telecoms don't ramp up production of internet data


Telco pricing models have almost nothing to do with cost to provide, but revenue maximization. Incremental MBs cost darn close to zero to provide, especially outside of peak times.


----------



## Just a Guy

cainvest said:


> A quick search turned out the following,
> 2013 - $37 m
> 2014 + $259 m
> 2015 + $136 m
> 2016 + $81 m
> 2017 + $144 m
> 
> Some of those values are pre-tax but overall doesn't look to bad.



My numbers came from their annual reports and their own press releases (links provided) and they don’t agree your unsighted numbers.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Is electricity expensive in Ontario? Last I checked it was pretty average for North America. This is just an unchallenged talking point.


Certainly by past Ontario electricity rates, enough to be a major election topic and severely impact the Liberal's election chances.


----------



## andrewf

accord1999 said:


> Certainly by past Ontario electricity rates, enough to be a major election topic and severely impact the Liberal's election chances.


Perhaps Ontario's rock bottom rates were not sustainable? Ontario needed to invest significantly in grid enhancement, plant renovation etc.


----------



## Eclectic12

IMO a key question that there does not seem to be much discussion about is what the real cost for Ontario electricity is.

Mixed in with what is charged are the times Ontario has paid other jurisdictions such NY state to buy excess, the electricity generators that idle their equipment more than necessary to generate additional profits and the generators who underbid for time slots they know the transmission lines can't handle what was generated so they are paid anyway without having to generate/deliver power. 



> “Generators claimed thousands of dollars annually for staff car washes, carpet cleaning, road repairs, landscaping, scuba gear and raccoon traps, which have nothing to do with running power equipment on standby,” her audit reports. (Scuba gear?)
> 
> One company in Toronto, Goreway Power Station, charged $6.5 million for gas to fuel a turbine that does not use gas.


https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...rom-ontarios-electricity-system-auditor-finds
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...lectricity-system-for-millions-fined-10m.html


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> When is the last time you mailed a letter?
> 
> When is the last time you got a letter?


Yesterday, and today. I've spent $190 this month alone on postage with government-run post. They are providing a valuable service to me (Canada Post & USPS) that is better suited to my needs than private courier services. And yes I did shop around, but Canada Post & USPS provide the best service for my need.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Yesterday, and today. I've spent $190 this month alone on postage with government-run post. They are providing a valuable service to me (Canada Post & USPS) that is better suited to my needs than private courier services. And yes I did shop around, but Canada Post & USPS provide the best service for my need.


My understanding is that Canada Post parcel service is doing quite well, as are many other private parcel delivery services now performing the same function. It's obvious why, since online shopping is booming.

So, if that's the case, I just don't understand why the federal government is in the parcel delivery service when the private sector appears to have it well in hand.

Canada Post basically has a monopoly to deliver letters, with the understanding that this _buggy-whip_ service is shrinking every day and will soon come to an end. They conceded this fact long ago and said it wasn't sustainable. E-delivery will eventually make this so. I have no problem with Canada Post seeing this near dead service to its end, but why take on parcels?

Why is the government competing with private enterprise for parcel service? Is this their function?

ltr


----------



## james4beach

It's the government's role to provide essential services, at a consistent standard across the giant country. This is a key duty of government. Postal mail is an excellent case of that. We all need postal service, and both letters and package delivery should be available *everywhere* in the country, at a consistent standard.

Both Canada Post and the US Postal Service provide exactly that. They do a great job at it -- exactly what a government service should be doing. As a frequent customer, I'm very pleased.

Go with private services and you get things like Greyhound, which stopped serving all of western Canada. You get business incentives getting in the way of providing consistent services everywhere. It's why we don't let private corporations manage our drinking water or roads.


----------



## Just a Guy

As soon as greyhound left, other companies stepped into the void.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> It's why we don't let private corporations manage our drinking water or roads.


Wow, that's a weird comparison. 

I guess you could have said that's why we don't let private corporations manage our Canadian military.

James, these are parcels - not our drinking water, that private companies already take care of across the country and are doing a nice job regardless of the state interference.

Why would we have our federal government competing with them, other than perhaps union influence?

ltr


----------



## james4beach

Military is indeed another area that must be managed by the government, not private industry. You clearly have a severe bias in all this. Why are you bringing up unions out of the blue?

Mail is an essential service. Essential services must be run by government.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Military is indeed another area that must be managed by the government, not private industry. You clearly have a severe bias in all this.


Of course the military is an area that must be managed by the government. You must have missed my point entirely?



james4beach said:


> Why are you bringing up unions out of the blue?


Because they are the ones that are lobbying the hardest to keep our postal service in the parcel delivery business even though it's not required.



james4beach said:


> Mail is an essential service. Essential services must be run by government.


Yeah, that's right, and the fact that people get their paper towels from Amazon.com isn't really an essential service that must be run by the government. Parcel delivery is something private enterprise has done quite well. The state doesn't need to be involved........

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Military is indeed another area that must be managed by the government, not private industry. You clearly have a severe bias in all this. Why are you bringing up unions out of the blue?
> 
> Mail is an essential service. Essential services must be run by government.


Nope.
Agriculture isn't run by government, and that seems to work fine.

It's arguably the single most important service, when it is government run we get lots of starvation.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah, who else would buy leaking submarines and keep ordering/cancelling (while being on the hook for cancellation fees) helicopters and aircraft only to spend billion and not get anything worthwhile. 

They got industry beat hands down.


----------



## Just a Guy

MrMatt said:


> Nope.
> Agriculture isn't run by government, and that seems to work fine.
> 
> It's arguably the single most important service, when it is government run we get lots of starvation.


You’ve obviously not looked into the wheat board and dairy quotas.


----------



## Just a Guy

james4beach said:


> Mail is an essential service. Essential services must be run by government.


How is it essential? What can’t you get electronically or by courier these days?

99% of my mail in junk.

CBC is also considered an essential service, but even when I worked there as a summer student, travelling to all the remote sites, satellite access was already going in. Decades ago, they may have been essential, and the only option, today they aren’t worth the losses they are costing us. 

Not to mention the unfair competition where they charge for advertising and get subsidized. Even still private industry still kicks their butt and actually make a profit.


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> Agriculture isn't run by government, and that seems to work fine.
> 
> It's arguably the single most important service, when it is government run we get lots of starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve obviously not looked into the wheat board and dairy quotas.
Click to expand...


Dairy quota is why dairy is so outrageously expensive in Canada. I couldn't imagine what my food bills would look like if the government managed the entire food supply.


----------



## sags

AltaRed said:


> Sags appears to have no knowledge about the pipeline business, i.e. no concept of pipeline operations, pipeline regulation, or M&A activities.... OR he is willfully choosing to be bombastic simply to be bombastic.


You are making a lot of assumptions, from a willing and open Asian market to future interested pipeline buyers, that many oil analysts and experts would disagree with. 

I don't think their views can be readily dismissed based solely on your opinion.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> Dairy quota is why dairy is so outrageously expensive in Canada. I couldn't imagine what my food bills would look like if the government managed the entire food supply.


Quotas keep dairy farmers in business. You could get your dairy cheaper from the US because their agriculture is more heavily subsidized than Canada's.


----------



## Just a Guy

Wrong, they have less restrictions, so they use hormones to produce larger quantities at cheaper prices. The reason cheddar is orange is they dye it with carrot juice because otherwise their cheese would look like semi-transparent gel. Not really appealing.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dairy quota is why dairy is so outrageously expensive in Canada. I couldn't imagine what my food bills would look like if the government managed the entire food supply.
> 
> 
> 
> Quotas keep dairy farmers in business. You could get your dairy cheaper from the US because their agriculture is more heavily subsidized than Canada's.
Click to expand...

Artificially high prices are bad for the consumer. 
The dairy cartel would be an illegal monopoly if it wasn't run by the government.


----------



## james4beach

The US agricultural industry is very heavily subsidized. There would be no US and European agriculture industries without massive government involvement... this is not capitalism, and it isn't a free market. Governments pour tons of money into agriculture and it's the only way these industries stay alive.

Governments everywhere also pour tons of money into the defense & aerospace industry, a massive make-work project across all western nations.

Governments pour tons of money into banks and real estate via entities like Fannie and Freddie (US) and CMHC (Canada), plus of course direct, ongoing, and (lately) unquestioned assistance via central banks. Inducing all kinds of economic activity and "private firms". Again, not capitalism, and not free enterprise. It's pseudo government. Call the firms "private sector" if you want, but they entirely depend on the government to exist.

In fact when you dig into it, most western economies -- and a huge number of jobs -- depend entirely on the government. I pulled up a spreadsheet on contributions to US GDP by sector, and I see 57% of GDP being almost directly attributable to government spending.


----------



## sags

They are a bunch of commies, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Military is indeed another area that must be managed by the government, not private industry. You clearly have a severe bias in all this. Why are you bringing up unions out of the blue?
> 
> Mail is an essential service. Essential services must be run by government.


I don't agree that it needs to be operated by government. I have no issue with private provision, and Canada Post makes extensive use of private locations for pickup and drop-off of mail.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> The US agricultural industry is very heavily subsidized. There would be no US and European agriculture industries without massive government involvement... this is not capitalism, and it isn't a free market. Governments pour tons of money into agriculture and it's the only way these industries stay alive.
> 
> Governments everywhere also pour tons of money into the defense & aerospace industry, a massive make-work project across all western nations.
> 
> Governments pour tons of money into banks and real estate via entities like Fannie and Freddie (US) and CMHC (Canada), plus of course direct, ongoing, and (lately) unquestioned assistance via central banks. Inducing all kinds of economic activity and "private firms". Again, not capitalism, and not free enterprise. It's pseudo government. Call the firms "private sector" if you want, but they entirely depend on the government to exist.
> 
> In fact when you dig into it, most western economies -- and a huge number of jobs -- depend entirely on the government. I pulled up a spreadsheet on contributions to US GDP by sector, and I see 57% of GDP being almost directly attributable to government spending.


So your "response" is "whatabout", or "everyone is doing it".

I do not believe that the industries would collapse without massive government interventions.
I would like to see the government withdraw from these massive interventions in a responsible manner.

I agree, Fannie, Freedie, CMHC all work to distort the market as well.

So is your argument that the government is making a mess out of everything, so we should let them continue making a mess out of everything?


----------



## james4beach

I'm not sure if all those farmers, or the thousands of people working in RE, banks and services would agree with you that "government is making a mess out of everything".

For better or worse, in the current economy, the government plays a significant role in all these sectors.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah, they made real estate a house of cards with low interest rates, the banks are on the edge of a meltdown like in 2007, electricity in Ontario is a nightmare, the pipeline in Alberta is still not getting built, they create scandals like SNC lavalin, thye I pose the wheat board on half the country but not the other half, they subsidize out of date institutions like CBC and Canada post, they over pay for nearly everything...

I agree they play a significant role in these industries...but is it a good role?


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> Yeah, they made real estate a house of cards with low interest rates, the banks are on the edge of a meltdown like in 2007, electricity in Ontario is a nightmare ... (blah blah blah)


Our economy is one of the strongest of all nations, quality of life in Canada is one of the highest in the world, we have low crime rates (which continue to decline) and we strike a good balance between socialism and capitalism. We even have one of the lower tax rates among heavily industrialized nations. Canada is doing great.

By the way, don't you love the irony of a bunch of conservatives pretending oil & gas is pure unfettered private sector, when in fact you're extracting resources of Canada which *belong to the public*, monetizing them, and then dismissing your responsibility for the fallout which affects every other Canadian (pollution and climate change).

The Canadian energy sector is awfully lucky that we don't regulate them much more strongly. These are public resources.

The energy sector comes across as greedy, ungrateful, and irresponsible. You'd think people who enjoyed such insanely high salaries for so long, and have the extreme privilege of monetizing our precious *national* resources would be able to tone down their indignation.

Do you guys understand why it makes Alberta and the energy sector look so bad? Or do you really not get it?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Our economy is one of the strongest of all nations, quality of life in Canada is one of the highest in the world, we have low crime rates (which continue to decline) and we strike a good balance between socialism and capitalism. We even have one of the lower tax rates among heavily industrialized nations. Canada is doing great.
> 
> By the way, don't you love the irony of a bunch of conservatives pretending oil & gas is pure unfettered private sector, when in fact you're extracting resources of Canada which *belong to the public*, monetizing them, and then dismissing your responsibility for the fallout which affects every other Canadian (pollution and climate change).
> 
> The Canadian energy sector is awfully lucky that we don't regulate them much more strongly. These are public resources.
> 
> The energy sector comes across as greedy, ungrateful, and irresponsible. You'd think people who enjoyed such insanely high salaries for so long, and have the extreme privilege of monetizing our precious *national* resources would be able to tone down their indignation.
> 
> Do you guys understand why it makes Alberta and the energy sector look so bad? Or do you really not get it?


We are doing pretty good by every standard.

However I would like to make things better, so I'm pushing for changes.

Do you see why cities look so greedy, ungrateful and irresponsible?
They literally couldn't survive without the rest of the country propping them up and subsidizing their lifestyle, yet those very people providing life support are constantly demonized.

Then people like you who claim to own everything, all those resources you're doing nothing to extract. YOURS.
Sure the government still takes most of the profit from the extraction, and you're doing nothing, but you still want the benefits of everyone elses work.

What about Quebec who's actively working to destroy their economy, yet it would collapse if the handouts from the rest of the country didn't continue.
They lecture us on how we should be more socialist (as long as they get our money).

I'm not in Oil and Gas, or Alberta, but don't you understand how unfair you're being to them? Or do you really not get it?

It actually goes beyond that. You think you actually own everything and everyone in the country.
If I go and build something, you want a share of my profit, if I go do a task for someone, you want a cut, if I sing a song, you want a share of that. When i post a video on YouTube, you demand a cut of that profit too. 
Nothing to do with you, but you want it all. 

You're the greedy selfish one taking from others.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Hence no deal to be had for the existing line PLUS sunk costs of the expansion to date. Very simple to understand actually.


Easy for an insider like yourself, but confusing to me and anyone else who gets their knowledge base from Google alone.

I read the article below a couple times and still don't understand what changes they are actually making to get this extra capacity. How might this affect the actual TMX expansion plans?

_*Pipeline relief on the horizon*__* for Canada with surprise moves to pump more oil through existing lines*._

_"Total oil production in Canada exceeds pipeline space by 350,000 bpd when you add up the amount of oil being produced in Alberta and the amount of oil that could be produced if the provincial government lifted production limits.

With the unexpected additions, the cumulative efforts of the large pipeline companies will add 450,000 bpd of space to the existing pipeline networks over the next couple of years, essentially removing the pressure in the medium term"._

ltr


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> Yeah, who else would buy leaking submarines and keep ordering/cancelling (while being on the hook for cancellation fees) helicopters and aircraft only to spend billion and not get anything worthwhile.
> 
> They got industry beat hands down.


In terms of scale ... sure.

Several of the private corps I have worked for have done similar so it's not exclusive to gov't.


Cheers


----------



## Prairie Guy

A very good article on the reality of solar, wind, and batteries using actual science and physics instead of wishful thinking:

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible


----------



## sags

Some people like to compare business to government as if they were performing the same functions.

They should consider that Canada was formed on July 1, 1867 and is as strong as ever, while a lot of private companies have come and gone over the years.

The mandate and functions of public services isn't the same as it is for private companies. They have totally different objectives.

If the public service was operated as a private business the costs could easily be reduced by simply cutting services......which is what happens when the services are privatized.


----------



## Eclectic12

like_to_retire said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence no deal to be had for the existing line PLUS sunk costs of the expansion to date. Very simple to understand actually.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy for an insider like yourself, but confusing to me and anyone else who gets their knowledge base from Google alone ...
Click to expand...

I'm in no way an insider ... it seems similar to many other business announcements where:
- company debt and bad businesses were bought as part of getting something profitable.
- the buying company CEO told the shareholders and/or the business press that buying the bad with the good was the only way a sale could happen.
- junk business had to be bought in order to get the good business as the seller would simply have wound down the junk business.

There's also been stock analysts recommending stock where "the business is crap but the real estate should they wind up the company is worth substantially more than the trading price".


It's not "hit in the head by a 2x4 obvious" but IMO, after reading so many deals/rationales (this is a financial forum after all), this shouldn't IMO be all that hard to figure out.


KM would have loved to keep the profitable pipeline and have some crazy buyer buy the "who knows when" expansion pipeline including all the debt with it. Buyers would have loved to buy the existing pipeline and possibly the rights to expand the pipeline without paying any of the sunk costs. Neither side had enough to gain or lose to make such a one sided deal. 





like_to_retire said:


> ... I read the article below a couple times and still don't understand what changes they are actually making to get this extra capacity.


Canadian subsidiary of Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline LP is seeking contracts to see if there's enough demand to justify an expansion to its existing Rangeland pipeline system.

In other cases like Enbridge, different mixes of chemicals as well as reducing or dropping some types like Bakken shale are reported to allow for existing pipeline to move more oil. There's also the reversal of its Southern Lights Pipeline. The US imported condensate that this pipeline takes from the MidWest to Edmonton isn't needed so the combination of dropping the imports plus reversing the line adds 150,000 bbl/day without building a pipeline. 

https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/ne...t-more-barrels-without-building-new-pipelines


I'm not sure how similar the reversal is to the Line 9 reversal that now allows Quebec to receive Alberta crude, where Suncor is thinking about adding cokers. Should the US court challenges be favourable so that the now defunct Montreal QC to Portland, Maine pipeline that used to bring oil to Montreal can be reversed (first discussed in 2008 but there have been US court challenges) - reversing it will mean Aberta crude can be loaded on tankers in the South Portland marine terminal.




like_to_retire said:


> ... How might this affect the actual TMX expansion plans?


It's a stop gap that helps out a bit until TMX and other longer term solutions can come into play. 



> “Longer term, *we’d still need* the Line 3 replacement, and *TMX* and to a certain extent Keystone XL,” Millington said.


IMO it is a similar band aid to shipping by rail, with less risk. It is also more likely that a reversal, where no new pipe is being laid will get approval more quickly. 


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy

james4beach said:


> Our economy is one of the strongest of all nations, quality of life in Canada is one of the highest in the world, we have low crime rates (which continue to decline) and we strike a good balance between socialism and capitalism. We even have one of the lower tax rates among heavily industrialized nations. Canada is doing great.
> 
> By the way, don't you love the irony of a bunch of conservatives pretending oil & gas is pure unfettered private sector, when in fact you're extracting resources of Canada which *belong to the public*, monetizing them, and then dismissing your responsibility for the fallout which affects every other Canadian (pollution and climate change).
> 
> The Canadian energy sector is awfully lucky that we don't regulate them much more strongly. These are public resources.
> 
> The energy sector comes across as greedy, ungrateful, and irresponsible. You'd think people who enjoyed such insanely high salaries for so long, and have the extreme privilege of monetizing our precious *national* resources would be able to tone down their indignation.
> 
> Do you guys understand why it makes Alberta and the energy sector look so bad? Or do you really not get it?


Oh I’m sure Alberta remembers the NEP.

And places like Quebec and B.C. have no problems spending the transfer payments from Alberta while trying at every turn to shut off the taps. Who’s going to pay for $10 daycare when Alberta stops the transfer payments?

And actually, your wrong, the resources are provincial jurisdiction, not federal. 

Remember when we used to have several “have” provinces contributing to Canada...now we have one. Thanks to your wonderful government who is spending more money than a drunken soldier on leave. 

If I were able to spend billions more than I took it, I’d certainly look wealthy and prosperous too...but, unfortunately I’m not allowed to spend my grandchildren’s income today, I’m supposed to live within my means, even if that means I’m actually poor.


----------



## Prairie Guy

More science about climate change:

"Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice


----------



## Just a Guy

Eclectic12 said:


> In terms of scale ... sure.
> 
> Several of the private corps I have worked for have done similar so it's not exclusive to gov't.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Do they remain in business long? Can they continually do stupid things like this before they lose clients and shut down? The government can.

Sure, every few years we can change the people, but they all operate the same way, so nothing really changes.


----------



## sags

I am thinking Alberta needs to stop depending on oil and pipelines and put more effort into diversifying their economy. All the Alberta politicians talk about is oil, oil, oil.

Western Canada sits above the largest vehicle market in North America in California and yet there isn't a single auto manufacturer in the west. 

I don't think they tried very hard to diversify the economy. It was too easy to depend on the riches derived from oil.


----------



## Just a Guy

I would think Canada has to stop relying on transfer payments and start earning their own money, also quit running up deficits they can’t pay for...

I don’t think they try very hard to live within their means, it’s too easy to rely on transfers and future money to have to earn it themselves.


----------



## sags

I don't think you understand how the transfer system works.

Alberta has 4 million residents. Ontario has 14 million residents. Who do you think sends more revenue to Ottawa in combined revenues ?


----------



## AltaRed

Sags, you know full well it is per capita numbers that matter, not absolute numbers. Data mining to leverage your position doesn't add credibility.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> I don't think you understand how the transfer system works.
> 
> Alberta has 4 million residents. Ontario has 14 million residents. Who do you think sends more revenue to Ottawa in combined revenues ?


Who? Alberta at nearly $12k/capita, with Sask nearly tied with Ont at about $8.5k.
Don't like per capita numbers? Sorry, that's what the government uses. A provincial total number would be facile - consistent with your other posts though. 
Figure 3 Federal Revenues by Province & Type 2017.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> I am thinking Alberta needs to stop depending on oil and pipelines and put more effort into diversifying their economy. All the Alberta politicians talk about is oil, oil, oil.
> 
> Western Canada sits above the largest vehicle market in North America in California and yet there isn't a single auto manufacturer in the west.
> 
> I don't think they tried very hard to diversify the economy. It was too easy to depend on the riches derived from oil.


That is Alberta has been attempting to do for a long time. A lot of money has been spent over the past two decades trying to get traction...with limited success. It has to be light manufacturing though, or technology (the latter is becoming more all the time) because the supply chains are too long and it costs far too much to move the components and finished product to markets. Auto manufacturing would have been the worst possible solution to diversification. There would be no profits once logistics and shipping costs were taken into account....never mind autos have become a commodity. There is a reason why there is no heavy manufacturing pretty much anywhere between Winnipeg and the BC Interior. At least Vancouver is on tidewater and Winnipeg is a short hop to the US Midwest and Southern Ontario. It is a bit disingenuous to invoke armchair quarterbacking without doing some solid fact checking first. Just a few soundbites:
https://business.financialpost.com/...ify-its-economy-alberta-is-still-stuck-on-oil
https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2018/1...r-alberta-is-easier-said-than-done-economist/
https://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/eng/home.asp
https://globalnews.ca/news/3978285/u-of-c-study-looks-at-how-alberta-is-diversifying-its-economy/
https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion...lbertas-economy-needs-innovation-not-ideology

And there is much more, if you really care to enlighten your knowledge.


----------



## sags

Per capita is a meaningless metric when calculating the source of total revenue for the government. 

It is the total revenue collected by the government that pays the bills. 

The notion that Alberta and Saskatchewan pay the bulk of the bills on behalf of other Canadians is total BS.


----------



## AltaRed

Have it your way Sags, even if you are wrong. Its per capita data that determines the relative wealth of sovereign entities no matter which sources one wishes to reference. UN, World Bank, OECD, etc etc.


----------



## sags

Auto manufacturing is "just in time" for a long time. Tier II feeder plants locate around the assembly plants. 

GM had an assembly plant in California for many years. 

The GM /Suzuki plant in Ontario shipped all of their production to California.

It is one of the biggest car markets in North America, but Alberta makes no attempt to attract such industry. 

Toyota and Honda don't just show up in Ontario and start building plants. It takes a lot of work from our Provincial and local governments to get them here to discuss possibilities.

The boom and bust cycle has been ongoing in Alberta for a long time, and nothing has changed.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Per capita is a meaningless metric when calculating the source of total revenue for the government.
> 
> It is the total revenue collected by the government that pays the bills.
> 
> The notion that Alberta and Saskatchewan pay the bulk of the bills on behalf of other Canadians is total BS.


Okay if per capita taxation isn't the way to quantify someones funding of the government, can explain what is?


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> Do they remain in business long?


Some for over a hundred years, others for sixty years ... no noticeable difference in the business.

Back decades ago in high school, the "use it or lose it" budget system was described as something only gov't or quasi-gov't would use. So far, all of my employers have used the same "bad" budget system with similar waste occuring.




Just a Guy said:


> ... Can they continually do stupid things like this before they lose clients and shut down?


I didn't think so but they are all still in business where those I am still in contact with say the same is happening.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> Auto manufacturing is "just in time" for a long time. Tier II feeder plants locate around the assembly plants.
> 
> GM had an assembly plant in California for many years.
> 
> The GM /Suzuki plant in Ontario shipped all of their production to California.
> 
> It is one of the biggest car markets in North America, but Alberta makes no attempt to attract such industry.
> 
> Toyota and Honda don't just show up in Ontario and start building plants. It takes a lot of work from our Provincial and local governments to get them here to discuss possibilities.
> 
> The boom and bust cycle has been ongoing in Alberta for a long time, and nothing has changed.


You forget to add these plants are located in highly dense regions where the markets are, or on tidewater. That has always been the case and will always be the case. Same reason why more refining capacity in Alberta makes no economic sense. Same reason there is no major industry or diversification in the upper Midwest either.


----------



## Eclectic12

Sags also seems to be ignoring that most of the GM California plants closed in the '80's and '90's. 
The exception seems to be the joint operation with Toyota, NUMMI that closed in 2010.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-08-28-fi-6132-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-aug-28-fi-toyota-plant28-story.html


Never mind that GM's closed Oshawa as well as US plants so it's not a good diversification idea for Alberta. Throw in the Trumps rants and it is even less appealing.



Cheers


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Auto manufacturing is "just in time" for a long time.


Ummmm ... when did the auto industry change to "just in time"? 
Or are they just using the phrase incorrectly ....


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> You forget to add these plants are located in highly dense regions where the markets are, or on tidewater. That has always been the case and will always be the case. Same reason why more refining capacity in Alberta makes no economic sense. Same reason there is no major industry or diversification in the upper Midwest either.



?? arguments like the above ^^ seem a bit flimsy ...

the US midwest was not on tidewater before the Seaway was built yet the entire US midwest from illinois through michigan & ohio was absolutely booming with manufacturing from the late 1800s on

think steel mills in gary indiana, automotive factories & countless other fabricators in landlocked urbs like grand rapids & flint michigan

railways, they shipped via rail


----------



## AltaRed

They all had access to density in population and multiple canal systems connecting watersheds. As an example, the entire Mississippi watershed became the transportation network. Would be best to do more fact checking on transportation systems.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> They all had access to density in population and multiple canal systems connecting watersheds. As an example, the entire Mississippi watershed became the transportation network. Would be best to do more fact checking on transportation systems.



please don't try to pretend that the steel industry, the automotive industry & countless other heavy steel manufacturers located throughout the US midwest were exporting product down the Mississippi :biggrin:

canals helped some. But the primary export modality was rail.

.


----------



## AltaRed

It might be worthwhile to check out the history. The Ohio and Missouri tributaries of the Mississippi watershed were key to the development of the upper midwest. https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1128 These canal/river systems were the heart of the transportation system for much of the century until these systems spurred the development of rail that then took over the bulk of shipping. I agree the upper midwest rail system (and its congestion south of Chicago) is now the heart of the industrial midwest transportation.

Barge traffic remains heavy on the Mississippi itself but not sure how far north of St. Louis the big barges travel.


----------



## Prairie Guy

New scientific report from scientists in Finland and corroborated by scientists in Japan says that global warming is not manmade. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

From the report:

"During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

This validates all those who have said it was a scam all along. The human contribution to warming is a mere 1/100 of a degree.


----------



## sags

The study you linked to said the CO2 went up because of clouds

It could be true. I can verify that it is cooler when the sun goes behind a cloud.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The study you linked to said the CO2 went up because of clouds
> 
> It could be true. I can verify that it is cooler when the sun goes behind a cloud.


Denier.


----------



## Just a Guy

I believe Ontario was reclassified as a “have not” province a few years ago, so they no longer make transfer payments. I think it’s just Alberta, bc and Saskatchewan left sending money east. Even though Alberta and the rest are in recession.

Not to mention Quebec and bc making sure alberta can’t generate money.


----------



## like_to_retire

Eclectic12 said:


> KM would have loved to keep the profitable pipeline and have some crazy buyer buy the "who knows when" expansion pipeline including all the debt with it. Buyers would have loved to buy the existing pipeline and possibly the rights to expand the pipeline without paying any of the sunk costs. Neither side had enough to gain or lose to make such a one sided deal.


Eclectic12, thanks for the #716 insightful response. 

hehe, sounds like you are an insider. Interesting stuff, along with the link.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> New scientific report from scientists in Finland and corroborated by scientists in Japan says that global warming is not manmade.
> 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
> 
> From the report:
> 
> "During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
> 
> This validates all those who have said it was a scam all along. The human contribution to warming is a mere 1/100 of a degree.


Published by that reputable source, Brad Pitt's character from Fight Club. What's the first rule of Fight Club? Don't use Zerohedge as a source, unless you want to end up with gold bars and MREs in a bunker waiting for the reptilian Bildeberg Group to finally reveal the earth is flat.


----------



## james4beach

lol @ ZeroHedge, one of the original alt-right web sites. This was actually an interesting case because it rapidly transformed from an only-slightly-wacky news site a few years ago into full blown alt-right, around the time of Trump's campaign and election.

A few years ago, I was reading ZeroHedge somewhat routinely as it had interesting stories in finance and investing.

Prairie Guy gets all his content from FOX News, Infowars, and apparently ZeroHedge too. That's a good way to turn your mind to mush. And I doubt moderators would permit much of that garbage content to be posted at CMF.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Published by that reputable source, Brad Pitt's character from Fight Club. What's the first rule of Fight Club? Don't use Zerohedge as a source, unless you want to end up with gold bars and MREs in a bunker waiting for the reptilian Bildeberg Group to finally reveal the earth is flat.


They reported a valid study by 2 separate scientific groups, they did not do the research. However, based on your reasoning, we can now dismiss every single thing reported by CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, or WashPo based on their past history of lies and false reporting.

Because it works both ways, right?


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> lol @ ZeroHedge, one of the original alt-right web sites. This was actually an interesting case because it rapidly transformed from an only-slightly-wacky news site a few years ago into full blown alt-right, around the time of Trump's campaign and election.
> 
> A few years ago, I was reading ZeroHedge somewhat routinely as it had interesting stories in finance and investing.
> 
> Prairie Guy gets all his content from FOX News, Infowars, and apparently ZeroHedge too. That's a good way to turn your mind to mush. And I doubt moderators would permit much of that garbage content to be posted at CMF.


CMF let sags post a blatant falsehood about illegal aliens being forced to drink toilet water. That sort of garbage is allowed but my link to a valid scientific article threatens you? :excitement::excitement::excitement:

Denier.


----------



## james4beach

Prairie Guy said:


> CMF let sags post a blatant falsehood about illegal aliens being forced to drink toilet water. That sort of garbage is allowed but my link to a valid scientific article threatens you? :excitement::excitement::excitement:


sags did not post a blatant falsehood.

Bloomberg, and several other very reputable media sources, carry this story which says: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made the claim that detained migrants were told to drink toilet water: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-detained-migrants-told-to-drink-toilet-water



> Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused U.S. border agents of conducting a program of “psychological warfare” against detained migrants who were told to drink water from toilets if they were thirsty.


The story is that this person has alleged that this is happening. Those are facts that are accurately being reported; AOC is an important figure in politics. She definitely made that allegation. It is based on her first hand account of witnessing a detention center. The claim has been backed up by a second person, California Representative Judy Chu. Since the original claim is from an eye witness account by a known/reputable figure, and is corroborated by a second reputable person, it's absolutely newsworthy.

Both people could be lying or stretching the truth. But the story as reported is accurate, which is that this allegation has been made.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> sags did not post a blatant falsehood.
> 
> Bloomberg, and several other very reputable media sources, carry this story which says: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made the claim that detained migrants were told to drink toilet water: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-detained-migrants-told-to-drink-toilet-water
> 
> 
> 
> The story is that this person has alleged that this is happening. Those are facts that are accurately being reported; AOC is an important figure in politics. She definitely made that allegation. It is based on her first hand account of witnessing a detention center. The claim has been backed up by a second person, California Representative Judy Chu. Since the original claim is from an eye witness account by a known/reputable figure, and is corroborated by a second reputable person, it's absolutely newsworthy.
> 
> Both people could be lying or stretching the truth. But the story as reported is accurate, which is that this allegation has been made.


Reporting the allegations is newsworthy. 
However the original claim was by AOC, who, while known, isn't reputable. She is however quite the actor and really able to command far more media attention than she deserves.
She's not quite at Trumps level of media savvy, but she could get there.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> It might be worthwhile to check out the history. The Ohio and Missouri tributaries of the Mississippi watershed were key to the development of the upper midwest. https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1128 These canal/river systems were the heart of the transportation system for much of the century until these systems spurred the development of rail that then took over the bulk of shipping. I agree the upper midwest rail system (and its congestion south of Chicago) is now the heart of the industrial midwest transportation.
> 
> Barge traffic remains heavy on the Mississippi itself but not sure how far north of St. Louis the big barges travel.




it was railways that made chicago the commodities capital of the continent

chicago is still a gigantic continental rail hub. Which is why the CNR routes through chicagoland all the way south to argentina.

the city of the big shoulders would have thought Tidewater was the name of a laundry detergent

sorry, can't spend another minute on wikisticki fairytale babble that illinois indiana michigan ohio exported their rolled steel, automobiles, cookstoves, washing machines, iron bolts, bars, wires, joists, bridge components & construction materials downa-Mississippi-where-the-boats-go-boom.

railways it was


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> But the story as reported is accurate, which is that this allegation has been made.


Interesting how the media never fact checks any story, no matter how far fetched, that is designed to make Trump look bad. That's not how journalism is supposed to work. An unbiased media would never have reported that story without fact checking it first, especially since it was told by a known liar.

And up here Trudeau is paying off media that acts like the propaganda arm of his government while the leftists here defend that.

Global warming relies on lies, misleading stats, and a supportive media. When exposed to fact, the whole scam collapses.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> it was railways that made chicago the commodities capital of the continent
> 
> chicago is still a gigantic continental rail hub. Which is why the CNR routes through chicagoland all the way south to argentina.


Of course Chicago became and still is the largest continental rail hub. Everyone knows that but it wasn't always that way. It developed AFTER canal and river traffic in the upper Midwest led the way in the 19th century. Of course, railways were already the key shipping mode by the time Sags' dear auto business came into its own. If you recall, the discussion started with Sags' inability to understand why entities like AB, SK and the upper midwest states like Montana, Wyoming, Dakota's et al could not compete for industrial might. They have always been at a disadvantage due to shipping costs and sparse populations. Econ101.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Of course Chicago became and still is the largest continental rail hub. Everyone knows that but it wasn't always that way. It developed AFTER canal and river traffic in the upper Midwest led the way in the 19th century. Of course, railways were already the key shipping mode by the time Sags' dear auto business came into its own. If you recall, the discussion started with Sags' inability to understand why entities like AB, SK and the upper midwest states like Montana, Wyoming, Dakota's et al could not compete for industrial might. They have always been at a disadvantage due to shipping costs and sparse populations. Econ101.



disagree that sags has inabilities

civics101


ps in early 19th century when river barges may have been more prominent up & down the mississippi, manufacturing was not yet really established in the midwest. Even the abbatoirs had not yet been built Back of the Yards.

sorry but never did hear of any industrial heartland that ever did flourish along with huck finn, tom sawyer & a few picturesque bundles on board a lazy barge.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> Interesting how the media never fact checks any story, no matter how far fetched, that is designed to make Trump look bad. That's not how journalism is supposed to work. An unbiased media would never have reported that story without fact checking it first, especially since it was told by a known liar.
> 
> And up here Trudeau is paying off media that acts like the propaganda arm of his government while the leftists here defend that.
> 
> Global warming relies on lies, misleading stats, and a supportive media. When exposed to fact, the whole scam collapses.


That's specifically why they are promoting "reputable" media, specifically the ones that ignored the information in their hands to lie about the Covington kids.


----------



## Prairie Guy

The Covington kids, Jussie Smollet, Kavanaugh, toilet water...the list of media fails and outright lying is the worse it has ever been in US and Canadian history. Trump took on the media and has exposed them for what they really are...partisan hacks with no credibility or journalistic integrity. Trudeau is so inept and corrupt that he is the first Liberal in history that has to pay off media.

And now the Climate Change scam is finally starting to collapse...another scam that never could have happened without willing support from the dishonest media.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> The Covington kids, Jussie Smollet, Kavanaugh, toilet water...the list of media fails and outright lying is the worse it has ever been in US and Canadian history. Trump took on the media and has exposed them for what they really are...partisan hacks with no credibility or journalistic integrity. Trudeau is so inept and corrupt that he is the first Liberal in history that has to pay off media.
> 
> And now the Climate Change scam is finally starting to collapse...another scam that never could have happened without willing support from the dishonest media.


Don't worry, he'll keep the electorate drugged and happy.
Get those young adults to smoke a bit of pot, bit of brain damage and you'll have Liberal voters for life.

Yes I'm specifically referring to the damage marijuana use does to the brains of young adults. 
When Trudeau said he wanted science based policy, I wasn't thinking that. Even now I'm sure hoping it was an accidental result, if it was his intentional plan he's more of a narcissistic psychopath than I could have possibly imagined.


----------



## Prairie Guy

More scientists say humans are not responsible for global warming:

"Thursday, in a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum)."

https://brooks.house.gov/media-cent...isan-panel-scientists-confirms-humans-are-not

The scam is collapsing and no one can stop it.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> The notion that Alberta and Saskatchewan pay the bulk of the bills on behalf of other Canadians is total BS.


What is true is that over the last couple of decades, Alberta is by far the #1 contributor of surpluses for the Federal Government which it can use however it wants, mainly to prop up the have-not provinces. While Ontario provides the most revenue to Ottawa, it also gets the bulk of it back.

From 2007-2017, the difference between Federal revenues and expenditures per province:










Or for every dollar of revenue collected in Alberta by the Federal Government, even in bad years Albertans only see 57c of it back. 










https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl...2,layout2,layout3,layout2&vectorDisplay=false

When some people in the Rest of Canada whine about Albertans not saving like Norway, well you now know where it went (mainly to Quebec). They should also be thankful Alberta didn't really "diversify" and continue to focus its skill and expertise into oil and gas, benefiting Canada far beyond any other industry.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> More scientists say humans are not responsible for global warming:
> 
> "Thursday, in a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum)."
> 
> https://brooks.house.gov/media-cent...isan-panel-scientists-confirms-humans-are-not
> 
> The scam is collapsing and no one can stop it.


Pointing out 20k years ago is irrelevant to those focusing on the recent history.


----------



## andrewf

Nevermind that no one is arguing that prehistoric man was responsible for ending the last ice age. That's just getting in the way of PG's confirmation bias.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Nevermind that no one is arguing that prehistoric man was responsible for ending the last ice age. That's just getting in the way of PG's confirmation bias.


No they're arguing that a small short lived variation that is well inside the typical range for the earth is somehow catastrophic and all our fault.

It's simply the rich self loathing elites who need to invent a reason to hate the greatest society that has ever existed.

Of course they themselves won't actually sacrifice any of the benefits, they'll just buy "offsets" and drink $50 cases of water and claim they're doing their part.

If they really believed this was an existential crisis that demanded immediate action. They'd do something.


----------



## m3s

Same thing happened to every great human society in the history of human societies. But "this time is different"

Unsustainable - A society based on constant growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. Consumerism (inflated demand) and planned obsolescence (restrained supply) encourages increasingly unsustainable waste of finite resources.

Resistance to change - Those with the most influence are unwilling to adapt to modern reality because they're fat n happy and want to live out their final days without massive disruption. Every collapse needs some boomer mentality

Complexity - The greatest society has become so large and complex that it is nearly impossible to adapt society in any cohesive manner. The greatest society will most likely have the greatest collapse, unless it really is different this time

So how is it different this time?


----------



## sags

_"Mother Nature has made it impossible to ignore climate change" _said Al Gore, but it doesn't stop the powerful lobby groups from trying. Gore described the denier movement as thus......

_“The American people have been the targets of a massive, well-organized and lavishly-funded campaign of disinformation, designed to spread doubt and confusion and prevent the formation of a political consensus necessary to adopt new policies to save the future of human civilization.”_ 

Climate change deniers are like turkeys herded onto a truck, while the farmer says........."No need to be concerned. I am sending you to a turkey resort."


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> _"Mother Nature has made it impossible to ignore climate change" _said Al Gore, but it doesn't stop the powerful lobby groups from trying. Gore described the denier movement as thus......
> 
> _“*The American people have been the targets of a massive, well-organized and lavishly-funded campaign of disinformation, designed to spread doubt and confusion *and prevent the formation of a political consensus necessary to adopt new policies to save the future of human civilization,”_ Gore said.


Well, Mr. Gore was right about one thing anyway, that _“The American people have been the targets of a massive, well-organized and lavishly-funded campaign of disinformation, designed to spread doubt and confusion"_. That campaign has been designed to fool the people into thinking that climate change is caused by man and that man can have any effect on stopping it. The record of multiple ice ages and subsequent warming speaks for itself.

ltr


----------



## bgc_fan

accord1999 said:


> What is true is that over the last couple of decades, Alberta is by far the #1 contributor of surpluses for the Federal Government which it can use however it wants, mainly to prop up the have-not provinces. While Ontario provides the most revenue to Ottawa, it also gets the bulk of it back.


True, but you need to put some context into the numbers, and AltaRed provided a link to give that context, though he decided to skip that part: https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...eeced-by-ottawa-just-not-in-the-way-you-think

Namely, you have to look at federal programs and why it is being spent that way. It's not necessarily because the federal government is propping up Quebec through equaliation.

Take a look at these two links: How tax revenue is spent, and an excerpt from the budget.

The largest percentage is transfer to persons which includes elderly benefits, and employment insurance. Given the relatively lower amount of retired persons in Alberta compared to other provinces, Alberta will get short changed here. Similarly with the employment insurance. A previous post pointed out the work camps with workers from other provinces and that plays a role here. When the bust cycle occurs, I suspect all the workers go back to their home province for EI as opposed to staying in Alberta, and likewise for retirement. So Alberta benefits from the workers in their prime ages and doesn't have to worry about their retirement and probable age-related health issues in the future.
The next is major transfers to other governments which includes Equalization, although equalization is only about 25% of that program.
Another big spending item is National Defence. So Alberta loses out on this one as well because no spending on the new ships for the navy, or upgrading the jetties and dockyards. New army equipment and vehicles? Primarily Ontario and Quebec. 



accord1999 said:


> When some people in the Rest of Canada whine about Albertans not saving like Norway, well you now know where it went (mainly to Quebec). They should also be thankful Alberta didn't really "diversify" and continue to focus its skill and expertise into oil and gas, benefiting Canada far beyond any other industry.


So this keeps missing the point. The red herring is that Alberta is only a province and not a country like Norway. For me, the issue is that Alberta decided that oil revenues should go into general revenues first and what ever is left gets put into the heritage fund. My impression is that Norway did the opposite. Oil revenues go into their sovereign fund and government expenses are covered by taxes. From personal finance POV hasn't this forum always been stressing the latter and not the former?


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Same thing happened to every great human society in the history of human societies. But "this time is different"
> 
> Unsustainable - A society based on constant growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. Consumerism (inflated demand) and planned obsolescence (restrained supply) encourages increasingly unsustainable waste of finite resources.
> 
> Resistance to change - Those with the most influence are unwilling to adapt to modern reality because they're fat n happy and want to live out their final days without massive disruption. Every collapse needs some boomer mentality
> 
> Complexity - The greatest society has become so large and complex that it is nearly impossible to adapt society in any cohesive manner. The greatest society will most likely have the greatest collapse, unless it really is different this time
> 
> So how is it different this time?


Nothing to disagree with there.
I think you're right, the ruling class is fat and happy want wants to live out their days without massive disruption.

If we didn't manage to get massively more innovative over time we'd have already collapsed. 
I agree, we can't continue to kick all our problems down the road and leave them for future generations.

Lets start with an easy one, get spending under control. I can't imagine what sort of progress we'd make if we weren't massively in debt with a 50% tax rate.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> So this keeps missing the point. The red herring is that Alberta is only a province and not a country like Norway. For me, the issue is that Alberta decided that oil revenues should go into general revenues first and what ever is left gets put into the heritage fund. My impression is that Norway did the opposite. Oil revenues go into their sovereign fund and government expenses are covered by taxes. From personal finance POV hasn't this forum always been stressing the latter and not the former?


There is definitely some truth to this, notwithstanding Alberta still gets shortchanged on net out to Ottawa vs receipts received in return (the latter is very real as part of the equalization of services and quality of same across the nation). It's a highly complicated formula.

When one spends time in Norway, one can see significant income tax rates, significant VAT, and significant import duties on a variety of goods. That pays for the bulk of keeping the country running (operating budget) while most of the resource revenues go into the sovereign wealth fund OR pay for lots of expensive infrastructure (the size and numbers of bridges and highways to dozens (if not hundreds) of islands off the mainland is boggling.

Alberta long ago needed to introduce a VAT and charge higher fees for other service like land transfer taxes, probate fees and the like that could have covered all of the province's operating expenses, allowing resource royalties to go to both the Heritage Fund AND capital infrastructure....like Norway.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> There is definitely some truth to this, notwithstanding Alberta still gets shortchanged on net out to Ottawa vs receipts received in return (the latter is very real as part of the equalization of services and quality of same across the nation). It's a highly complicated formula.
> 
> When one spends time in Norway, one can see significant income tax rates, significant VAT, and significant import duties on a variety of goods. That pays for the bulk of keeping the country running (operating budget) while most of the resource revenues go into the sovereign wealth fund OR pay for lots of expensive infrastructure (the size and numbers of bridges and highways to dozens (if not hundreds) of islands off the mainland is boggling.
> 
> Alberta long ago needed to introduce a VAT and charge higher fees for other service like land transfer taxes, probate fees and the like that could have covered all of the province's operating expenses, allowing resource royalties to go to both the Heritage Fund AND capital infrastructure....like Norway.


Or simply not hand over billions to Quebec, that was always an option.

The problem with equalization is that it is a massive disincentive for provinces to clean up their own affairs.


----------



## AltaRed

Equalization is ingrained into our national psyche so need to stop complaining about it. But as noted noted time and again, it is really about the desire for some respect and to be treated with fairness, such as acceptance of freedom of movement of goods and services.


----------



## accord1999

bgc_fan said:


> From personal finance POV hasn't this forum always been stressing the latter and not the former?


But doesn't this go also to the personal finance question whether it's best for Government to save for you, or yourself; or whether the Governments knows best in spending your money, or yourself? Alberta's financial decisions have given it by far the strongest economy in Canada and the most well-off population, and also capable of supporting the rest of Canada with 6-7% of its GDP every year.

And even if Alberta had taxed itself more to generate a large wealth fund, it would still be angered by the things AltaRed pointed out.


----------



## AltaRed

I think an Alberta wealth fund vs increased taxation is really an internal AB problem of monetary distribution. It is a specific AB issue for them to get their shite together. That really has no impact to ROC and there really isn't any reason for the ROC to 'interfere' with that. BC doesn't care how ON works their provincial finances nor does ON care how BC budgets. It should be the same respect given by each province to each other.

The real anger is the expectation of bearing the brunt of monetary outflows such as equalization while being prevented from moving their primary "export" to markets in a fair and reasonable way (pipelines) like every other province can move their goods without constraint. Imagine AB limiting SK grain going to Burnaby or Prince Rupert for Asian buyers, or ON assembled autos to Vancouver. It is really the same thing.

In any event, hopefully TMX gets going later this summer and Enbridge Line 3 finally gets underway as well. The anger will dissipate by the end of 2021.


----------



## james4beach

I think if they weren't angry about _this_ AltaRed, they'd be getting angry at something else. Alberta didn't seem much happier during the oil boom and under Harper either.

Somebody upthread wrote a clueless comment about city dwellers being the privileged ones. This just shows how out of touch with reality the oil & gas people are.

Alberta has the highest average salaries in Canada whether in professional fields or trades. For example for my group (male, 35-44) statscan 2017 shows Alberta median income 62K versus Ontario just 56K, or 11% higher in Alberta. For the next highest age group (males) it's an even more dramatic, 28% higher median income in Alberta.

Then there's the other import aspect, resource usage. City dwellers are some of the most efficient resource users due to small living spaces and minimal transportation. They contribute minimally to carbon emissions compared to people in Alberta.

So there's *perception* in Alberta, then there's the cold hard reality:

1. Albertans are privileged, they get to extract Canada's resources which belong to the nation
2. They earn more than other people in Canada and more than city dwellers
3. Their lifestyles consume more resources and cause higher carbon emissions than city dwellers
4. The energy sector is a huge contributor to Canada's massive carbon emissions

A privileged existence. Alberta / oil & gas people seem to have talked themselves into an alternate reality where they think they're victims... ridiculous! Alberta enjoys huge privilege, has a big environmental impact, and then complains endlessly about how unfair life is.


----------



## RBull

m3s said:


> Same thing happened to every great human society in the history of human societies. But "this time is different"
> 
> Unsustainable - A society based on constant growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. Consumerism (inflated demand) and planned obsolescence (restrained supply) encourages increasingly unsustainable waste of finite resources.
> 
> Resistance to change - Those with the most influence are unwilling to adapt to modern reality because they're fat n happy and want to live out their final days without massive disruption. Every collapse needs some boomer mentality
> 
> Complexity - The greatest society has become so large and complex that it is nearly impossible to adapt society in any cohesive manner. The greatest society will most likely have the greatest collapse, unless it really is different this time
> 
> So how is it different this time?


What is boomer mentality?


----------



## Prairie Guy

james really can't stand it that some people make more than others. He'd probably rather see everyone suffer than someone earn more than someone else.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> _"Mother Nature has made it impossible to ignore climate change" _said Al Gore, but it doesn't stop the powerful lobby groups from trying. Gore described the denier movement as thus......
> 
> _“The American people have been the targets of a massive, well-organized and lavishly-funded campaign of disinformation, designed to spread doubt and confusion and prevent the formation of a political consensus necessary to adopt new policies to save the future of human civilization.”_
> 
> Climate change deniers are like turkeys herded onto a truck, while the farmer says........."No need to be concerned. I am sending you to a turkey resort."


You dismiss valid scientific reports but have the audacity to quote fraud and climate huckster Al Gore. You have to be a troll.


----------



## sags

There are no valid scientific reports challenging the consensus that haven't already been long since debunked by peer reviews.


----------



## sags

Crisis.....The Apocalypse is here ! 

No time left for discussions with deniers. The facts are well known and there is a limited period of time to save humanity.

https://www.macleans.ca/


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> You dismiss valid scientific reports but have the audacity to quote fraud and climate huckster Al Gore. You have to be a troll.


People throw the "troll" thing out when they cannot refute the facts.


----------



## bgc_fan

accord1999 said:


> But doesn't this go also to the personal finance question whether it's best for Government to save for you, or yourself; or whether the Governments knows best in spending your money, or yourself? Alberta's financial decisions have given it by far the strongest economy in Canada and the most well-off population, and also capable of supporting the rest of Canada with 6-7% of its GDP every year.
> 
> And even if Alberta had taxed itself more to generate a large wealth fund, it would still be angered by the things AltaRed pointed out.


My point, which you decided to sidestep, is the fact that equalization is being presented as the big bad guy that is in the way of Alberta's prosperity or the reason that Alberta is in the red. In actuality, the equalization program is a relatively low percentage of the federal program. Even if the program was scrapped and the funds either distributed per capita, or federal taxation rates are reduced, it would not address Alberta being "short-changed" due to the other federal programs and particular demographics.

The point about the wealth fund is that Albertans keep getting upset when ROC make comparisons with Norway and keep pointing that Alberta is a province and not a sovereign nation. Sure, but the Albertans have to accept that they made the conscious decision to use oil royalties as part of general revenue. So when the industry hits a bust cycle, the provincial finances will take a hit as opposed to being insulated from some degree by not having a dependence on royalty revenue.

As an aside, Alberta has the 2nd highest per capita spending (behind N&L), and while everyone dumps on Ontario for its growing debt and out of control spending, its spending is 2nd lowest (behind B.C.). This is from last year. http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-fiscal/prov_fiscal.pdf

If you don't like RBC, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation graphed some of the older data which shows the same trend. https://www.taxpayer.com/media/Prov...ation, 1988-1989, 2000-2001, 2011-2012(1).pdf


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> People throw the "troll" thing out when they cannot refute the facts.


Or when the poster continually makes up things and presents them as “facts”. Hard to refute things that are made up, especially when the troll refuses to accept actual facts, and continually defends their imagination.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> IAlberta has the highest average salaries in Canada whether in professional fields or trades. For example for my group (male, 35-44) statscan 2017 shows Alberta median income 62K versus Ontario just 56K, or 11% higher in Alberta. For the next highest age group (males) it's an even more dramatic, 28% higher median income in Alberta.
> 
> Then there's the other import aspect, resource usage. City dwellers are some of the most efficient resource users due to small living spaces and minimal transportation. They contribute minimally to carbon emissions compared to people in Alberta.
> 
> So there's *perception* in Alberta, then there's the cold hard reality:
> 
> 1. Albertans are privileged, they get to extract Canada's resources which belong to the nation
> 2. They earn more than other people in Canada and more than city dwellers
> 3. Their lifestyles consume more resources and cause higher carbon emissions than city dwellers
> 4. The energy sector is a huge contributor to Canada's massive carbon emissions
> 
> A privileged existence. Alberta / oil & gas people seem to have talked themselves into an alternate reality where they think they're victims... ridiculous! Alberta enjoys huge privilege, has a big environmental impact, and then complains endlessly about how unfair life is.


James, it is virtually impossible to rationalize with anyone who has such a hard wired bias as you do. Your points are so full of holes they make swiss cheese look like the former Berlin Wall. A few debunks of your thoughts:
1. Resources below to provinces per the BNA Act, except those in federal waters... not unlike the laws in the USA, etc. Just like harnassing the hydro-electric potential of BC, Ontario and Quebec rivers, and the mines of northern Ontario. Get over it already. 
2. Alberta median/average wages are higher than those in most other places, mostly because of the types and numbers of jobs. Most of the field oil jobs are really tough, hard jobs that MUST pay more to attract workers, not because it is nice to do that. For example, the auto assembly worker has a plush job compared to the compressor mechanic repairing a compressor at -30C in the middle of the night, or replacing the teeth of an electric shovel in the mine pits of the oil sands, and chances are lives in a camp rotation situation away from home. Never mind the workers on oil rigs in the middle of nowhere. There are tens of thousands of jobs just like that that simply don't exist anywhere else. Compare like jobs with like jobs instead of data mining. I doubt the average Calgary technical professional earns more than the average Bay Street financial professional, or those that fill the office towers of Vancouver. My guess is banking executives earn about he same as oil executives. It's a matter of distribution of job types and numbers. That last I saw, Calgary was a city with similarities to the cities of Vancouver and Toronto. Your comment is absurd in the extreme.
3. I didn't think that a commuter living in suburban Calgary would necessarily consume more HC resources than an equivalent commuting to Bay Street from Mississauga. Nor do I think a corn farmer in SW Ontario would use less fuel in his tractor than a wheat farmer in Alberta. From what planet did you find that absurd comment?
4. The energy sector does use quite a bit of energy to product the products consumers use, whether industrial, commercial or personal. The last I knew, there were more industries (including oil refineries and petro-chemical plants), more vehicles, more mines, more boats and more airplanes in Ontario using hydrocarbon energy than any other province in Canada. Where is the source of your assertions? It can't be from StatsCan or NEB or NRCan sources.

James, you have just shown more irrationality and more bias than I have seen from most participants in this entire thread. You've dug the hole about as deep as you can. If you do continue to participate, perhaps gather some legitimate source data first for a rational discussion.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> There is definitely some truth to this, notwithstanding Alberta still gets shortchanged on net out to Ottawa vs receipts received in return (the latter is very real as part of the equalization of services and quality of same across the nation). It's a highly complicated formula.


Yes, but like I've said before and as your own reference points out, equalization actually isn't a big part of why Alberta is getting shortchanged. But here's another Globeandmail article to discuss it: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-equalization-is-not-unfair-to-alberta/



AltaRed said:


> I think an Alberta wealth fund vs increased taxation is really an internal AB problem of monetary distribution. It is a specific AB issue for them to get their shite together. That really has no impact to ROC and there really isn't any reason for the ROC to 'interfere' with that. BC doesn't care how ON works their provincial finances nor does ON care how BC budgets. It should be the same respect given by each province to each other.


I beg to differ on this one. AB is always on QC and ON case. Other provinces or people wouldn't care too much about AB if the provincial government didn't keep saying how its financials are in its current state if it wasn't subsidizing QC. When you start saying things like that, you are going to get blowback.



AltaRed said:


> The real anger is the expectation of bearing the brunt of monetary outflows such as equalization while being prevented from moving their primary "export" to markets in a fair and reasonable way (pipelines) like every other province can move their goods without constraint. Imagine AB limiting SK grain going to Burnaby or Prince Rupert for Asian buyers, or ON assembled autos to Vancouver. It is really the same thing.


Except you are leaving out some key differences, mainly indigenous rights and environmental concerns. Maybe it is because of main stream media, but from my POV when these concerns are brought up, they are never addressed by industry. Instead you end up with lawsuits and trying to push legislation through without consultation which is why there is so much delay. Now, obviously there is some headway with indigenous consultation, but what about environmental? What are the plans for spill response in ecologically sensitive areas?



AltaRed said:


> In any event, hopefully TMX gets going later this summer and Enbridge Line 3 finally gets underway as well. The anger will dissipate by the end of 2021.


Hopefully. I'm not anti-AB by any means. I'm quite pro-Canada and appreciate that getting oil exports is beneficial to all, but we can't ramrod projects through and expect that people won't be unhappy. Grant it, you can't satisfy everyone, but if there is at least some attempt at placating those who oppose, then you have a little more standing on the "moral" ground.


----------



## Just a Guy

James, you continually state that oils and gas is a Canadian resource. If you actually look it up, it’s a provincial one. The feds don’t get control of them.

Also, when it comes to transfer payments, they adjusted the formula so that certain provinces, such as Quebec, don’t have to claim things which would make them a “have” province instead of being a “have not” province. So, I can see how alberta, would get upset at having to fund everyone else, while being blamed for polluting the entire planet and not being allowed to actually make money. 

Albertas transfer payments don’t decrease just because they’ve been in recession the past few years, they pay regardless of the fact they have a problem going on locally. Ontario, on the other hand, was reclassified so their payments decreased. 

Also, people seem to forget, Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan have huge swaths of Forrest. This is something called a carbon sink. It absorbs carbon. Canada is not a net contributor in any real sense, not even the oil patch, to climate change in relation to carbon.


----------



## AltaRed

A suggestion to moderators and administrators. Think it best to lock up this thread. It is clearly non-productive to the continued slide in quality of this forum.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

^+1. I agree. Although it has been revealing to see the low level of knowledge of issues in this thread.
Today's social rabble creates so much uninformed political flak. Combine that with politician's motivation to stay in power and I'm not sure we should expect any meaningful progress where intra-provincial issues and the Federal government are concerned.


----------



## Just a Guy

An argument could be made to shut down the entire forum if you’re going to use those arguments. The makeup artists seem to be taking over. Forget facts, just spout something off.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> Yes, but like I've said before and as your own reference points out, equalization actually isn't a big part of why Alberta is getting shortchanged. But here's another Globeandmail article to discuss it: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-equalization-is-not-unfair-to-alberta/


Indeed, there are perspectives from varying angles but remember the G&M piece is an Opinion article that puts forward one point of view. Don't get me wrong. Opinion pieces provide perspective and insight for further discussion. 



> I beg to differ on this one. AB is always on QC and ON case. Other provinces or people wouldn't care too much about AB if the provincial government didn't keep saying how its financials are in its current state if it wasn't subsidizing QC. When you start saying things like that, you are going to get blowback.


I beg to differ as well. As long as the whiners keep going to the trough for federal bailouts of the auto industry or Bombardier or (pick your example), AB has a right to object to the waste of federal funds, or especially if QC keeps asking for more. If ON and QC want to blow their brains out keeping such industries afloat, it is on their dime. I don't think there is a ground swell of objections from the West for routine budgetary issues. When is the last time federal money was used to bail out western industry, e.g. the farmers or forestry or? There's never been federal loans or grants to any O&G business that I know of. 



> Except you are leaving out some key differences, mainly indigenous rights and environmental concerns. Maybe it is because of main stream media, but from my POV when these concerns are brought up, they are never addressed by industry. Instead you end up with lawsuits and trying to push legislation through without consultation which is why there is so much delay. Now, obviously there is some headway with indigenous consultation, but what about environmental? What are the plans for spill response in ecologically sensitive areas?


Most of that is perception and conjecture from lazy and opinionated reporting. Years of effort and hundreds of millions are spent on real consultation and inclusion and for the most part, groups are looking to be 'bought off'. It's always about the money but I do agree, industry and most Western governments could have done better, e.g. genuine engagement rather than ticking off boxes. That said, real environmental concerns are way overblown. Pipelines are the most benign and safest of all transportation modes. There is way more harmful contamination along every railroad ROW and highway ROW than there ever will be from pipeline transport. Think of cargo spills, road salt, etc.

The coastal tanker issue is way overblown. Tankers have been coming into Puget Sound daily? for 50-70 years to WA state refineries from Alaska, California, Indonesia et al. How many oil spills? Oil has been tankered from the Grand Banks, often in ice infested waters for 20 years. How many oil spills? There is legitimate debate of whether dilbit or lighter crudes are harder to clean up. Dilbit becomes mostly a solid while lighter oils coat everything. Remember Valdez? How many times has the average Canadian been on BC and WA coastal waters (or from the air) and seen freighters with bulk materials and containers by the dozen everywhere that can disturb the Orcas? How about all those cruise ships and tourist whale watchers which are probably the most irresponsible of all?



> Hopefully. I'm not anti-AB by any means. I'm quite pro-Canada and appreciate that getting oil exports is beneficial to all, but we can't ramrod projects through and expect that people won't be unhappy. Grant it, you can't satisfy everyone, but if there is at least some attempt at placating those who oppose, then you have a little more standing on the "moral" ground.


I think you are one of the more rational ones in this thread. Lord knows we have the fanatics who don't use any factual basis at all. People generally have an unfounded fear of additional pipeline capacity, even if it is replacement (like Line 3) or mostly in the same ROW (TMX). There is disturbance during construction but post-construction no one knows they are there....except for the clean ROW that must be kept clear of forest cover in order for visual ROW surveillance from the air. There is much less debate about new freeways (think 401 or 407), twinning of rail track through Western Canada and the twinning of the TCH. All those things have permanent surface impacts on the environment. Maybe they shouldn't be twinned and maybe increased shipment of Central Canadian goods should not be allowed to be shipped across the pristine prairies or through the Rocky Mountains by road or rail, or Asian imports shipped east. There is some tiny bit of environmental risk every time a truck or train passes through. Let's stop the twinning of those systems now.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Indeed, there are perspectives from varying angles but remember the G&M piece is an Opinion article that puts forward one point of view. Don't get me wrong. Opinion pieces provide perspective and insight for further discussion.
> 
> 
> I beg to differ as well. As long as the whiners keep going to the trough for federal bailouts of the auto industry or Bombardier or (pick your example), AB has a right to object to the waste of federal funds, or especially if QC keeps asking for more. If ON and QC want to blow their brains out keeping such industries afloat, it is on their dime. I don't think there is a ground swell of objections from the West for routine budgetary issues. When is the last time federal money was used to bail out western industry, e.g. the farmers or forestry or? There's never been federal loans or grants to any O&G business that I know of.


I'm thinking back to the mad cow outbreak some time ago. And then there was the recent $1.6B announced last year. https://globalnews.ca/news/4773317/alberta-oil-boost-federal-bailouts/
Does the quota system count for Alberta? https://www.realagriculture.com/201...rmers-respond-to-supply-management-criticism/

At any case, if you think I support bailouts, you are mistaken. I'm happy to let companies fail if they aren't economically viable; however, there is a caveat on this. Government should ensure that there is an even international playing field. We know that the dairy sector in the states is highly subsidized (google government cheese), and there is an oversupply of milk because the government is ensuring farmers get money to stay viable. Our solution is supply management, which I think some on the American side of the border believe is a viable solution.




AltaRed said:


> Most of that is perception and conjecture from lazy and opinionated reporting. Years of effort and hundreds of millions are spent on real consultation and inclusion and for the most part, groups are looking to be 'bought off'. It's always about the money but I do agree, industry and most Western governments could have done better, e.g. genuine engagement rather than ticking off boxes. That said, real environmental concerns are way overblown. Pipelines are the most benign and safest of all transportation modes. There is way more harmful contamination along every railroad ROW and highway ROW than there ever will be from pipeline transport. Think of cargo spills, road salt, etc.
> 
> The coastal tanker issue is way overblown. Tankers have been coming into Puget Sound daily? for 50-70 years to WA state refineries from Alaska, California, Indonesia et al. How many oil spills? Oil has been tankered from the Grand Banks, often in ice infested waters for 20 years. How many oil spills? There is legitimate debate of whether dilbit or lighter crudes are harder to clean up. Dilbit becomes mostly a solid while lighter oils coat everything. Remember Valdez? How many times has the average Canadian been on BC and WA coastal waters (or from the air) and seen freighters with bulk materials and containers by the dozen everywhere that can disturb the Orcas? How about all those cruise ships and tourist whale watchers which are probably the most irresponsible of all?


Yes, there is a degree of risk management. There is also a difference in environmental impact between shipping industrial chemicals, petroleum, grain and other finished industrial goods. The question is, are there mitigation or spill response measures in place so that any damage is dealt with in a timely fashion? And who is picking up the tab? The government or the company? These aren't necessarily conveyed to the public, so the anxiety. What doesn't help is creating a hostile environment for talks and outright dismissing any and all criticism as people who don't know any better, or that foreign interests are keeping oil landlocked without making any effort to address the criticism.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> I think an Alberta wealth fund vs increased taxation is really an internal AB problem of monetary distribution. It is a specific AB issue for them to get their shite together. That really has no impact to ROC and there really isn't any reason for the ROC to 'interfere' with that. BC doesn't care how ON works their provincial finances nor does ON care how BC budgets. It should be the same respect given by each province to each other.
> 
> The real anger is the expectation of bearing the brunt of monetary outflows such as equalization while being prevented from moving their primary "export" to markets in a fair and reasonable way (pipelines) like every other province can move their goods without constraint. Imagine AB limiting SK grain going to Burnaby or Prince Rupert for Asian buyers, or ON assembled autos to Vancouver. It is really the same thing.
> 
> In any event, hopefully TMX gets going later this summer and Enbridge Line 3 finally gets underway as well. The anger will dissipate by the end of 2021.


Alberta's profligacy with its wealth does affect the rest of the country, through procyclical economic stimulus/drag, higher inflation, interest rates and exchange rates affecting competitiveness.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> A suggestion to moderators and administrators. Think it best to lock up this thread. It is clearly non-productive to the continued slide in quality of this forum.





OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ^+1. I agree.


Simple question, if thats the feeling why do you continue to post in this thread?


----------



## like_to_retire

bgc_fan said:


> What doesn't help is creating a hostile environment for talks and outright dismissing any and all criticism as people who don't know any better, or that foreign interests are keeping oil landlocked without making any effort to address the criticism.


I suppose it's not the case for the average person, but there doesn't seem to be any compromise by many of these environmentalists with respect to pipelines or even the sustainable development of the entire oil industry. They seem to have zero-tolerance that demands leaving all oil and gas in the ground - full stop. Nothing short of this will satisfy them. It's pretty hard to negotiate with these people and as you say, address the criticism.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> Simple question, if thats the feeling why do you continue to post in this thread?


I felt that bgc_fan's post was measured enough to engage in a measured response. My degree of respect for members here is directly proportional to the quality of their posts, and if I am going to respond, I generally respond with a similar degree of respect.


----------



## kcowan

bgc_fan said:


> For me, the issue is that Alberta decided that oil revenues should go into general revenues first and what ever is left gets put into the heritage fund. My impression is that Norway did the opposite. Oil revenues go into their sovereign fund and government expenses are covered by taxes. From personal finance POV hasn't this forum always been stressing the latter and not the former?


It is good to learn from history. Lougheed created the Heritage Fund and it was funded every year until Trudeau passed the NEP which killed the golden goose. Then Getty had to use the oil revenues to finance government operations. If the NEP had not been implemented, the Heritage Fund would have been substantial.

In fact, I asked for transfer with megacorp the same month that NEP was implemented. I saw the writing in the wall. My house in Riverbend sold for $230k in 1981 and resold in 1985 for $150k. I had purchased it in 1973 for $67k.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> Yes, there is a degree of risk management. There is also a difference in environmental impact between shipping industrial chemicals, petroleum, grain and other finished industrial goods. The question is, are there mitigation or spill response measures in place so that any damage is dealt with in a timely fashion? And who is picking up the tab? The government or the company? These aren't necessarily conveyed to the public, so the anxiety. What doesn't help is creating a hostile environment for talks and outright dismissing any and all criticism as people who don't know any better, or that foreign interests are keeping oil landlocked without making any effort to address the criticism.


Here is one of the pieces https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/spill-response-on-hold-trans-mountain-1.4812327

Here is another https://www.albernivalleynews.com/n...rals-to-fund-west-coast-spill-response-bases/

And if you trust TM itself which an NGO likely never would trust simply out of principle rather than fact, an article from 2016 https://www.transmountain.com/news/...nvestment-includes-new-vancouver-harbour-base Discusses the program and also mentions insurance coverage since the polluter pays (though don't know how that translates to foreign flag tankers, i.e. once TM turns over custodianship of the oil to the custody of the ship).

Need to remember that neither TM nor the ships themselves own any of the oil. They are simply the shippers for the owners, with the crude owners being either the oil companies if ownership transfers to the buyer only at destination.... or the crude owners are the buyers themselves if they have shipping capacity on TM. Who owns the crude at any given point in the logistics system depends on the buy/sell contract and who has the shipping capacity on TM itself.


----------



## kcowan

Just a Guy said:


> Also, people seem to forget, Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan have huge swaths of Forrest. This is something called a carbon sink. It absorbs carbon. Canada is not a net contributor in any real sense, not even the oil patch, to climate change in relation to carbon.


Don't forget Ontario and Quebec are heavily treed in their northern halves. We have plenty of carbon sinks. When compared to our populations, probably better than most countries. The thing is that the alarmists do not like talk about such sinks.


----------



## kcowan

like_to_retire said:


> They seem to have zero-tolerance that demands leaving all oil and gas in the ground - full stop. Nothing short of this will satisfy them. It's pretty hard to negotiate with these people and as you say, address the criticism.


They have bought into the gospel of David Suzuki who seems to have credibility because CBC subsidizes his lifestyle.


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> Don't forget Ontario and Quebec are heavily treed in their northern halves. We have plenty of carbon sinks. When compared to our populations, probably better than most countries. The thing is that the alarmists do not like talk about such sinks.


This article will be dismissed as weakly supported opinion written by a former gov't minister of...gasp... the west, as in SK and MB. https://business.financialpost.com/...bon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

Not that we should be doing nothing... We can and should do more low hanging fruit to reduce our CO2 footprint.


----------



## sags

The author didn't mention that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries before it falls to earth.

Maybe hundreds of years after we cease sending excessive CO2 into the atmosphere, it will return to a healthy balance.


----------



## Prairie Guy

A healthy balance of CO2 is higher than it is today. None of your alarmist stories mention that.

Climate change is just a way to seize more control over the people. Tell them a gloom and doom story and promise to fix it if the people give more money and power to the government. Stop being a gullible dupe.


----------



## sags

We are suffering the greenhouse effect now from carbon emissions in the past. Any progress we make now on lowering emissions will not have results for decades or centuries.

The current negative effects of climate change are in effect, already "baked" in for the next decades. We will have to manage the consequences into future generations.

Scientists can easily replicate the greenhouse effect in their research and they have concluded the overwhelming evidence is the delicate balance in the atmosphere has been exceeded.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> A healthy balance of CO2 is higher than it is today. None of your alarmist stories mention that.
> 
> Climate change is just a way to seize more control over the people. Tell them a gloom and doom story and promise to fix it if the people give more money and power to the government. Stop being a gullible dupe.


You deploy the Bill Clinton "I am not here even though you see me" defense of carbon emissions.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> We are suffering the greenhouse effect now from carbon emissions in the past. Any progress we make now on lowering emissions will not have results for decades or centuries.
> 
> The current negative effects of climate change are in effect, already "baked" in for the next decades. We will have to manage the consequences into future generations.
> 
> Scientists can easily replicate the greenhouse effect in their research and they have concluded the overwhelming evidence is the delicate balance in the atmosphere has been exceeded.


100% wrong on all 3 counts.


----------



## sags

The first time in 800,000 years the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached 415 ppm.

In 1980, the concentration was 330 ppm......the previous high.

The trend on any chart is clear. Carbon concentration in the upper atmosphere is increasing at an increasing rate. This is the result of billions of tonnes of carbon emissions in the past.

It is clear proof that emissions are not immediately gathered by the land and sea, but rise and remain in the upper atmosphere for a long time.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide


----------



## Prairie Guy

https://www.cultwatch.com/how-to-leave-recover.html


----------



## Mukhang pera

It's been awhile, but I seem to recall less porn 800,000 years ago, so we face a new challenge.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-14/society-masturbating-its-way-climate-catastrophe-report


----------



## bgc_fan

kcowan said:


> It is good to learn from history. Lougheed created the Heritage Fund and it was funded every year until Trudeau passed the NEP which killed the golden goose. Then Getty had to use the oil revenues to finance government operations. If the NEP had not been implemented, the Heritage Fund would have been substantial.
> 
> In fact, I asked for transfer with megacorp the same month that NEP was implemented. I saw the writing in the wall. My house in Riverbend sold for $230k in 1981 and resold in 1985 for $150k. I had purchased it in 1973 for $67k.


Let's be honest here, there were a lot of other factors than the NEP that would have affected housing prices and the economy. Namely high interest rates and global recession, unless you are willing to state that the NEP is what caused all that.

The NEP was in force for 5 years. That doesn't explain why when the economy started hitting the boom times that the government decided not to go back to the original plans for the Heritage Fund. Ralph bucks comes to mind.


----------



## Just a Guy

Mukhang pera said:


> It's been awhile, but I seem to recall less porn 800,000 years ago, so we face a new challenge.
> 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-14/society-masturbating-its-way-climate-catastrophe-report


Who wore clothes 800,000 years ago, I’d suspect you had 100% porn going on. Naughty little monkey.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Here is one of the pieces https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/spill-response-on-hold-trans-mountain-1.4812327
> 
> Here is another https://www.albernivalleynews.com/n...rals-to-fund-west-coast-spill-response-bases/
> 
> And if you trust TM itself which an NGO likely never would trust simply out of principle rather than fact, an article from 2016 https://www.transmountain.com/news/...nvestment-includes-new-vancouver-harbour-base Discusses the program and also mentions insurance coverage since the polluter pays (though don't know how that translates to foreign flag tankers, i.e. once TM turns over custodianship of the oil to the custody of the ship).
> 
> Need to remember that neither TM nor the ships themselves own any of the oil. They are simply the shippers for the owners, with the crude owners being either the oil companies if ownership transfers to the buyer only at destination.... or the crude owners are the buyers themselves if they have shipping capacity on TM. Who owns the crude at any given point in the logistics system depends on the buy/sell contract and who has the shipping capacity on TM itself.


I'll take it at face value, but if I read it correctly, it would be the Federal government that would be footing the bill for the construction of these bases.

Having a "bond" of $1B and insurance would help, but I am wondering what would happen if a catastrophic incident like Exxon Valdez occur. At any case, it is a rare occurrence and probably not likely going to happen.

Another source for you: https://clearseas.org/en/tankers/#prevention

But, from what I understand, once the oil is on the tanker, there is little risk in spills. It is usually the operational time when the oil transfer occurs which is when a spill may happen. From my understanding, we aren't building new ports, but would possibly expand existing ports?


----------



## bgc_fan

kcowan said:


> Don't forget Ontario and Quebec are heavily treed in their northern halves. We have plenty of carbon sinks. When compared to our populations, probably better than most countries. The thing is that the alarmists do not like talk about such sinks.





AltaRed said:


> This article will be dismissed as weakly supported opinion written by a former gov't minister of...gasp... the west, as in SK and MB. https://business.financialpost.com/...bon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret
> 
> Not that we should be doing nothing... We can and should do more low hanging fruit to reduce our CO2 footprint.


So, here's why I would not want to go that route. Does that mean we have to account for logging operations or wildfires? Does that mean we will now have to account for carbon emissions from melting permafrost? https://phys.org/news/2018-09-permafrost-co2-previously-thought.html

It's one of those can of worms that isn't worth opening.


----------



## sags

Melting permafrost is one of the major concerns I have regarding global warming.

They just found an organism that survived being frozen in the permafrost for 40,000 years and it came back to life.

That is a scary thought when thinking of viruses and bacteria that humans may not have any exposure or immunity to.

Imagine something like the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1920 unleashed upon today's society where people are far more mobile and populations is much denser.

_Out of Canada’s population of eight million, fifty thousand died from the flu, an enormous death toll in just a few months._

Globally the estimates are that 500 million people became sick and 40-60 million people died from the Spanish flu.

https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/arts-culture-society/killer-flu


----------



## Prairie Guy

Hundreds of peer reviewed papers are published every year that suggest man's impact on climate is negligible. Virtually all of the media and alarmists ignore every single one of them...some go as far as to falsely claim that they don't exist.

That's because when exposed to science and facts the climate change lie collapses every time. Therefore, the only way to keep the scam going is to ignore or downplay scientific evidence contrary to their indoctrination with help from the discredited media.


----------



## sags

It is a rare occasion that a scientific study that refutes climate change is ever submitted for peer review. There are no major scientific organizations that refute climate change.

Of course, you could prove me wrong.....ill advised....indoctrinated.....or just plain stupid, by posting links to some of these peer reviewed studies and organizations.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> It is a rare occasion that a scientific study that refutes climate change is ever submitted for peer review. There are no major scientific organizations that refute climate change.
> 
> Of course, you could prove me wrong.....ill advised....indoctrinated.....or just plain stupid, by posting links to some of these peer reviewed studies and organizations.


There is no need to post links to prove how ill advised you are. It's a well known fact that doesn't need confirmation.


----------



## Just a Guy

Or that they read them if you do. We’ve been through this many times before.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> I'll take it at face value, but if I read it correctly, it would be the Federal government that would be footing the bill for the construction of these bases.
> 
> Having a "bond" of $1B and insurance would help, but I am wondering what would happen if a catastrophic incident like Exxon Valdez occur. At any case, it is a rare occurrence and probably not likely going to happen.
> 
> Another source for you: https://clearseas.org/en/tankers/#prevention
> 
> But, from what I understand, once the oil is on the tanker, there is little risk in spills. It is usually the operational time when the oil transfer occurs which is when a spill may happen. From my understanding, we aren't building new ports, but would possibly expand existing ports?


As I understand it, the pipeline is footing the $150M bill per the TM link I provided. The Coast Guard will have the bases built. TM has insurance and the oil tanker shipping industry must have insurance. 

There is virtually no chance of a significant oil spill short of a marine collision on open waters or a tanker ending up on the rocks aka Exxon Valdez (which was an old single hulled style ship), and that is why there are double hulls, pilots, tug escorts, reduced speeds, etc, etc. For that there will be spill response and liability/clean up insurance, typical of all such operations around the world. There is nothing unique here about this operational scenario that doesn't apply to Rotterdam, New Jersey, the Houston Ship Channel, Norwegian fjords, etc, etc, etc. Chance of minor spillage is higher during the onloading process (disconnecting/connecting of the transfer hoses), but even that is of extreme low probability with berthed tankers in a benign calm location. 

Tankers are loaded or unloaded every minute of every day from either berthed tankers in ports, or through loading buoys on the open water. Double hulled, ice strengthened tankers have plied the Grand Banks for ~20 years now. They load oil from offshore buoys (OLS) on the open waters. An example of an OLS http://www.marinetechnology.no/ols_2.html from a Norwegian company. There are hundreds of these systems in service around the world that are subject to wind, waves, etc, etc, etc.

This source, albeit biased, provides some factual data and perspective of tanker traffic off the southern BC coast https://www.resourceworks.com/tanker-maps Tankers ply these waters every day (on the American side) going to WA state refineries.

It is really about the irrational, but human, fear of additional tanker traffic that is at issue here, not the shipping methodology or processes itself that have been operational for decades and continuously improved along the way. There are over 7000 oil tankers in the world today, loading, unloading or plying the seas every day of the year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264024/number-of-merchant-ships-worldwide-by-type/

TM's Westridge marine wharf is being expanded accommodate the berthing of more tankers. https://www.transmountain.com/westridge-marine-terminal

This TMX project has been 7 years in the making already since the filing of the NEB application https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/828070 It'll be another 2 years to actually put it into service. There really isn't any more to learn about it that has not been subject to scrutiny from the public. Contrast this timing with the ~2-3 years it is taking to build pipelines to tidewater and/or refineries from the Texas Permian basin and put them in service.


----------



## sags

Unless the front of the ship falls off.......

If AltaRed was in charge of inspections and safety, I would sleep easy at night, but apparently from this event the regulators and inspectors aren't always reliable.

_The "Kirki" is the ship that is behind the now famous Clarke and Dawe satire "The front fell off" that we all know and love on this subreddit (and I'm surprised this ship hasn't made it as an article in the sub yet).

To summarise: the Kirki was a Greek registered tanker. During stormy weather, it lost its bow and spilled significant quantities of crude into the sea off western Australia. Electrical arcing started a fire in the crude - sea action extinguished the fire, but continuing arcing reignited the crude. The ship was towed and the cargo offloaded onto another ship.

The linked article also has a link to the marine safety report on the accident. The conclusions showed that there had been a deliberate (and successful) attempt to cover up safety issues with the vessel along with inadequate inspection. In particular, the report contains the following conclusions on these points:

The defects in the life-saving appliances, fire-fighting equipment, cargo equipment and the condition of engine room equipment were so numerous and of such a nature that the Inspector cannot accept that they all developed over a short period of time.

The patching with canvas and the camouflaging of No7 tank lids was a deliberate attempt to mislead any person undertaking a load line survey. It is not possible to determine when the lids were patched, and it might not have been done with the knowledge of the owners or those on board the Kirki on 21 July 1991.

Significant defects should have been observed during surveys by Germanischer Lloyd; inspections by BP Vetting and Mayamar Marine Enterprises; and under Port State inspections by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

Germanischer Lloyd was responsible for the issue of statutory certificates on behalf of the Hellenic Republic of Greece. The procedures adopted by the Society during structural surveys failed to identify the areas of localised corrosion. The condition of ballast tanks 13 and 14 together with the number and nature of deficiencies in safety equipment, indicates that a number of surveys over a period of time, including surveys that were conducted under international safety conventions, were not performed effectively.

For anyone who have not seen the Clarke and Dawe "Front fell off" satire of this event, it can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM_


----------



## AltaRed

There will always be incidents from time to time given 7000+ tankers in service. Not unlike an occasional plane crash or two that does not stop anyone from flying. An incident from 1991 isn't comparable to marine safety almost 30 years later, just like airplane safety has progressed in leaps and bounds from 30 years ago (do you watch the series Mayday?). The downward trend shows in https://www.itopf.org/fileadmin/data/Documents/Company_Lit/Oil_Spill_Stats_2019.pdf

This Canada specific information might be of interest https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/facts-oil-tanker-safety-canada-4513.html and more specifically, tanker data here https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/facts-oil-tanker-safety-canada-4513.html#oil-spills None of these statistics include tankers simply plying the waters, e.g. Grand Banks crude to US ports, or tankers going to WA State refineries... they are simply dockings.

Should we also stop trains plying the Fraser River valley with thousands of tank cars annually of toxic and non-toxic chemicals, base materials and liquids just in case of the potential for a derailment?

All these things need to be kept in perspective. The additional tanker traffic due to TMX is minimal in the total picture and has been studied to death.


----------



## sags

There have been more recent spills, including this tug boat incident in 2016. 

It isn't the odd incident and spill that I think concerns people the most. 

It is the reticence of the companies to immediately come forward, clean up the mess, perform environmental studies on the impact and pay the full costs of remediation.

This First Nations group have been waiting 3 years and are forced to file a civil suit for damages.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...ill-2016-heiltsuk-nation-sentencing-1.5213264


----------



## Just a Guy

You realize a tug boat isn’t the same as a tanker. Sure the boat sank, but it wasn’t hauling oil, it was storing it’s own fuel. Heck, I bet your boat has leaked fuel when you spilled while filling up. 

If you’re going to report spills, why not try and be accurate at least...

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/...lls-environmental-emergencies/spill-incidents


----------



## sags

If a small tugboat has a problem navigating due to human error, (failure to effect a course correction and falling asleep) imagine what a ship the size of an oil tanker requires to navigate the area and the environmental damage a massive spill would cause.

The point is that regulations don't guarantee safety if they are ignored, which was demonstrated on both of the stories I linked to.

There is also Murphy's Law to consider........."whatever can go wrong will go wrong."

Accidents are likely going to happen, so the question becomes are there proper preparations to mitigate the damage.

Pleading not guilty to charges, accepting a plea bargain and a $3 million dollar fine and forcing the effected people to file a civil suit, doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the "system".

A question that could reasonably be asked is........with all the existing regulations why do these accidents continue to happen and how would they be prevented in the future ?

I would venture a guess that the companies simply consider it less expensive to pay the fines than implement the regulations, and that should change.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Just a Guy said:


> If you’re going to report spills, why not try and be accurate at least...]


Because factual accuracy destroys most of sags arguments.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> I would venture a guess that the companies simply consider it less expensive to pay the fines than implement the regulations, and that should change.


Your guess work is worthless and non factual. Even what you claim to be facts have been proven to be exaggerations or falsehoods.

Maybe you've been drinking too much toilet water...


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, 

Tankers are built to a completely different standard, travel at different speeds, travel different routes, etc. You are comparing apples and oranges. 

As I pointed out, you’ve probably contaminated the environment with your own boat for which you have no qualms.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy.........Just A Guy...........are you guys related ? Are you the famous Guy brothers from Cereal, Alberta ? I have been there. I had breakfast there once.


----------



## AltaRed

This is typical of those whose ideology doesn't allow them to be rational about a particular issue. It is really everything to do to try to make a point regardless of lack of situational similarities in operations. Why don't we just eliminate all marine traffic off all of our coasts? Why allow barges, ferries, cargo ships, and recreational boating at all? Why not just shut down all our ports, wharfs and docks? 

Sags, you can cherry pick all you wish to make a point, and you can argue until you are blue in the face. If you want 100% certainty, shut the world down entirely. We won't export or import anything.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Why do people who claim to care about the environment have pleasure craft and enjoy air travel? It's like being lectured about drinking by a raging alcoholic.


----------



## sags

Just a Guy said:


> Sags,
> 
> As I pointed out, you’ve probably contaminated the environment with your own boat for which you have no qualms.


No doubt......at different times but often together, we owned 3 boats (21 foot inboard, 16 foot aluminum runabout, and a 12 foot aluminum fishing boat), 2 ATVs, 2 boat trailers and a custom build utility trailer with a Conestoga wagon type of canvas cover, a 52 Ford truck, Honda 350cc..motorcycle, a Honda 50cc motorcycle, and 2 vehicles including a GMC Jimmy to pull all the dirty polluting fossil fuel burning stuff around.

Then one evening I was in the fishing boat dangling a fresh minnow into the water trying to attract the ever elusive walleye, when I heard a quiet but firm voice come down from the sky.

"Climate change", it said. "It is real and caused by humans. Go forth and spread the word" and so I sold everything and here I am.....going forth and spreading the word.

I used to be a denier, but I am all right now.


----------



## Just a Guy

Certainly been spreading stuff for years. Thanks for confirmation that you’re delusional as well, explains a lot.


----------



## sags

AltaRed said:


> This is typical of those whose ideology doesn't allow them to be rational about a particular issue. It is really everything to do to try to make a point regardless of lack of situational similarities in operations. Why don't we just eliminate all marine traffic off all of our coasts? Why allow barges, ferries, cargo ships, and recreational boating at all? Why not just shut down all our ports, wharfs and docks?
> 
> Sags, you can cherry pick all you wish to make a point, and you can argue until you are blue in the face. If you want 100% certainty, shut the world down entirely. We won't export or import anything.


Maybe because oil tankers carry a lot of oil and a major spill off the coast of BC could devastate the environment ? 

Would Canadians rather raise the risk factor by allowing more tankers or lower the risk factor by reducing the number of tankers.

The people with the most to lose have made their choice I think. The people in BC don't want more tankers.


----------



## AltaRed

Almost 60% of British Columbians support the TMX so your assertion is simply not true. It is only a select segment of the Lower Mainland, mostly Islanders, who don't understand the math. https://globalnews.ca/news/5400702/bc-trans-mountain-pipeline-poll-support/



> The poll, which surveyed 803 British Columbian adults between June 10 and 14, found support was in the majority in all regions of the province, including Metro Vancouver at 59 per cent, Vancouver Island at 60 per cent, and the Interior and northern B.C. at 63 per cent.


Large commercial tankers are sophisticated operations, nothing like amateur tugboat operators operating on a shoestring. Tankers have operated off the BC coast for many tens of decades importing oil to WA state refineries. Trans Mountain already exports crude by tanker and has since it began operations. The only thing changing is frequency, and for that there will be much better spill response.

If you are that concerned about oil tankers, why not shut down the Grand Banks oil production, and why not shut down the 3 refineries in Canada that still import oil to our shores?

The bottom line is TMX will get built and we will all go on with our lives with a better economy to show for it. It is just a matter of time.

Added: This graphic better shows the TM commitment https://www.transmountain.com/marin...5a8ziU2truKsoKu6-McxGN3jOiYsZN5ruu0ElIUX0Bx4I For reference, 2 of the WA State refineries are between Bellingham and the Canadian border and 2 on the coast west of Burlington, with a total processing capacity of more than 600kpd. They have plied these waters for many decades.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> No doubt......at different times but often together, we owned 3 boats (21 foot inboard, 16 foot aluminum runabout, and a 12 foot aluminum fishing boat), 2 ATVs, 2 boat trailers and a custom build utility trailer with a Conestoga wagon type of canvas cover, a 52 Ford truck, Honda 350cc..motorcycle, a Honda 50cc motorcycle, and 2 vehicles including a GMC Jimmy to pull all the dirty polluting fossil fuel burning stuff around.
> 
> Then one evening I was in the fishing boat dangling a fresh minnow into the water trying to attract the ever elusive walleye, when I heard a quiet but firm voice come down from the sky.
> 
> "Climate change", it said. "It is real and caused by humans. Go forth and spread the word" and so I sold everything and here I am.....going forth and spreading the word.
> 
> I used to be a denier, but I am all right now.


I made the choice not to own polluters such as those you listed 40 years ago. It didn't take a media campaign of lies about the climate to convince me not to pollute because I knew it was right all along.

You're still a denier of factual evidence that doesn't support the lies you've been fed. Myself and many other people saw through those lies very quickly and chose to embrace facts and science.


----------



## Prairie Guy

AltaRed said:


> Almost 60% of British Columbians support the TMX so your assertion is simply not true.


In addition to falling for media lies and propaganda sags also makes up things to support his/her flawed ideology. I think he's been drinking too much toilet water...


----------



## sags

In 2017, the NDP and Green Party ran an election campaign based on stopping the pipeline and they were elected.

The election results would question the accuracy of any poll that showed 60% of BC voters are in favor of pipelines.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> In 2017, the NDP and Green Party ran an election campaign based on stopping the pipeline and they were elected.
> 
> The election results would question the accuracy of any poll that showed 60% of BC voters are in favor of pipelines.



Actually, the Liberals won more seats (43) to the NDP (41) and Greens (3). The Liberals mostly defeated themselves due to 'pork' issues, and 16 continuous years in power, not necessarily the pipeline issue. 

Since then, some people have wised up to the anti-pipeline campaign funded largely by outsiders and the Liberals could be back in 2021. 

Added: Horgan has done some good things in his first two years (and some tax and spend nonsense), but time will tell.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Here James, this should make you feel good to know all those employable Alberta guys are moving onto social assistance rather than those obscenely high-paying carbon-laden jobs that contribute to the Cdn economy. I'm sure they're grateful for your continued income tax payment support though.

Number of Albertans on EI declines as those accessing social assistance increases.


----------



## AltaRed

Not that we have not known this for decades https://business.financialpost.com/...NYFL89WlDtypxXhxjqExfmUNOSrtQIPKwIR-3PnZe3-wU but simple minds and souls looking for a cause still buy into the exaggerations and misrepresentations.

Edit: My bad.... .That article is dated 2017. 

Added update: Racketeering charges were dismissed after Greenpeace retracted erroneous statements, but defamation and unfair competition charges against Greenpeace would remain https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...aims-dismissed-federal-court-resolute-forests Basically, Greenpeace is being challenged to become more factual (truthful) in its allegations and campaigns.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

In a Canadian court Greenpeace might leave with enhanced fundraising opportunities. In the US courts they might - hopefully - leave bankrupt.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Not that we have not known this for decades https://business.financialpost.com/...NYFL89WlDtypxXhxjqExfmUNOSrtQIPKwIR-3PnZe3-wU but simple minds and souls looking for a cause still buy into the exaggerations and misrepresentations.
> 
> Edit: My bad.... .That article is dated 2017.
> 
> Added update: Racketeering charges were dismissed after Greenpeace retracted erroneous statements, but defamation and unfair competition charges against Greenpeace would remain https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...aims-dismissed-federal-court-resolute-forests Basically, Greenpeace is being challenged to become more factual (truthful) in its allegations and campaigns.




this ^^ is an outrageous post, manipulating historical facts 180 degrees into fake news distortion in order to present an emotional opinion. It involves digging up an ancient dismissed lawsuit story from 2017 & presenting the dismissed charges in the lead paragraph, as if they are legitimate breaking news. Tch.

the fact is that Resolute Forest Products's original 2013 US lawsuit against Greenpeace & other environmental groups, which involved sensational racketeering charges under US SLAPP legislation, was dismissed by a california court in january 2019.

the california court found that Resolute's lawsuit was an attempt by the company to stifle legitimate criticism from Greenpeace.

https://business.financialpost.com/...-most-of-lawsuit-against-enviro-groups-in-u-s


a remnant of the original Resolute lawsuit against Greenpeace is still outstanding in ontario, where Resolute sued Greenpeace for $7,000,000 for defamation (in the above quoted post, altaRed states that Resolute is suing for defamaton plus "unfair competition;" however one has to wonder how tht can be the case since Greenpeace is not competing with any forest products company)

the ontario squabble involves whether Resolute did or did not conduct forest operations in a prohibited zone in northern ontario. Greenpeace says it did. Resolute says it did not. Resolute sued for defamation. Go figure.

a lawyer connected to the ontario case told Thunder Bay Newswatch in march 2019 that, given the slow pace of discovery & the fact that Resolute has not produced any evidence, it is not expected that Resolute's case will go to trial before 2020 or 2021, if at all. In other words, he implied that the case could be dropped.

https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-n...-lawsuit-against-greenpeace-continues-1319638


meanwhile, Greenpeace is now seeking $669,000 from Resolute to cover its legal costs in defending what it terms its legitimate criticism of the giant forest products company.

https://www.reuters.com/article/env...wes-it-669000-in-attorneys-fees-idUSL1N20I01K


----------



## humble_pie

since 2009 - it's only been a decade - a tiny number of giant forest product companies have constructed more than 50,000 km of new logging roads in northern quebec, in what was previously pristine boreal forest stretching from chibougamau to the arctic ocean shore of ungava.

it's a vast region, all old growth timber. The only inhabitants were cree & misstassini nations who lived by hunting, trapping & fishing. Occasionally the region would receive "white nation" visitors in the form of well-to-do fishermen - a majority of them american - who would be flown in by small chartered seaplane to outfitter camps where they'd stay for a week.

now that the logging roads are open & global warming is underway, adventure tourists in ATVs, motorcycles & snowmobiles are pouring into the region.

native life is being threatened almost to extinction. Game has fled the constant noise of the heavy vehicles - the parades of bulldozers, tractors, graders, trucks, vans, ATVs & motorcycles - & the noise of chain saws. Ancient trap lines have gone dead. Native spokespersons say that even the fish are disappearing from northern rivers & lakes.

southern canada has not yet woken up to this recent story. But parties in the know are concerned that public resources - the forest products companies are largely operating on crown lands - are being recklessly stripped & sold to US buyers.

in the last quebec election, an important issue was whether or not the government was colluding with giant forest products & mining companies to sell quebec's crown land resources to americans at dirt cheap prices.


postmedia's kevin dougherty recounts the Waswanipi nation's fight to prevent more logging roads on their ancestral territory. What's interesting is that dougherty is writing here for the arch conservative natPost, yet in this & sister stories published at the same time, dougherty talks about a logging crisis that is already destroying the northern quebec boreal forest.

https://montrealgazette.com/busines...n-quebec-make-last-stand-to-save-their-forest


free-lance joshua alexrod describes boreal forest destruction by logging roads:

http://medium.com/@joshua.e.axelrod...ec-s-boreal-forest-is-a-big-deal-9bee4d9d06ff


the journalists say that human intrusion into canada's northern boreal forest may be destroying the ancient carbon sink, largest in the world. Bigger than brazil's.


on the other side of the story, Resolute Forest denies that there is any crisis. On its website Resolute says that only 10% of canada's vast boreal forest has ever been logged out (i for one doubt the superficiality of that statistic) (Resolute must be including among its still-forested statistic zones that have been clear-cut & are awaiting natural re-growth back into productive forests a couple decades from now) (however, the habitat damage in any clear-cut zone has already been done)

still, Resolute's equally-giant predecessor companies have been logging in northern quebec & ontario for an entire century. The predecessors were bowater & consolidated bathhurst before they went under creditor protection, also about a decade ago. 

across a century, bowater, connie bath & abitibi must have learned a thing or two about environmental protection & sustainable forest management. I have no idea what lawyer persuaded them to attack Greenpeace with racketeering charges under US SLAPP rules; but whoever that lawyer was, he was hugely mistaken. The company promptly lost its case in a caliornia judgment & appears to be incapable of prosecuting a tag end that remains before ontario courts.

i don't own any forest products stock. Resolute's lacklustre history of near-bankruptcy does not inspire me. 

but if i were to become interested in this story i would want to dig deep into Resolute's conduct across northeastern canada in recent years & i'd be prepared to sniff out the good as well as the bad. Because a logging company that's been in business for a century or more has got to be smart about at least some things.


.


----------



## sags

I was reading that climate change caused droughts that lead to forest fires endangers northern communities, such as Fort McMurray.

One of the ideas towards future mitigation is to clear miles of the forest surrounding such communities to provide a firebreak.

That would appear to be an opportunity for logging companies as well as a cost free method of creating the firebreaks.


----------



## Just a Guy

Fort McMurray’s fires were the byproduct of decades of fire surpressing tactics, but keep making up facts there Sags you are quite the makeup artist.

Do you get your ideas from the voices you hear, or do you make all this up yourself? Inquiring minds would love to know.


----------



## humble_pie

i suppose they could - clear-cut around northern cities - but the lack of trees would increase heat in the urbs, no?

the northern boreal forest in quebec is not in that category. There are no towns, almost no settlements. It's old growth forest all the way to the arctic ocean. And there are mines up there, too. Along with sparse populations of indigenous persons who have lived & hunted there for perhaps 10,000 years.

the ultimate harvesting of the resources should be planned with the utmost care & the utmost public consultation imho. The logging companies have always had carte blanche to go in & timber out whatever they wanted. But now i believe journalists & interested parties need to show what's up there & how valuable it is.


----------



## AltaRed

Boreal forests always need renewal, either through wildfire or through clear cut logging. Otherwise habitat is lost in its entirety by making the forest floor devoid of vegetation. A very large portion (majority?) of the eastern slopes forests of the Rocky Mountains was lost to wildfire in the 1930s and I believe the same was true in the BC central and eastern interior. Men were conscripted to fight those fires in that era. All these forests renewed with great vigor, but alas is again becoming non-productive habitat for wildlife due to fire suppression efforts. Most people think of forests from an esthetics POV that should be sustained at all costs rather than renewing as a natural part of our environmental cycles. 

The Kelowna fire of 2003 is a great example of forest that had been decaying but as a result of the fire is vigorously renewing starting with grasses and fireweed, then shrubs and finally new coniferous forest that is springing back up from seeds released by the heat of the fire. A living example of getting rid of excessive fuels and renewal of habitat. Same with more recent local interface fires of Smith Creek, Goat's Peak and Glenrosa as one watches the renewal driving by on local roads. Money is now having to be spent to remove fuels on the floor of the urban-forest interface but irresponsible homeowners still either don't get it, or resist it. Perhaps their fire insurance policies should have a wildfire exclusion to get their attention.

The BC gov't, along with some assistance from local municipalities, is now slowly starting to gain traction on interface management. Whistler has been an example of a community that could be wiped out because of the excess of old trees and dense fuels on the forest floor and they have started a far-too-late, but better late-than-never effort. The message is: either prevent building in the interface in the first place, which is resisted by folks wanting to be in the interface, or manage the interface with tree and forest floor fuel removal. The real solution should be to not approve re-zoning and the issuing of building permits in the interface but municipalities don't have the backbone/will to necessarily do it. Many such maps here for BC https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/...ment/fire-fuel-management/wui-risk-class-maps

Forestry clear cutting and then re-forestation is a good thing even if the esthetics look poor for perhaps 10-15 years. The primary downside is access to logging roads built for the haul trucks on slopes. Effort is made to eliminate access once logging operations are complete, but with marginal success given the extent ATVers go to, to get on these trails. I've read recent materials where AB has been closing off motorized access to areas by law, but it's been hard to police (mostly reliant on complaints) and is resisted by the outdoor enthusiasts. There are no simple answers to forest resource management and I am glad I was never in that business (unloved by almost everyone on one side or the other).


----------



## sags

humble_pie said:


> i suppose they could - clear-cut around northern cities - but the lack of trees would increase heat in the urbs, no?
> 
> the northern boreal forest in quebec is not in that category. There are no towns, almost no settlements. It's old growth forest all the way to the arctic ocean. And there are mines up there, too. Along with sparse populations of indigenous persons who have lived & hunted there for perhaps 10,000 years.
> 
> the ultimate harvesting of the resources should be planned with the utmost care & the utmost public consultation imho. The logging companies have always had carte blanche to go in & timber out whatever they wanted. But now i believe journalists & interested parties need to show what's up there & how valuable it is.


Very astute observation Humble,

Canada's boreal forest is the 2nd largest carbon heat sink in the world. Brazil's rain forest is the only forest that captures more carbon.

Forests not only capture carbon but they release much of the oxygen that sustains the world. 

Does it make sense that we cut down boreal forest to dig up carbon producing fossil fuels ? I think not, and that we will come to regret it in the future.


----------



## sags

It was 50 years ago when Apollo 11 first touched down on the moon........July 20,1969.

The development of the NASA space program was an extraordinary example of scientific achievement, and offered humans their first looks at how the Earth appeared from space.

It was from those breathtaking views that we first observed the thin atmosphere that allowed life on earth to exist.

https://www.livescience.com/64825-why-earth-has-an-atmosphere.html

Since then NASA has gone forward with great scientific achievements and have given the world technology that would otherwise never have existed.

Today, it is the same scientific expertise that NASA uses to warn us that climate change is real, caused by humans, and presents a clear and present danger to mankind.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

And yet, there are those who would deny the science, deny the expertise, and deny the conclusions of such an able scientific organization.


----------



## AltaRed

Sags, I link some educational materials for you https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/publications/18740 I don't think near term use (over several decades, if not hundreds of years) of 0.2% of Canada's boreal forest is a crisis. 

To date, only 0.03% of the boreal forest has actually been disturbed by surface mining. The land will be reclaimed as operations move on. https://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/explore-topics/land-reclamation

It is a blip compared to actual de-forestation (permanent loss) of land by urban sprawl, where in BC alone thousands of hectares is lost each year. Permanent loss is a much larger crisis than temporary use.


----------



## sags

I think we should leave it up to NASA to decide.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Today, it is the same scientific expertise that NASA uses to warn us that climate change is real, caused by humans, and presents a clear and present danger to mankind.


The same NASA today that can't even send a human into space without writing a big check to the Russians?


----------



## Just a Guy

Hey, they can write a cheque to Elon soon.


----------



## sags

Huge heat wave across North America setting new records, and Europe is getting a second heat wave that is worse the one last month. Historical records are dropping every day and they say the heat is heading north and will melt the already record low amounts of Arctic ice.

The scientists were right. Climate change is here.


----------



## Prairie Guy

It's called weather sags...just like when it's cold and you won't call it an ice age.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Huge heat wave across North America setting new records, and Europe is getting a second heat wave that is worse the one last month. Historical records are dropping every day and they say the heat is heading north and will melt the already record low amounts of Arctic ice.
> 
> The scientists were right. Climate change is here.


Been very nice here soooooo .... nope, not seeing this climate change rumor you keep talking about.


----------



## cainvest

Prairie Guy said:


> It's called weather sags...just like when it's cold and you won't call it an ice age.


Actually with the temps we had this last Febuary I'd say the ice age rumor should be started up now!


----------



## cainvest

Maybe we need more CO2 in the atmosphere? That way when we run out of oil for gasoline we can use the CO2 to make fuel for our cars.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Huge heat wave across North America setting new records, and Europe is getting a second heat wave that is worse the one last month. Historical records are dropping every day and they say the heat is heading north and will melt the already record low amounts of Arctic ice.
> 
> The scientists were right. Climate change is here.


Yes, the scientists are right, climate changes, it's never been static.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> The scientists were right. Climate change is here.


Guess you’re saying their not right anymore...darn not understanding English... could really use a dictionary.


----------



## Prairie Guy

cainvest said:


> Actually with the temps we had this last Febuary I'd say the ice age rumor should be started up now!


Temps have dropped everywhere over the last couple years, but only the hot days are reported. And some people fall for it every time.

Should we mock them or feel sorry for them?


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Temps have dropped everywhere over the last couple years, but only the hot days are reported. And some people fall for it every time.
> 
> Should we mock them or feel sorry for them?


Evidence? The hottest years on record are all in the last few years.


----------



## AltaRed

To the extent these studies can rely on limited data, the evidence would tend to debunk regional vs global arguments. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-2000-years-1.5222258

I suspect there will be a lot of to'ing and fro'ing for decades to come as data and counter-data continue to keep the debate alive.


----------



## sags

I don't think there is much debate among scientists.


----------



## Just a Guy

You should just stop after three words, since you ignore anything presented to you which is contrary to that.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Evidence? The hottest years on record are all in the last few years.


That's because they keep "adjusting" the raw data. Record cold temps of the last few years have been adjusted upwards.


----------



## Just a Guy

Was watching Nova the other day, they were talking about how mars lost its atmosphere. It turns out the sun is still heating up, on its way to becoming a red dwarf. It will eventually do the same thing to the earth as it did to Mars. It all starts with climate change, which has, as it turns out, been happening since the birth of the earth...mostly caused by...the sun heating up. Guess we should tackle the sun’s heating up after we get that carbon tax in place.


----------



## sags

Temperatures in Paris have hit 108 Degrees Fahrenheit (42.6 C) which smashes all previous records.

Germany smashed records for the second day in a row. The heat is being felt all over Europe, Scandinavia and the Arctic.

There is a live update as the heat continues to rise. It is a dangerous situation for many people.

The effects of climate change are powerful.

https://edition.cnn.com/uk/live-news/heat-wave-europe-thursday-dle-intl/index.html


----------



## sags

Unprecedented wildfires spread across the Arctic. Over 100 fires are blazing due to the drought conditions caused by climate change.

Climate change is producing negative effects all over the globe.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/24/world/wildfires-arctic-climate-sci-intl/index.html


----------



## Just a Guy

You realize there are no trees above the arctic circle right? At most you can is a grass fire, and even that is pretty sparse. Not a lot of material to burn up there, but then again I bet you’ve never been. 

Again a dictionary definition of “arctic” may have been useful prior to your post.


----------



## AltaRed

To help Sags, there is the Arctic, defined as the treeline https://www.athropolis.com/map5.htm There are some places where there are trees above the Arctic Circle, but nothing in the Arctic by definition. I can attest to that by being there (Alaska, Cdn Arctic, Iceland and Norway), but not Greenland and Siberia... so have to take the source map's word for it, and pics I have seen about Greenland.

That all said, wildfire on the tundra can be devastating, taking away the lichen and grassy plants that provide grazing habitat for caribou/reindeer in particular, and habitat for small mammals and Arctic foxes. But that has always been the case when the snow leaves the Arctic and the tundra becomes dry (due to near desert conditions from a precipitation point of view). The argument can be made the other way. Increased temperatures brings air with more moisture content and more precipitation. Most non-Arctic folk don't understand the Arctic at all.


----------



## Just a Guy

Alaska and the Yukon are quite different from the Northwest Territories (and Nunavut) in landscape. I’ve been to both and had relatives live there.


----------



## AltaRed

Just a Guy said:


> Alaska and the Yukon are quite different from the Northwest Territories (and Nunavut) in landscape. I’ve been to both and had relatives live there.


Alaska and Yukon are different because of the proximity to the Gulf of Alaska. But the northern slopes on the east/north sides of the mountain ranges in both Alaska and Yukon are similar to entire Beaufort Sea coast line. I've spent more than enough time in both Prudhoe Bay and Inuvik, and up/down the Mackenzie Valley to have it hard wired into my psyche for a long time.


----------



## Just a Guy

It is different country that’s for sure. Really cool in its own way.

Still wouldn’t want to live there, especially in the winter.


----------



## sags

It is boreal forests that are burning in the Arctic.

_The fires have been most severe in Alaska and Siberia, though other high-latitude fires across northern Canada have also been noteworthy. One near High Level, Alberta, has scorched more than 350,000 hectares thus far -- about 3/5 the size of P.E.I. -- and is still considered out of control. The smoke plume from this fire and others in the area, shown below, extends all the way to Ontario._

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/c...orched-unprecedented-swaths-of-arctic-in-2019


----------



## AltaRed

None of those are in the Arctic Sags. There is no boreal forest in the Arctic by definition, although there is some boreal forest above the Arctic Circle and there are some fires north of the Arctic Circle. From your link


> Summer and wildfires have become increasingly synonymous for many parts of Canada, but this year's fire focus has shifted further north. 2019 has already seen an unprecedented number of fires north of the Arctic Circle, both in North America and Eurasia in the wake of what was, globally, the hottest June on record, and what will likely be the hottest July.


What part of Arctic (treeline) and Arctic Circle, do you NOT understand?

P.S. High Level is nowhere remotely close to he Arctic, nor even the Arctic Circle. There have always been wildfires in northern Alberta.

Added: For context, the Arctic Circle on this map https://akfireinfo.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/lightning-for-july-11-with-text-box.jpg approximately runs through Fort Yukon, AK. 66.56 degrees. Fairbanks is well south of the Arctic Circle at about 64.8 degrees. The treeline (Arctic) is a bit north of the Arctic Circle in both Alaska and Yukon for the reasons I mention in post #868.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> https://www.theweathernetwork.com/c...orched-unprecedented-swaths-of-arctic-in-2019
> 
> "_2019 has already seen an unprecedented number of fires north of the Arctic Circle, both in North America and Eurasia in the wake of what was, globally, *the hottest June on record*._


Coldest June 4 in 55 years recorded in Ottawa.

_"Tuesday marks *the coldest June 4 in Ottawa history.*

According to Environment Canada, the temperature recorded at the Ottawa Airport at 6:00 a.m. was 3.5°C.

That’s 0.4°C colder than the previous record low, set in 1964. The average low for this time of the year is closer to 11°C"._

Yep, it's fun to post all the records for the year at different parts of the country. Some higher, some lower, it's one year in 4.5 billion. Meaningless of course.

ltr


----------



## sags

Seems pretty clear to me.

The headline is *The Arctic is on fire in summer 2019*

_This year's high-latitude heat waves are part of the problem, along with dry conditions making much of the *boreal forest *more susceptible to lightning-sparked fires, according to CAMS. *In Siberia, for instance, where some of the worst fires are burning, high temperatures this summer have been running about 10 degrees above average.* The northernmost parts of Canada have also been shattering heat records. Alert, Nunavut, the most northern permanently inhabited region on the planet, set a new all-time temperature record when it hit 21ºC earlier this month._


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> The northernmost parts of Canada have also been shattering heat records. Alert, Nunavut, the most northern permanently inhabited region on the planet, set a new all-time temperature record when it hit 21ºC earlier this month.[/I]


Problem solved sags, Alert currently at 0ºc right now ... whew that was a close one!


----------



## AltaRed

Sags, you buy into any headline that serves your bias. All this stuff is written by copy writers that don't know definitions, probably have never seen the treeline and have never been to the Arctic. May actually not even know the difference between a tundra fire and a forest fire. It is a terribly written piece.

You really need to think for yourself, go to the appropriate websites such the actual Alaska wildfire site and get the facts. Reading copy headlines and believing them is a sure way to look amateurish


----------



## Just a Guy

I read an article the other day that read something like “Penguins ignore police warnings and continue to raid sushi bar”. Needless to say, had you read the article, police had no interaction with the penguins and they were nesting below the building with a sushi restaurant in it, not raiding anything. 

The headline had nothing to do with the truth, but it got people to read it, probably not the article though as Sags demonstrates.

By the way, that dictionary thing comes up again...”susceptible” does not mean burning, it means potential. Sort of like if you go outside, you’re susceptible to getting hit by a bus, not that you are on the way to the hospital.

Is English a second language for you?


----------



## nathan79

like_to_retire said:


> Coldest June 4 in 55 years recorded in Ottawa.
> 
> _"Tuesday marks *the coldest June 4 in Ottawa history.*
> 
> According to Environment Canada, the temperature recorded at the Ottawa Airport at 6:00 a.m. was 3.5°C.
> 
> That’s 0.4°C colder than the previous record low, set in 1964. The average low for this time of the year is closer to 11°C"._
> 
> Yep, it's fun to post all the records for the year at different parts of the country. Some higher, some lower, it's one year in 4.5 billion. Meaningless of course.
> 
> ltr


I don't see how the two scenarios are related in any way whatsoever. 

June 4th is a single day. There are 30 days in the month.

Furthermore, Ottawa makes up a minuscule fraction of the "global" temperature.


----------



## like_to_retire

nathan79 said:


> I don't see how the two scenarios are related in any way whatsoever.
> 
> June 4th is a single day.


So is _"Alert, Nunavut, the most northern permanently inhabited region on the planet, set a new all-time temperature record when it hit 21ºC earlier this month_.

ltr


----------



## nathan79

like_to_retire said:


> So is _"Alert, Nunavut, the most northern permanently inhabited region on the planet, set a new all-time temperature record when it hit 21ºC earlier this month_.
> 
> ltr


You weren't responding that post specifically.

Nonetheless.... I'd say there's a pretty big difference between a daily record and an all-time record.... there are 365 daily record lows (and an equal number of highs) throughout the year, but only one all-time record high.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Unprecedented wildfires spread across the Arctic. Over 100 fires are blazing due to the drought conditions caused by climate change.
> 
> Climate change is producing negative effects all over the globe.
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/24/world/wildfires-arctic-climate-sci-intl/index.html


Here's the most up-to-date fire situation for Canada along with YTD comparisons with the past:










The total area burned in 2019 is nothing out of the ordinary, and Canada's area burned has been pretty stable over time. Looking more specifically down to the provincial level, some provinces have burned a lot more than average, but others a lot less. Of course, the news headlines rarely focus on "unprecedented lack of wildfires spread across Saskatchewan, NWT or Quebec".

https://ciffc.net/en/ciffc/ext/public/sitrep/


----------



## james4beach

I think the existence of fossil fuel-based climate change / global warming is most loudly communicated by measurements in:


_Type of reading__Available data_sea levels (rising)140 yearsglobal average temperature140 yearsglobal temperature by proxy11,000 yearsatmospheric CO2 levels*800,000 years*

In addition, the big jump in CO2 levels aligns with the other increases. Speaking as an engineer and data analyst myself, this is the most compelling evidence I see. I have not seen any convincing data based on wildfires.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I think the existence of fossil fuel-based climate change / global warming is most loudly communicated by measurements in:
> 
> 
> _Type of reading__Available data_sea levels (rising)140 yearsglobal average temperature140 yearsglobal temperature by proxy11,000 yearsatmospheric CO2 levels*800,000 years*
> 
> In addition, the big jump in CO2 levels aligns with the other increases. Speaking as an engineer and data analyst myself, this is the most compelling evidence I see. I have not seen any convincing data based on wildfires.


What about methane?
Methane is rising very fast, it has a greater warming potential, but nobody is talking about that.
Maybe we should all go "beyond meat" and kill all the cows.

I'm not even sure what the issue is anymore.

There are a bunch of people wrapping themselves in "the environment" and using it as an excuse to hike taxes and admonish their political enemies.
We have a bunch of jet setting elites, and city dwellers attacking the infrastructure that makes their lifestyle possible. It's illogical and annoying.

Lets look at the problem and build a solution, Acid Rain, Ozone layer, we've been through this before. 
It's clear that the left just sees this as a lever to tax and control others. It has nothing to do with actually saving the planet.


----------



## like_to_retire

nathan79 said:


> Nonetheless.... I'd say there's a pretty big difference between a daily record and an all-time record.... there are 365 daily record lows (and an equal number of highs) throughout the year, but only one all-time record high.


Well nathan, I've just been getting tired of 'sags' posting his daily temperature records time after time, so I thought it would be fun to post one of my own, but since it was a cold day rather than a hot day you seem to take offense, and proceed to tell me how many days there are in a year. 

Here are some hot days reported by sags for you to enjoy.



sags said:


> Temperatures in Paris have hit 108 Degrees Fahrenheit (42.6 C) which smashes all previous records.





sags said:


> Germany smashed records for the second day in a row.





sags said:


> Alert, Nunavut, the most northern permanently inhabited region on the planet, set a new all-time temperature record when it hit 21ºC earlier this month.


And yet my cold day is somehow totally different.



like_to_retire said:


> Coldest June 4 in 55 years recorded in Ottawa.
> 
> "Tuesday marks the coldest June 4 in Ottawa history.



ltr


----------



## AltaRed

Good example LTR about the hypocrisy of it all. MrMatt has made a very good point. 

The climate file seems to have morphed from something that has less to do about the climate itself and more about angry *folk*, like the yellow vests, outraged about their place in society. Those behaviours contaminate the very things that should be rationally discussed and acted upon.

Edited: To calm thin skinned folk with a hair trigger


----------



## Just a Guy

According to the Nova episode, it was water vapour, the most common greenhouse gas on our planet, which led to the runaway feedback loop which destroyed mars, yet everyone focuses on co2.

As the temperature rises, more water evaporates, causing more greenhouse gasses (water in the atmosphere), which evaporates more water, causing more greenhouse effect, evaporating more water...nothing to do with CO2, and water is very common compared to CO2.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> ... angry leftists, like the yellow vests, outraged about their place in society.



in canada, the yellow vests are angry alt-rightists. In alberta, often mixed with the Sons of Odin. 

yellow vests & sons of odin were prominent in the convoy of alberta truckers who drove to ottawa to demonstrate on parliament hill in february this year. There they were addressed by conservative saskatchewan senator David Tkachuk, who infamously advised the truckers to "roll over every Liberal left in the country."

this was followed by an alberta yellow vest post in social media calling for the prime minister to be hung in public.

senator tkachuk was a stephen harper appointee. How much more angry right-wing conservative can one possibly get.

it's the angry right wingers who are stoking the atmosphere of outrage in this country. 

.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> in canada, the yellow vests are angry alt-rightists. In alberta, often mixed with the Sons of Odin.
> 
> yellow vests & sons of odin were prominent in the convoy of alberta truckers who drove to ottawa to demonstrate on parliament hill in february this year. There they were addressed by conservative saskatchewan senator David Tkachuk, who infamously advised the truckers to "roll over every Liberal left in the country."
> 
> this was followed by an alberta yellow vest post in social media calling for the prime minister to be hung in public.
> 
> senator tkachuk was a stephen harper appointee. How much more angry right-wing conservative can one possibly get.
> 
> it's the angry right wingers who are stoking the atmosphere of outrage in this country.
> 
> .


The far-right in America are having an ugly influence on Canada. This Fox News / Infowars-style of wackiness is shifting reasonable and well-meaning Canadian conservatives towards more extremes.

We have to be really cautious and RCMP and CSIS really have to monitor this. There has been political violence in other countries and I fear it's going to happen in Canada as well.

One UK member of parliament (Jo Cox) was murdered, and more recently a German politician was shot in the head while he was smoking on his terrace, killed. Both were pro-immigration and killed by anti-immigrant, neo-nazi nuts.

I fear there will be right wing political violence in Canada too, as those people at the rallies are _already_ basically warning it's coming. It's disgusting that Scheer has failed to denounce and put an end to this dangerous instability. Maxime Bernier seems to be encouraging it among his supporters. Very dangerous.

I would like to see Scheer and Bernier respect, and follow, Canadian norms and values instead contributing to stoking tensions, promoting anger and outrage.


----------



## AltaRed

Actually HP, the pro-pipeline convoy from Red Deer was 'contaminated' by those jumping on the bandwagon with a collection of thinly related and unrelated grievances https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...-convoy-overshadowed-by-link-to-yellow-vests/ It seems anyone with an axe to grind jumps on a cause and damages original intent, in what was intended to be a peaceful pro-pipeline convoy to Ottawa.

But yes, I recognize yellow vest movements can be far left OR far right, whatever seems to be the grievances of the moment.

Added: James, here you go again talking out of the side of your head. Is it not time to put some of your political hate/venom back in its box and have some objectivity?


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Added: James, here you go again talking out of the side of your head. Is it not time to put some of your political hate/venom back in its box and have some objectivity?


What are you blathering on about? Do you not see a problem with our right wing politicians stoking fear & anger? Maybe this is normal in your part of the country.

Political violence is a real danger and I want to see politicians endorsing cool heads, not feeding anger and tensions.


----------



## AltaRed

I saw a bunch of bullshite from Jason Kenney as part of his electioneering, much of which was appalling, but which has toned down in a major way since he has become premier. That is a positive turn of events.

I see an incompetent premier in Doug Ford. But what does that have to do with your rant about Scheer? You are just picking on him because you are ideologically wired elsewhere. Why tie Scheer and Bernier together in the same sentence since they are arch rivals/enemies? Can't you see Bernier has negligible following and is going nowhere?

I don't see any political leader, other than maybe Bernier, stoking anything at all. Either you cannot see it or you do not want to see it. A little objectively would go a long way. This thread really doesn't need to be about targeting grenades at political leaders, or even mentioning names.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Actually HP, the pro-pipeline convoy from Red Deer was 'contaminated' by those jumping on the bandwagon with a collection of thinly related and unrelated grievances https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...-convoy-overshadowed-by-link-to-yellow-vests/ It seems anyone with an axe to grind jumps on a cause and damages original intent, in what was intended to be a peaceful pro-pipeline convoy to Ottawa.




you are saying that conservative western senator David Tkachuk came out to address the entire convoy of alberta truckers & he told them to "roll over every Liberal in the country" - presumably until every Liberal was dead - but somehow he was only speaking to a few yellow vests & sons of odin who had tagged along?

that's not what i read. News reports at the time said the entire crowd of truckers ate it all up.

your own linked Globe article specifically states that the truck convoy was originally organized as a yellow vest event. Here's a direct quote:



> The organizer of the second event, Glen Carritt, launched what he originally described as a yellow-vest convoy. He has since renamed it to United We Roll and recently removed most mentions of the yellow vests from his website and a GoFundMe page. However, he said his group still identifies with the yellow vests.


news videos of the truckers last feburary showed angry, shouting, agitated, bellowing males plus a few women. Surprisingly, none of them were young. Most appeared to be in their 50s, 60s & 70s. None of them looked "peaceful."


----------



## AltaRed

Have you ever seen a 'yellow vest' group not angry, which in my mind is a different definition than 'peaceful'? France perhaps? Or? It seems to me demographics of a yellow vest group are related to the issue being protested. Just because you might sympathize with one type of protest over another? What about the peacefulness of the Burnaby bunch in which I recall a political leader got herself arrested? Or the DAPP bunch in the USA?

What does any of this have anything to do with post #882 where it seems this derailment from the subject at hand likely started? Must have been the phrase "angry leftists" that I used in post #884 I suppose. Had I said "angry rightists", there would have been silence from thin-skinned folk with a hair trigger. My regret is including the phrase at all since it had little relevance.


----------



## bgc_fan

accord1999 said:


> Here's the most up-to-date fire situation for Canada along with YTD comparisons with the past:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The total area burned in 2019 is nothing out of the ordinary, and Canada's area burned has been pretty stable over time. Looking more specifically down to the provincial level, some provinces have burned a lot more than average, but others a lot less. Of course, the news headlines rarely focus on "unprecedented lack of wildfires spread across Saskatchewan, NWT or Quebec".
> 
> https://ciffc.net/en/ciffc/ext/public/sitrep/


Are you sure? Because the way I'm reading your data, YTD this year has burnt close to the average total area for a whole year.


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> Are you sure? Because the way I'm reading your data, YTD this year has burnt close to the average total area for a whole year.



good spot. The tables are showing that, although we are only nearing the end of july, canada as a nation has already burned through nearly as many hectares as previous annual averages for an entire year.

particularly worrisome are alberta & ontario. The 2019 table shows that alberta has already burned roughly four times as many hectares as its historic annual average, while ontario has burned twice its annual average hectares.


----------



## accord1999

bgc_fan said:


> Are you sure? Because the way I'm reading your data, YTD this year has burnt close to the average total area for a whole year.


The averages are calculated for equivalent year-to-date. For example, the averages for the situation report from June 3 are much lower:

https://ciffc.net/en/ciffc/sitrep/2019-06-03

The 2019 fire season started off with very large fires in Alberta but Canada overall has now slowed down back to average levels. Data collected by the Natural Resources Canada also confirms this:










http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/report/graphs#gr6


----------



## AltaRed

A few large fires left to burn can account for a huge number of hectares consumed. Not necessarily a bad thing for the purposes of forest renewal. 

It wasn't that many years ago, perhaps 80?, that most western fires were left to burn out on their own (if no risk to property or human life). It was the commercial lumber industry (with valued timber stands) that primarily changed forestry management practices along with esthetic pressures from the public. Such practices have resulted in weak and/or diseased timber stands, outsized collection of dry fuels causing increased fire intensity, and loss of light to the forest floor for wildlife habitat. 

BC Sustainable Forest Management Practices still don't seem to recognize the value of 'letting certain forests burn'. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources Can't find any BC materials on that matter right now.


----------



## james4beach

When there were fires all around me in OR and CA states, I looked into this a bit and did not see any definitive link between recent fires and climate change. I believe some of the climate change experts were also saying this link is not fully understood.

Much more concerning right now are the European temperatures. A climate expert on the evening news commented that normally, max temperature records are broken by a fraction of a degree (e.g. 0.3 C higher than previous historical high). There's a big difference with the current heatwave -- it's *shattering* previous records. Paris exceeded their previous high by 2 full degrees. Just unbelievable! Unheard of.

The heat is now headed up north towards the Arctic, where it's projected to hit Greenland. It's feared this will dramatically speed up melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet.


----------



## AltaRed

The fear you speak of would manifest itself in sea level rise, although tiny amounts on an annual basis. We are still in an interglacial period so I imagine we should expect the Greenland ice sheet to almost, or completely, melt before the onset of the next ice age regardless of what we do.

The real issue is the rate of adaptation. Can humankind which seems so resistant to change adapt that quickly? We will have to adapt. The only question is rate.


----------



## james4beach

Yes, that's an important question. How will human populations adapt to all of this? It might be rough.

The rising sea levels aren't a distant problem. Already, populations are being displaced from coastal areas and even entire islands. Australia and New Zealand have "climate refugee" plans in place to accept displaced islanders from south pacific islands. And many giant cities are coastal.


----------



## sags

There are so many obvious effects from climate change that it is futile to debate single examples.

There will be far reaching consequences for humans polluting the atmosphere to the point where it changes the natural order of nature.

To believe we can ignore the problem is an example of the human swagger.


----------



## sags

A new poll in the UK has landed "climate change emergency" as the #1 issue placed on the desk of the new PM.

Who would have predicted that just a few years ago.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> A new poll in the UK has landed "climate change emergency" as the #1 issue placed on the desk of the new PM.
> 
> Who would have predicted that just a few years ago.


It might be helpful if you linked the poll results and the poll questions themselves. Your sound bites have no standing on their own.

Polls are useless without context and without asking the right questions. Almost everyone wants a fix to something as long as they don't have to pay for it or actually do something about it themselves.


----------



## Just a Guy

The uk...a country who’s poll brought you Brexit. Which they are now ignoring because have no clue how to deal with it because no one thought it through. Kind of like a solution to....climate change.

People who think a carbon tax is the solution to such a complex system are obviously clueless as to reality.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> A new poll in the UK has landed "climate change emergency" as the #1 issue placed on the desk of the new PM.
> 
> Who would have predicted that just a few years ago.


Care to provide a link that shows the poll question?
The closest I found was this, which was widely misreported by the media.
https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-con...ange_International_Aid_Tables_Q1_July2019.pdf
No reference to top priority at all.


The "unbiased" news sources, also published the most biased headline they could.

Climate more pressing than Brexit, say 71% of Britons – poll
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-pressing-than-brexit-say-71-of-britons-poll

The data doesn't say that, is says in the long term it will be more important.
"Pressing" means short term. 

They simply picked the biggest number and put it up front with a false statement, knowing that most people wouldn't bother to read further.
This is why a free and independant media is important.
Also I don't blame the write too much, most writers have to comply with the political agenda of their boss, and in science (poll data is scientific) many are quite simply unable to understand it, even assuming they had the time or interest in getting the facts right.

Now the big concern is that since I disagree with the mainstream media narrative, and I'm pointing out facts, like the actual question and responses of the survey. 
I'm a troll and should be shut down.
Disagree with me if you want, but I think it is important that the facts are free to come out.

Quite simply I disagree that there was a poll where 71% said that Climate change should be the #1 issue for the new PM.
His platform was Brexit, that's his top priority.


----------



## Just a Guy

Here’s the penguin article I mentioned before....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9514378/penguins-raid-sushi-bar-new-zealand/

“PLAYING IT COOL Two mischievous tiny penguins ‘ignore police advice’ to raid sushi bar twice in one day”

Headlines and story don’t match in the slightest...but then sags never gets past the headlines.

To make it worse, many other news outlets picked up the story and kept the headline...so it’s obviously true that police now routinely profile penguins, I’m sure their be some sort of species lawsuit coming as it’s species profiling...


----------



## sags

I doubt the media has changed much since the short time ago they were reporting climate change well down the list of voter priorities.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Here is the link to the survey sags mentioned.
As usual, the numbers you choose to emphasize depend on the conclusions you or your newspaper headline want to make:
https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-con...ange_International_Aid_Tables_Q1_July2019.pdf


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I doubt the media has changed much since the short time ago they were reporting climate change well down the list of voter priorities.


I'm not saying the media has changed, it's just become increasingly apparent they're.
1. Pushing an agenda.
2. Often wrong/incompetent/purposefully misleading.

Again, please publish your reference for climate change being the #1 priority for the new PM.
Or are you just trolling?


----------



## sags

I posted awhile ago that excessive heat due to climate change would alter the course of nature, and cited grasshoppers as an example of a changed life cycle.

Check the news today from Las Vegas...........an invasion of grasshoppers.


----------



## AltaRed

Excellent work MrMatt in post #904 doing what Sags should have done in the first place. The Guardian piece is a classic example of a writer (likely not even a competent journalist) with a fervent personal agenda writing, in essence, an opinion piece with sensationalism. The writer even changed the wording from 'a top priority' to 'the top priority' which clearly are 2 different things. She even decides to use the words 'climate emergency' when the poll said nothing of the kind. Can't say much about the Guardian's standing. It should have at least called it an Opinion piece like the NYT does. A good reason why I read the NYT over a host of other papers.

Sags, it would be nice if you would start to do the homework on fact finding to back the sound bites you keep throwing at the wall. I, perhaps surprisingly to you, would have no issue with you taking a position on a variety of subjects that are different from mine. I could learn something and maybe even modify/change my opinion, but your sound bites need to be supported with genuine material backed up with fact finding. Until then, your posts have zero credibility, at least with me.


----------



## AltaRed

Sags, grasshopper plagues have been around since biblical times. They were prevalent in the 1930s https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/pests_02.html and earlier http://www.mnopedia.org/event/grasshopper-plagues-1873-1877 and https://news.prairiepublic.org/post/plague-grasshoppers and https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/environment/the-flight-of-the-locust

There is nothing unique about grasshopper plagues anywhere. These are simply 'events' occurring over centuries. Not even worth a mention.


----------



## sags

When people dismiss the consensus of thousands of scientists and dozens of scientific organizations including the top ranked in the world, they aren't interested in hearing the truth.

Climate deniers need to tune up their opposition. Calling everything a conspiracy isn't working and they are losing popular support.


----------



## sags

AltaRed said:


> Sags, grasshopper plagues have been around since biblical times. They were prevalent in the 1930s https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/pests_02.html and earlier http://www.mnopedia.org/event/grasshopper-plagues-1873-1877 and https://news.prairiepublic.org/post/plague-grasshoppers and https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/environment/the-flight-of-the-locust
> 
> There is nothing unique about grasshopper plagues anywhere. These are simply 'events' occurring over centuries. Not even worth a mention.


You need to study the cause of locust plagues, as it relates to their reproductive cycle.....which is influenced by climate change.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944887/


----------



## sags

Climate change skeptics like to point to the past in an attempt to prove the events of today aren't different. The evidence is clear that is a false narrative.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science...nnery-climate-change-very-big-and-fast-moving

_Tim Flannery, chief councillor of Climate Council Australia, has warned about the pace of climate change.

He told Hardtalk's Shaun Ley:* "We are seeing a change of such a large scale it is hard to find an analogy to it in the previous fossil record and of such speed - it's happening 30 times faster than the melting of the ice at the last Ice Age."
*
"If we are crossing the road and you are getting a boy on a bicycle coming towards you slowly it is not a big deal, we can get around it. If you have got a huge semi [trailer truck] coming towards you at 100mph you know you had better get out of the way...

"And the sceptics, quite frankly, they need to stop threatening my children, they need to get out of the way so we can get some solutions in place," he added._


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Climate change skeptics like to point to the past in an attempt to prove the events of today aren't different. The evidence is clear that is a false narrative.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science...nnery-climate-change-very-big-and-fast-moving
> 
> _Tim Flannery, chief councillor of Climate Council Australia, has warned about the pace of climate change.
> 
> He told Hardtalk's Shaun Ley:* "We are seeing a change of such a large scale it is hard to find an analogy to it in the previous fossil record and of such speed - it's happening 30 times faster than the melting of the ice at the last Ice Age."
> *
> "If we are crossing the road and you are getting a boy on a bicycle coming towards you slowly it is not a big deal, we can get around it. If you have got a huge semi [trailer truck] coming towards you at 100mph you know you had better get out of the way...
> 
> "And the sceptics, quite frankly, they need to stop threatening my children, they need to get out of the way so we can get some solutions in place," he added._


Are you going to support your previous statement on the #1 priority of climate change? Or were you just trolling?

Tim Flannery, chief councillor of Climate Council Australia, has warned about the pace of climate change.
"The Climate Council is Australia’s leading climate change communications organisation. "
His organization is pushing the climate change narrative. So of course he's going to say inflamatory stuff, being balanced and objective is the antithesis of his job.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> You need to study the cause of locust plagues, as it relates to their reproductive cycle.....which is influenced by climate change.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944887/


There is nothing new there that we don't know already. We all know that grasshopper plagues are correlated to hot and dry conditions that come and go over time. That is exactly what happened in the dry and hot 1930s, which by the way, is when the forests burned across North America, and crops failed due to lack of water AND grasshopper/locust plagues, and hundreds of millions of tons of topsoil blew away due to poor (unknown at that point) soil management by farmers. I would have thought you would read that history and understood those correlations? We didn't need another paper to prove what is already known for 100 years or so, but fair enough, folks gathered more data and it will be both properly used, and improperly abused in the future. 

The association in that link with climate change is just an extrapolation that hot and dry conditions are caused by ongoing climate change. They probably are, but they actually occur randomly in different locations in different years due to weather patterns. They may well become more prevalent with ongoing climate change.

The Front Range of Colorado has the same conditions as the eastern slopes of the Rockies in Wyoming, Montana and Alberta, i.e. the winds that come down, compress, heat up and become very dry (Chinook winds). I grew up on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains so am quite familiar with grasshoppers being associated with dry years and at various elevations.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> There is nothing new there that we don't know already.......
> The association in that link with climate change is just an extrapolation that hot and dry conditions are caused by ongoing climate change. They probably are, but they actually occur randomly in different locations in different years due to weather patterns.


Yeah, heat waves have been occurring since the beginning of time. It doesn't take two seconds of research to throw water on the panic around the latest heat wave in Europe.

In fact, the drought in the dust bowl that you site was actually proceeded by a record cold wave.

*The 1936 North American heat wave* was one of the most severe heat waves in the modern history of North America. It took place in the middle of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl of the 1930s and caused catastrophic human suffering and an enormous economic toll. The death toll exceeded 5,000, and huge numbers of crops were destroyed by the heat and lack of moisture. Many state and city record high temperatures set during the 1936 heat wave stood until the summer 2012 North American heat wave.[2][3] The 1936 heat wave followed one of the coldest winters on record. 

*The 1936 North American cold wave* ranks among the most intense cold waves in the recorded history of North America. The Midwestern United States and the Canadian Prairies were hit the hardest. Only the Southwestern United States and California largely escaped its effects.
February 1936 was the coldest February on record in the contiguous U.S., narrowly eclipsing February 1899.[1] It also was the coldest month ever in Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
The meteorological winter (December through February) of 1935/36 was the coldest on record for Iowa,[2] Minnesota,[3] North Dakota,[4] and South Dakota.[5] This winter was much colder than the immediately preceding winters.


Back as far as they've kept records there have been record heat waves.
But somehow it's different now, because we've found someone to blame.
Now it's all about man made global warming and climate change. 
It's now a climate crisis to base elections on, and destroy country's economic systems. 
Run for your lives. It's a climate emergency...............

Here's just a partial list of heat waves from wiki:


*1901* – The 1901 eastern United States heat wave killed 9,500 in the Eastern United States.
*1906* – During the 1906 United Kingdom heat wave which began in August and lasted into September broke numerous records. On the 2nd temperatures reached 36 °C (97 °F) which still holds the September record however some places beat their local record during September 1911 and September 2016.
*1911* – The 1911 United Kingdom heat wave was one of the most severe periods of heat to hit the country with temperatures around 36 °C (97 °F). The heat began in early July and didn't let up until mid September where even in September temperatures were still up to 33 °C (91 °F). It took 79 years for temperature higher to be recorded in the United Kingdom during 1990 United Kingdom heat wave.
*1911* - The 1911 Eastern North America heat wave killed between 380 and 2,000 people.
*1913* – In July, a heat wave struck California. During this heat wave, Death Valley recorded a record high temperature of 57 °C (134 °F) at Furnace Creek, which still remains the highest ambient air temperature recorded on Earth.[1][2]
*1923–1924* – During a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, the Western Australian town of Marble Bar reached 38 °C (100 °F).[3]
*1936* – The 1936 North American heat wave during the Dust Bowl, followed one of the coldest winters on record—the 1936 North American cold wave. Massive heat waves across North America were persistent in the 1930s, many mid-Atlantic/Ohio valley states recorded their highest temperatures during July 1934. The longest continuous string of 38 °C (100 °F) or higher temperatures was reached for 101 days in Yuma, Arizona during 1937 and the highest temperatures ever reached in Canada were recorded in two locations in Saskatchewan in July 1937.
*1950*s – A prolonged severe drought and heat wave occurred in the early 1950s throughout the central and southern United States. In some areas it was drier than during the Dust Bowl and the heat wave in most areas was within the top five on record. The heat was particularly severe in 1954 with 22 days of temperatures exceeding 38 °C (100 °F) covering significant parts of eleven states. On 14 July, the thermometer reached 47 °C (117 °F) at East St. Louis, Illinois, which remains the record highest temperature for that state.[4][5][6]
*1955* – The 1955 United Kingdom heat wave was a period of hot weather that was accompanied by drought. In some places it was the worst drought on record, more severe than 1976 and 1995.
*1960* – On January 2, Oodnadatta, South Australia hit 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) degrees, the highest temperature ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere and Oceania.
*1972* – The heat waves of 1972 in New York and Northeastern United States were significant. Almost 900 people died; the heat conditions lasted almost 16 days, aggravated by very high humidity levels.
*1976* – The 1976 United Kingdom heat wave was one of the hottest in living memory and was marked by constant blue skies from May until September when dramatic thunderstorms signaled the heat wave's end.
*1980* – An estimated 1,000 people died in the 1980 United States heat wave and drought, which impacted the central and eastern United States. Temperatures were highest in the southern plains. From June through September, temperatures remained above 32 °C (90 °F) all but two days in Kansas City, Missouri. The Dallas/Fort Worth area experienced 42 consecutive days with high temperatures above 38 °C (100 °F), with temperatures reaching 47 °C (117 °F) at Wichita Falls, Texas on 28 June. Economic losses were $20 billion (1980 dollars).[7]
*1983* – During the Summer of 1983 temperatures over 38 °C (100 °F) were common across Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Nebraska, and certain parts of Kentucky; the summer of 1983 remains one of the hottest summers ever recorded in many of the states affected. The hundred-degree readings were accompanied by very dry conditions associated with drought affecting the Corn Belt States and Upper Midwest.

ltr


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Climate change skeptics like to point to the past in an attempt to prove the events of today aren't different. The evidence is clear that is a false narrative.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science...nnery-climate-change-very-big-and-fast-moving
> 
> _Tim Flannery, chief councillor of Climate Council Australia, has warned about the pace of climate change._


_
Tim Flannery is famous for making terrible predictions:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...y/news-story/c5837775b57d24ee731f9e67b8b7a017_


----------



## james4beach

I think the focus on a single "hot" or "cold" summer is missing the important point. The global average warming trend is seen over much larger time frames, both 140 years of direct measurements and over 10,000 years in indirect measurements by proxy indicators.

The deniers like to bring up examples of hot/cold seasons from past history. These are all just noise on a trend line, but the trend direction (hundred, or thousand year scale) is very clear and not in dispute.

Temperatures are trending up, as are ocean levels, and CO2 levels. And the temperatures started _really_ increasing when CO2 jumped higher, which coincided with the fossil fuel based economy. The picture is actually very straightforward.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> When people dismiss the consensus of thousands of scientists and dozens of scientific organizations including the top ranked in the world, they aren't interested in hearing the truth.
> 
> Climate deniers need to tune up their opposition. Calling everything a conspiracy isn't working and they are losing popular support.


Firstly, I will ignore the hyperbole about thousands of scientists and dozens of scientific organizations in my response because I don't think you actually took the time to add them all up. That is my opinion rather than a statement of fact.

It is my further opinion that very few people are actually climate change deniers, some Trumpites and certain industries like coal excepted. Most people accept climate change is happening but they rightfully disagree on how much is natural as part of us being in an interglacial period and how much is man made, albeit I will suggest the majority of it is manmade. So using labels like 'climate denier' and 'climate emergency' is simply lame and hyperbole in itself. They are used by talking heads, ignorant journalists/writers and those with conflicts of interest. Most of us are tone deaf to such exaggeration, period.

What people need to hear are some practical and pragmatic ways to reduce our personal carbon footprints in an economic way, and develop policy and regulations to truly mitigate effects. The real truth of the matter, to the despair of those bought in hook, line and sinker to the Kool-aid, is the world's nations are simply NOT going to cooperate with each other on carbon reduction simply because there is way too much GDP and economic well being at stake within individual nations. Some will be going there more than others simply because those will be the economic and strategic choices to be made anyway, e.g. the UK which will run out domestically produced oil and gas in the not too distant future and must re-think its energy policy to avoid being held hostage by others (Middle East, Russia). 

So fundamentally, the earth is going to continue to warm up 2-3-4-5 degrees regardless of what anyone wishes to believe. It may happen a little slower, or a little faster, but it will happen. What countries need to be doing is taking the rudimentary findings of the IPCC and figuring out what needs to be done internally to adapt to the changes that are coming inevitably. I see almost nothing being done in most places, and especially Canada, to start the process of adaptation. How about no more development permits for structures on the oceanfront? How about more/better dams for crop irrigation? How about more research at the Morden centre for heat/drought resistant crops? How about legislating out new lawns and require xeriscaping? How about new and better insulation standards to reduce energy consumption? There are dozens of things that could be done to help in the adaptation of the inevitable.

As soon as governments and scientific organizations recognize the world is not going to cooperate much in the way of slowing continued global temperature increases, the more they should be turning their attention to adaptation measures. It really should be that simple.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I think the focus on a single "hot" or "cold" summer is missing the important point. The global average warming trend is seen over much larger time frames, both 140 years of direct measurements and over 10,000 years in indirect measurements by proxy indicators.
> 
> The deniers like to bring up examples of hot/cold seasons from past history. These are all just noise on a trend line, but the trend direction (hundred, or thousand year scale) is very clear and not in dispute.
> 
> Temperatures are trending up, as are ocean levels, and CO2 levels. And the temperatures started _really_ increasing when CO2 jumped higher, which coincided with the fossil fuel based economy. The picture is actually very straightforward.


Yes it is.
But the climate change alarmists are engaging in massive exaggerations or outright lies.
Also while many mainstream people on both sides want to take reasonable action, a lot of people (ie the Liberal Party in Canada and the Democrats in the US) are just using it as an excuse to push their authoritarian socialist agenda.
Nothing makes this more clear than crazy documents like the Green New Deal.


----------



## james4beach

I don't know what the Green New Deal is, but I think the Canadian system on carbon pricing and taxing is a very good idea.

We're doing the right thing. Sure it's not perfect, but it's an excellent start and whenever you are a trailblazer in a new era, there are lots of things to critique and there will have to be improvements. But I fully support carbon pricing in Canada and I like what the Liberal party has done. Great initiative, great leadership on an important matter.

Remember that even billionaires endorse carbon pricing measures, and Preston Manning supports it too. This is not a "conservative" issue or something that rich people oppose... the people opposing it are the oil & gas industry. And not even the entire industry (e.g. Shell and BP endorses carbon pricing). It's specifically the old fashioned Canadian energy industry who's fighting it.


----------



## bgc_fan

accord1999 said:


> The averages are calculated for equivalent year-to-date. For example, the averages for the situation report from June 3 are much lower:


It's a little unusual to calculate for equivalent year-to-date as averages, but seems to be the case based on the total yearly.

One thing, you did notice that your original graph did have 2x the area burnt in 2019 vs 2018 (1,637,967 vs 724,426).

From the same source, they have a graph of the yearly area to compare, and there are peaks and valleys: https://ciffc.net/en/ext/hectares-by-year, this year is trending towards being higher than average. 
There are a number of ways to interpret any sort of trend, for one, there are a large number of peaks that really skew the averages. You can break it down by decade, and use a cutoff of 1,2, or 3M HA burned and count years that exceed that threshold. Under that interpretation, it would appear that 2010+ would have the greatest number of years greater than those cutoffs.


----------



## AltaRed

If you think so James, then you obviously don't understand how the BC NDP are now siphoning off carbon taxes into their General Revenues. Other than a few EV vehicle stations, none of it seems to going into funding the adaptations BC needs to make to stay abreast of increasing temperatures. There is no leadership if the funds are merely moved from one pocket to another in some sleight of hand movement. If nothing else, spend all that money improving our transportation systems and improving our electrical infrastructure, and energy storage systems.


----------



## kcowan

While BC seems to have lost its way on effective use of carbon tax revenues, the Trudeau Liberals have yet to find their way. Nothing they are promoting makes much sense to me as effective mitigation activities. And their continual pandering to Quebec will not engender much endearment in the rest of Canada. But then we should have expected that!


----------



## andrewf

^ Not sure I agree. While my first choice would be to use carbon tax revenues to reduce other taxation (eliminating more harmful taxes), I think political reality dictates that a 'carbon dividend' approach of refunding carbon tax revenues to consumers (and businesses) on a per capita basis to be defended.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> ^ Not sure I agree. While my first choice would be to use carbon tax revenues to reduce other taxation (eliminating more harmful taxes), I think political reality dictates that a 'carbon dividend' approach of refunding carbon tax revenues to consumers (and businesses) on a per capita basis to be defended.


On the surface, perhaps, but this program is likely costing millions to administer so that JT takes it from my right pocket and puts it in my left pocket. For the most part, carbon taxes are not going to make material changes in carbon consumption habits. It hasn't done so in 10 years of carbon taxes in BC depending on the arguments one wants to pursue and the primary causes of the small fuel usage declines. It'd suggest it is actually the SkyTrain surtax and the presence of the Sky Train that is making the difference in Vancouver. More fuel efficient vehicles is another simply from changes in CAFE regulations and the cycling out the big gas guzzlers from 15-20 years ago. It is not at all apparent in anything else. IOW, consumers have not really changed their habits. Just another tax grab.

Added much later: This piece https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2019/true-measure-bcs-carbon-tax/ can't tell anyone how energy efficiency was increased. Probably a bit of everything I have mentioned plus building efficiencies such as high efficiency furnace and hot water replacements, institutional solar panels, etc. There is just no way of knowing the size of the contributions but vested interests can manipulate the data (both ways) as they wish.


----------



## sags

Actually there is more being done by BC, and other levels of government and industry.

The CBC series ran a story on how shipping tankers are adopting a hybrid propulsion system that uses both diesel engines and battery power. Sail power is also being researched.

Shipping companies are building new ships as hybrids because they recognize fossil fuels will soon be the "old technology".

They also reported on how the government is paying tankers to slow their speeds below 10 knots to avoid killing the resident whale population living in the shipping lanes, which also lowers emissions.

Private industry, like vehicle makers are focusing more on alternative fuel driven vehicles. They too are looking to the future without oil.

Unfortunately, some ships still travel at twice the recommended speed and some industries will continue to emit pollution up their smokestacks, so governments have to pass legislation to force them to stop.

I think carbon taxes on polluters punishes companies that refuse to adopt cleaner practices by decreasing their competitiveness with "clean" companies in their business sector.


----------



## AltaRed

I do understand some local BC coastal shipping and ferries are now starting in 2020 to use hybrid propulsion systems. They plug into power while docked and loading/unloading. Most of these are very short haul operations of maybe 30 minutes or less. Not many installations yet since it requires rotating out older vessels over time, but it is a start.

To my knowledge, none of these are carbon tax funded. They are either private or crown corps such as BC Ferries.


----------



## sags

There is more to the story on how the mid US states escaped the ravages of the "dust bowl" and developed into an agricultural "bread basket". 

The discovery of a huge underground acquifer allowed the introduction of water irrigation into the region, which combined with better farming practices created the needed soil composition.

That acquifer is draining away as water is used faster than nature is replenishing it. Drought caused by climate change is one reason and increased use of the water is another.

The Ogalla Aquifer is less than half full and getting lower every year. When the water is used up the land will return to dust bowl conditions.

All over the world climate change is presenting greater challenges to the way food is grown and harvested from the land and sea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer


----------



## AltaRed

The point I was making is the 1930s were a hot and dry weather/climate pattern of several years covering much of the continent. Hot and dry conditions are not exclusive to this century. They, and grasshopper infestations, have occurred for thousands of years in a number of regions around the globe. Can't tie them to any pattern of climate change.

The use of aquifers in the US has nothing to do with hot and dry patterns. The upper US states and AB and SK have primarily used river irrigation for decades simply due to availability, cost and renewability. Again nothing to do with 1930s dust bowl years. Much of the land was turned back to dry land ranching rather than irrigated crops and more of that will be done.

Added: The dust bowl of the 1930s was a climatic event https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040319072053.htm and climatic events, e.g. drought and famine around the world, occur randomly depending on a wide variety of conditions, mostly due to oceanic conditions.


----------



## sags

I may be mistaken but I believe the opposition of some US States to the Keystone Pipeline was because the route went over the acquifer.

Since the farmers and residents weren't particularly benefiting financially from the Keystone, the risk/reward calculation was to oppose the pipeline.


----------



## AltaRed

What does that have to do with anything? Thousands of miles of pipeline cross aquifers all over the continental USA? https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquifer/map.html 

It is about NIMBYism more than anything to do with aquifers.


----------



## accord1999

bgc_fan said:


> It's a little unusual to calculate for equivalent year-to-date as averages, but seems to be the case based on the total yearly.
> 
> One thing, you did notice that your original graph did have 2x the area burnt in 2019 vs 2018 (1,637,967 vs 724,426).


Yeah, but as you notice in the historical area graph, 2018 ended with over 2M hectares burned as the big 2018 BC fires haven't yet begun to impact the numbers yet. Will we see a repeat, who knows?



> There are a number of ways to interpret any sort of trend, for one, there are a large number of peaks that really skew the averages. You can break it down by decade, and use a cutoff of 1,2, or 3M HA burned and count years that exceed that threshold. Under that interpretation, it would appear that 2010+ would have the greatest number of years greater than those cutoffs.


On the other hand, the three biggest fire seasons all occurred before 2000. In a short and highly variable data set, the human mind can find patterns that may exist or may simply be random.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> I do understand some local BC coastal shipping and ferries are now starting in 2020 to use hybrid propulsion systems ...
> 
> To my knowledge, none of these are carbon tax funded. They are either private or crown corps such as BC Ferries.




but BC ferries are indeed partially carbon tax funded

you've just finished complaining upthread how BC's NDP gummint is funnelling carbon tax revenues into general operations - including funding crown corps such as BC Ferries - instead of refunding BC taxpayers


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> but BC ferries are indeed partially carbon tax funded


I see no evidence of BC Ferries being partially carbon tax funded? Your source? BC Ferries is a stand alone crown corporation that has to fund its own operations and capital programs, and actually pays a dividend on its preferred shares to its sole shareholder, the provincial government. Its debt is not even guaranteed by the provincial government nor is it on government books. https://www.bcferries.com/files/AboutBCF/AR/bcfs_annualreport_2018-2019.pdf If anything, the government is interfering in BC Ferries operations and ability to fund itself https://vancouversun.com/news/polit...-is-sinking-the-profit-margins-at-b-c-ferries

As an aside on BC's carbon tax investment performance, https://www.policynote.ca/goin-slow...ake-meaningful-investments-in-climate-action/ suggests a poor record of carbon tax funding projects. PolicyNote is a left leaning associated with CCPA by the way.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I don't know what the Green New Deal is, but I think the Canadian system on carbon pricing and taxing is a very good idea.
> 
> We're doing the right thing. Sure it's not perfect, but it's an excellent start and whenever you are a trailblazer in a new era, there are lots of things to critique and there will have to be improvements. But I fully support carbon pricing in Canada and I like what the Liberal party has done. Great initiative, great leadership on an important matter.
> 
> Remember that even billionaires endorse carbon pricing measures, and Preston Manning supports it too. This is not a "conservative" issue or something that rich people oppose... the people opposing it are the oil & gas industry. And not even the entire industry (e.g. Shell and BP endorses carbon pricing). It's specifically the old fashioned Canadian energy industry who's fighting it.


I don't support the current CO2 pricing plan for the following reasons.
1. It isn't being implemented equally across the country. It isn't fair that some provinces pay lower taxes for the same behaviour.

2. It's another tax hike, they should use it to displace other taxes and lower our overall tax burden. Supporters propose a revenue neutral option, which this isn't.

3. It's being spun as a divisive political sin tax, which might be good politics, but it's bad leadership for the country.

Preston Manning is a smart guy, but his support for it is conditional on basically the same concerns I have.

An unfair, divisive, tax hike isn't the way forward. It's insane that anyone thinks this is good policy. How much weed are you smoking?


----------



## andrewf

Carbon taxes work, it's just a matter of level. And while carbon emissions may not be too sensitive to price in the short run, over medium/longer term they are. Investment decisions take into account energy costs.


I take a pretty dim view of throwing money at projects because of notional emissions reductions. That isn't a good way to allocate infrastructure investment. Not a big fan of subsidies, either, though I think subsidies have been helpful in getting the electric vehicle industry off the ground (probably close to the point where they are not needed any longer).


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> 3. It's being spun as a divisive political sin tax, which might be good politics, but it's bad leadership for the country. . . . It's insane that anyone thinks this is good policy. How much weed are you smoking?


It's being spun as divisive _by Conservatives_, people with political and corporate agendas who are deliberately making it divisive and trying to promote outrage. Ford for example has tried to promote anger and divisiveness with his gas station sticker issue.

The Liberals who brought in the tax did not design it to be divisive. They even created offsetting credits in provinces which failed to adopt the national guideline, so that residents in those provinces are not penalized for the irresponsible actions by the provincial government.

The policy itself is a good one. The reaction by the Conservative party is the problem and you should be placing the blame on them for stirring up outrage. It's the Conservatives at both the provincial and federal level which are trying to exploit anger to serve their political and corporate agendas. It's a sad display of emotion-based populism from a party which is designed to serve the interests of the wealthy elite, but which tries to spin it to help the "common man" who has to gas up his truck.

I'm not falling for it. I know that the carbon tax is the correct kind of disincentive required to discourage behaviours that harm our country. I'm disgusted with the provincial leaders, including the head of my own province, for standing in the way of it instead of getting on board with a good, nationally uniform implementation.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> It's being spun as divisive _by Conservatives_, people with political and corporate agendas who are deliberately making it divisive and trying to promote outrage. Ford for example has tried to promote anger and divisiveness with his gas station sticker issue.
> 
> The Liberals who brought in the tax did not design it to be divisive. They even created offsetting credits in provinces which failed to adopt the national guideline, so that residents in those provinces are not penalized for the irresponsible actions by the provincial government.
> 
> The policy itself is a good one. The reaction by the Conservative party is the problem and you should be placing the blame on them for stirring up outrage.


Penalized for irresponsible actions? 
You mean asserting their constitutional authority on natural resources?

How dare they!


Yes, Doug Fords plan of transparency is just horrible. How DARE the province insist that taxes be disclosed to customers!

Personally I think it was poorly implemented, however I really have trouble seeing how disclosing information is bad. But again I also believe in Freedom of Expression.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> It's being spun as divisive _by Conservatives_, people with political and corporate agendas who are deliberately making it divisive and trying to promote outrage. Ford for example has tried to promote anger and divisiveness with his gas station sticker issue.
> 
> The Liberals who brought in the tax did not design it to be divisive.


So disagreeing with a bad policy is divisive but identifying that policy by displaying it at the pumps is divisive? Interesting logic. The true reason that the Liberals hate it is because it shows everyone what they are really up to. They would prefer the new tax to be hidden so they can increase it as much as they want without being held accountable.



> The policy itself is a good one. The reaction by the Conservative party is the problem and you should be placing the blame on them for stirring up outrage.


If it was a good policy the Liberanos would have no problem advertising it on all products where it is applied. All the outrage belongs with those who created a new tax that hurts the poor and middle class, not at those who dare to publicize their actions.

You act like the Liberals should be immune from criticism regardless what they do.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> You act like the Liberals should be immune from criticism regardless what they do.


Of course, because they're "doing the right thing".
It doesn't matter if it is illegal, inappropriate, a conflict of interest or an outright lie. 
They're doing it for good reasons, and we should just trust them to do the right thing.

They're the party of science, which is why they ignored the science of a 25yr age limit for marijuanna.
They're the party of transparency, which is why they're trying to ban journalists they don't like.
They're the party of ethics, which is why they've committed multiple ethics breaches, and voted against investigations into their own activities.


----------



## bgc_fan

accord1999 said:


> Yeah, but as you notice in the historical area graph, 2018 ended with over 2M hectares burned as the big 2018 BC fires haven't yet begun to impact the numbers yet. Will we see a repeat, who knows?
> 
> 
> On the other hand, the three biggest fire seasons all occurred before 2000. In a short and highly variable data set, the human mind can find patterns that may exist or may simply be random.


It may be random, or it may be a pattern. It could be that there was something particular about those 3 fire seasons. Maybe because there hadn't been large fires the previous years, so fuel built up and then had one large fire season vs continuous medium sized fire season.

I guess it comes down to whether you want to deal with one big problem every decade, or a medium-sized problem every year.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> So disagreeing with a bad policy is divisive but identifying that policy by displaying it at the pumps is divisive? Interesting logic. The true reason that the Liberals hate it is because it shows everyone what they are really up to. They would prefer the new tax to be hidden so they can increase it as much as they want without being held accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a good policy the Liberanos would have no problem advertising it on all products where it is applied. All the outrage belongs with those who created a new tax that hurts the poor and middle class, not at those who dare to publicize their actions.
> 
> You act like the Liberals should be immune from criticism regardless what they do.


Do you take any issue with the remarkably draconian penalties threatened for not posting that information at the pump? $10k per day is outrageous, and rightfully going to be challenges under the Charter. It is essentially compelled political speech.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> They're the party of science, which is why they ignored the science of a 25yr age limit for marijuanna.


One would think that once people reach the age of majority, they earn the right to make decisions regarding their bodily autonomy so long as they don't affect others. For this reason, I think the 19 year drinking age is legally questionable. By your logic, we should ban chocolate bars for those over 30 due to elevated risk of obesity, diabetes, etc.


----------



## sags

You aren't falling it James and neither are the voters.

Doug Ford is at rock bottom popularity and Andrew Scheer's popularity has plummeted since he announce his "do nothing" climate plan.

In the latest 4 polls, the Liberals lead in 2 and the Conservatives are barely hanging on in the other two. In all 4 polls the Conservatives fell in the polls.

Analysts are now saying the Conservatives have an almost impossible road to a majority government. They have to win a lot more seats in Ontario and Quebec, which is doubtful.

Climate change is an important election issue for voters and it looks like they favor the carbon tax and will return the Liberals to a majority government.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Do you take any issue with the remarkably draconian penalties threatened for not posting that information at the pump? $10k per day is outrageous, and rightfully going to be challenges under the Charter. It is essentially compelled political speech.


Yet it's a crime to call Jessica Yaniv "he", or by her birth name. If that isn't compelled political speech, can you

I don't see how forcing a company to disclose taxes in the price can be considered an unreasonable requirement.




andrewf said:


> One would think that once people reach the age of majority, they earn the right to make decisions regarding their bodily autonomy so long as they don't affect others. For this reason, I think the 19 year drinking age is legally questionable. By your logic, we should ban chocolate bars for those over 30 due to elevated risk of obesity, diabetes, etc.


Well, if you have the right to make a decision for yourself (which I support) you should also be responsible for the consequences.
If you smoke pot or consume other drugs that cause brain damage and impair your ability to function in society, that's your choice, however we shouldn't have to support you.

If you can't accept responsibility for your decisions, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to make them.

If you believe in people making their own choices at the arbitrary age of 18, do you support 
prostitution? 
euthanasia? 
paying for your own health care? 
working for less than minimum wage?
Not having to join a union to get a job?


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> Do you take any issue with the remarkably draconian penalties threatened for not posting that information at the pump? $10k per day is outrageous, and rightfully going to be challenges under the Charter. It is essentially compelled political speech.


The Conservatives have really started pushing political messaging in very aggressive ways. This seems to be a new thing. Ford's gas pump rule is absolutely outrageous, purely political.

Then we have Alberta's government creating a media war room to push the energy sector's agenda (and Post Media / National Post wants to help lead the propaganda campaign). They are going to use the government's power to attack opponents of the energy sector... a disgusting use of public money.

These are not the things government is elected to do. It's not only shameful, it's also anti-democratic. Industry and government cooperating against citizens and the public interest.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> The Conservatives have really started pushing political messaging in very aggressive ways. This seems to be a new thing. Ford's gas pump rule is absolutely outrageous, purely political.
> 
> Then we have Alberta's government creating a media war room to push the energy sector's agenda (and Post Media / National Post wants to help lead the propaganda campaign). They are going to use the government's power to attack opponents of the energy sector... a disgusting use of public money.
> 
> These are not the things government is elected to do. It's not only shameful, it's also anti-democratic. Industry and government cooperating against citizens and the public interest.


The policy of telling people how much tax they are paying on a purchase is completely reasonable.
Alberta is working to protect their most important industry, that is part of their job.

It boggles my mind that you think that governments doing their job is somehow "anti-democratic"


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> The policy of telling people how much tax they are paying on a purchase is completely reasonable.
> Alberta is working to protect their most important industry, that is part of their job.
> 
> It boggles my mind that you think that governments doing their job is somehow "anti-democratic"


You're writing this tongue in cheek. You know that Ford is doing so much more than just "telling people how much tax they are paying". This is partisan politics.

Alberta wants to bully environmental groups. It's that funny thing with right wingers and free speech; they only like free speech when it's _them_ doing the talking, and everyone else has to shut up.

Personally I want the tax at the pumps to be higher. Gasoline is still way too cheap in Canada. These tiny taxes don't come close to acting as a disincentive.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> You're writing this tongue in cheek. You know that Ford is doing so much more than just "telling people how much tax they are paying". This is partisan politics.
> 
> Alberta wants to bully environmental groups. It's that funny thing with right wingers and free speech; they only like free speech when it's _them_ doing the talking, and everyone else has to shut up.
> 
> Personally I want the tax at the pumps to be higher. Gasoline is still way too cheap in Canada. These tiny taxes don't come close to acting as a disincentive.


That's the problem, you actually think hiking inflation and high taxes is a GOOD thing.
I think you're mixing free speech advocates with partisans with an agenda.

Right now it's overwhelmingly the left that wants to shut down free speech.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> You're writing this tongue in cheek. You know that Ford is doing so much more than just "telling people how much tax they are paying". This is partisan politics.
> 
> Alberta wants to bully environmental groups. It's that funny thing with right wingers and free speech; they only like free speech when it's _them_ doing the talking, and everyone else has to shut up.
> 
> Personally I want the tax at the pumps to be higher. Gasoline is still way too cheap in Canada. These tiny taxes don't come close to acting as a disincentive.


Trudeau is bribing the media with $600 million of our dollars and you are upset that Ford wants tax information publicly displayed. Trudeau also wants the tech companies to suppress speech that he doesn't like.

Bribing the compliant media and shutting down those who can't be bribed...that's Trudeau's legacy. All Ford did was put public tax information on a gas pump.


----------



## bgc_fan

MrMatt said:


> That's the problem, you actually think hiking inflation and high taxes is a GOOD thing.
> I think you're mixing free speech advocates with partisans with an agenda.
> 
> Right now it's overwhelmingly the left that wants to shut down free speech.


There is an agenda obviously, since pointing out the carbon tax effects at the gas pump is only half the story. It overlooks the second half of the story where the proceeds are given back to the residents of Ontario.

The idea of free speech makes the assumption that the presented information is truthful and not made up or full of half-truths.


----------



## james4beach

I think it's pretty well established that taxes / fees as disincentives works, to discourage damaging or harmful behaviour. That's the basis of carbon taxes and the federal plan.

As for environmental groups, they absolutely have a right to point out the various dangers and harms of the energy industry. Treating them as an adversary or enemy is warped thinking.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Yet it's a crime to call Jessica Yaniv "he", or by her birth name. If that isn't compelled political speech, can you


Which side are you picking, or are you staking the hypocrite position? I imagine I come down on your side of the Yaniv petition. Also note that this isn't a criminal matter.



> I don't see how forcing a company to disclose taxes in the price can be considered an unreasonable requirement.


Dictating a specific political message is. 



> Well, if you have the right to make a decision for yourself (which I support) you should also be responsible for the consequences.
> If you smoke pot or consume other drugs that cause brain damage and impair your ability to function in society, that's your choice, however we shouldn't have to support you.
> 
> If you can't accept responsibility for your decisions, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to make them.
> 
> If you believe in people making their own choices at the arbitrary age of 18, do you support
> prostitution?
> euthanasia?


Yes to both under the earlier stated position on bodily autonomy. Both are happening today illicitly. I think it is better to bring them into the light so the vulnerable can be protected from exploitation.



> paying for your own health care?


You have that right.



> working for less than minimum wage?
> Not having to join a union to get a job?


These are stickier. Evidence on harm of minimum wage is decidedly mixed. I'm not much of a fan of unions. Sorry not to neatly fit in the ideological box you made for me.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> I think it's pretty well established that taxes / fees as disincentives works, to discourage damaging or harmful behaviour. That's the basis of carbon taxes and the federal plan.
> 
> As for environmental groups, they absolutely have a right to point out the various dangers and harms of the energy industry. Treating them as an adversary or enemy is warped thinking.


It's econ 101. As soon as it they have an ideological reason to do so, conservatives turn into economics-doubting anti-market types. Price signals work, folks!


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> The policy of telling people how much tax they are paying on a purchase is completely reasonable.
> Alberta is working to protect their most important industry, that is part of their job.
> 
> It boggles my mind that you think that governments doing their job is somehow "anti-democratic"


Shall we fine you $10k per day if you fail to parrot the party line?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Which side are you picking, or are you staking the hypocrite position? I imagine I come down on your side of the Yaniv petition. Also note that this isn't a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Dictating a specific political message is.
> 
> 
> Yes to both under the earlier stated position on bodily autonomy. Both are happening today illicitly. I think it is better to bring them into the light so the vulnerable can be protected from exploitation.
> 
> 
> 
> You have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> These are stickier. Evidence on harm of minimum wage is decidedly mixed. I'm not much of a fan of unions. Sorry not to neatly fit in the ideological box you made for me.


Human rights violations are a serious problem, they'll fine you, shut down your business and potentially jail you.
Being forced to call Jessica Yaniv "she" is a specific political message, and far more political than disclosing a tax.


You can't pay for your own health care in Canada, it's effectively illegal.
I didn't put you in a box, my point is that there are a number of laws and restrictions that clearly interfere with constitutionally protected rights.

Compelled commercial speech is low on my list of concerns.
I personally feel that taxes should be disclosed, sure my motivation is primarily political, but arguing against transparency is tough position to take.


----------



## kcowan

james4beach said:


> Then we have Alberta's government creating a media war room to push the energy sector's agenda (and Post Media / National Post wants to help lead the propaganda campaign). They are going to use the government's power to attack opponents of the energy sector... a disgusting use of public money.
> 
> These are not the things government is elected to do. It's not only shameful, it's also anti-democratic. Industry and government cooperating against citizens and the public interest.


Yet you are OK with a $600 million slush fund to get newspapers to write Liberal-friendly copy? James, take off your red-tinted glasses!


----------



## Mukhang pera

An interesting perspective:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/chas-holloway/the-40000-year-old-man/


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> An interesting perspective:
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/chas-holloway/the-40000-year-old-man/




gosh

humankind was already paranoid like that 40,000 years ago?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Not from Mr Og's office at M.I.T. I'm afraid, but here is why it is always a bad idea to let any government handle more taxpayer money than necessary. 

Simply put, governments have a proven propensity to piss away money - money that has been collected from YOU.

I'm not against reasonable taxation necessary to run our country/provinces/cities and provide necessary services, but things like the carbon tax are open for gov't misuse and abuse. Liberal or NDP governments seem predisposed to this 'big gov't' and 'nanny state' mentality.

_"Government 'didn't care' about reducing emissions: Inside Quebec's green fund_


----------



## james4beach

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Simply put, governments have a proven propensity to piss away money - money that has been collected from YOU.
> 
> I'm not against reasonable taxation necessary to run our country/provinces/cities and provide necessary services, but things like the carbon tax are open for gov't misuse and abuse. Liberal or NDP governments seem predisposed to this 'big gov't' and 'nanny state' mentality.


These particular taxes are fundamentally a disincentive system, to discourage harmful behaviour that has long term negative consequences for Canada and for future Canadians. They do not exist for the purpose of earning revenue. It's actually a well established methodology that is endorsed by conservatives around the world.


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I'm not against reasonable taxation necessary to run our country/provinces/cities and provide necessary services, but things like the carbon tax are open for gov't misuse and abuse.




enough attitudes like that ^^ in 1867 & canada would never have happened

"We're fine in our hudson's bay trading fort, waiting around in case a native stops by to sell us a beaver pelt," _sniff_

"Not paying a penny to those robber baron fathers of confederation," _snivel_

"They outta their skulls, they talking about how a new country ought to have a transnational railroad from sea to shining sea," _snark_

"Canoes are good enough, they faster than horse-drawn carriages," _snigger_

"next thing you know they'll want a post office," _snort_

"The worst of it is, there's this frenchie named Laurier who's criss-crossing the country to talk up some crazy idea about confederation," _sneer_

"frenchie you say? next he'll be agitating for a breakaway republic like they did in the 13 colonies. All those french are so crazy excitable. But we're colonialists. This here is a colony of england, nothing more. Thrifty. Respectable. Prudent. Conservative. God bless queen victoria," _snob_


----------



## sags

Polluters don't have to pay carbon taxes if they stop polluting.

Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## AltaRed

Carbon is not pollution but we will never get agreement on that. It is an essential component of the planet's life cycle. Nor will the global community reduce its output of CO2 ,CH4, etc. by very much. The planet will still be consuming circa 100 million barrels per day of oil, never mind trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and perhaps billions of tons of coal, for at least the next decade or two. Declines will happen over time but not remotely as quickly as the idealists think. 

A few estimates regarding coal alone. Currently http://theconversation.com/explaining-the-increase-in-coal-consumption-worldwide-111045 and https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=coal&graph=consumption&display=rank ....and forecast http://peakoilbarrel.com/world-coal-2018-2050-world-energy-annual-report-part-4/

Want to discuss oil and natural gas as well? Or are you sufficiently convinced the world doesn't care what we think?

It is time to formulate domestic policy on adaptation AND spending money on adaptation. Nothing we do to reduce carbon release will make a dent in global releases. Spend our money on what Canada needs to do to survive this century. Our Ottawa politicians are looking at the condition of the ties on the train siding instead of the trains coming down the track.


----------



## james4beach

There is 800,000 years worth of data on atmospheric CO2 levels and a very strong reason to link it with (a) human/economic emissions and (b) climate change.

AltaRed, I agree there are other gasses of concern but there is a strong basis for trying to reduce CO2 based on our current knowledge. It is perfectly logical to take reduction action on the information we know very well today. It would be completely irresponsible to not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions by fossil fuels.


----------



## Prairie Guy

The planet is still cooler than the Medieval Warming Period....a global phenomenon that happened just a few hundred years ago, not 800,000 years ago.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> AltaRed, I agree there are other gasses of concern but there is a strong basis for trying to reduce CO2 based on our current knowledge. It is perfectly logical to take reduction action on the information we know very well today. It would be completely irresponsible to not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions by fossil fuels.


Within what is obvious and bounded by economics I agree. 

Example: BC Ferries buying hybrid electric-diesel propulsion on new ferries as they cycle out retiring ferries which have reached end-of-life and replace with new equipment. Like replacing an 80% efficient home furnace with a 95% high efficiency furnace (already legislated requirement) when it is time to do so. I will replace both my 80% efficient NG furnace and hot water heater in about 5 years when it reaches ~25 year of life....unless a heat pump becomes more economically justifiable. Energy savings in general reduce our bills. 

OTOH, I probably can't wait 2-5 years for an economically justifiable electric sports car, so my next sports car will most likely be an ICE. IOW, don't f*ck around with my economic choices.

From a productivity perspective which is really what GDP growth is mostly about, start spending money on adaptation that I posted about earlier, because Canada isn't even a blip on the radar screen for GHG reduction. We've been snookered into an ideology which will do next to nothing for Canada itself.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> These particular taxes are fundamentally a disincentive system, to discourage harmful behaviour that has long term negative consequences for Canada and for future Canadians. They do not exist for the purpose of earning revenue. It's actually a well established methodology that is endorsed by conservatives around the world.


I have a few issues.
Is this level of taxation and economic impairment appropriate for the negative consequences?
1. Given that Global warming is expected to benefit Canada, I'd argue that the cost greatly outweights the benefit.

So should Canada engage in an activity with a high (>1) cost benefit ratio?


----------



## Prairie Guy

Canada would benefit greatly from some warming. Lower heating costs (less pollution), longer growing season, a greater variety of available crops. There is no downside to a warmer Canada that isn't significantly offset by several provable benefits.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

humble_pie said:


> enough attitudes like that ^^ in 1867 & canada would never have happened...


Thanks Humble, another history lesson today? Compete with sniff, snivel, snark, snigger, snort, sneer, and snob sound effects.
You seem to think the link I posted was attacking French Canadians? But it wasn't, it was pointing out that any government will invent ways to take and then piss away tax money. Speaking of which, did someone piss in your corn flakes today?


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Canada would benefit greatly from some warming. Lower heating costs (less pollution), longer growing season, a greater variety of available crops. There is no downside to a warmer Canada that isn't significantly offset by several provable benefits.


Pretty difficult to grow crops in a sustained drought.

First the drought. Then the pestilence. Climate change presents a great threat to the world's food supply.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> Pretty difficult to grow crops in a sustained drought.
> 
> First the drought. Then the pestilence. Climate change presents a great threat to the world's food supply.


Sags, you don't seem to realize climate is global, oceanic currents are global, jet streams are global. Nothing Canada does will make a measurable difference. 

There is ZERO cost benefit to Canada beyond some efficiencies that might be gained through incremental energy savings. That is the part advocates fail to understand in its entirety. We could go to ZERO carbon emissions tomorrow and it would make no difference on our landscape, no difference to crop production, no difference to anything at all.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Pretty difficult to grow crops in a sustained drought.
> 
> First the drought. Then the pestilence. Climate change presents a great threat to the world's food supply.


Yeah, that prediction would fit right into your alarmist nonsense, but so many areas of Canada have experienced nothing but record rainfalls in the last few years.

Certainly in Ottawa, 2017 was  the wettest July on record. Almost 250 millimetres of rain fell at the Ottawa airport — the most since they started recording the weather there in 1938.
In 1899, 250.2 millimetres fell at another weather station, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada. The average rainfall for July is 89 millimetres.

2019 in Ottawa was very little different this spring, in fact there was quite a bit of flooding. 

Edmonton experienced one of four summers in the past 10 years with 20 or more days with rain in June and the first week of July.

Canada couldn't be further from drought conditions than your exaggerated prediction.

Utter nonsense.

ltr


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> There is 800,000 years worth of data on atmospheric CO2 levels and a very strong reason to link it with (a) human/economic emissions and (b) climate change.
> 
> AltaRed, I agree there are other gasses of concern but there is a strong basis for trying to reduce CO2 based on our current knowledge. It is perfectly logical to take reduction action on the information we know very well today. It would be completely irresponsible to not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions by fossil fuels.


But more CO2 could be good right?
bill-gates-to-strip-c02-from-air-for-clean-fuel/


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Pretty difficult to grow crops in a sustained drought.
> 
> First the drought. Then the pestilence. Climate change presents a great threat to the world's food supply.


Why would warming cause a drought?
What about the scientific papers that conclude Canada is one of the few countries to benefit from global warming?

Oh wait, you're one of those "Pro Science" Liberals. My mistake.


----------



## AltaRed

LTR, you already know Sags cherry picks hyperbole and innuendo. The rest of us know the globe experiences droughts, floods, and species infestations at various locations and regions in the world on a highly variable matter, since biblical times. 

I think people forget that the oceans have the most impact on climate variability. Lots of material published on that.... Which is further confirmation that no matter what Canada does with respect to GHG, nothing we do will matter one bit to the effects on Canada.


----------



## kcowan

Mukhang pera said:


> An interesting perspective:
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/chas-holloway/the-40000-year-old-man/


Our witch doctors don't wear bones in their noses, so they are harder to detect.


----------



## cainvest

So we could set a new overnight low cold record tonight .... more for the global cooling rumor!


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Which is further confirmation that no matter what Canada does with respect to GHG, nothing we do will matter one bit to the effects on Canada.


This would be an awfully lazy and irresponsible response to take to a global problem. Especially since Canada has strong visibility and is already being quoted worldwide as a trend setter in actions to reduce CO2 emissions.

The part Conservatives seem to forget (or have no appreciation for) is that Canada is providing global leadership in this issue. Trudeau's actions have been noticed on the global stage... Canada is the kind of country which influences the world by setting good examples and establishing global norms. This does have an effect.

We do the same things on humanitarian matters, response to refugees and various global injustices. Canada has always punched above its weight like this.

It's something I'm proud of. We currently have the kind of leadership in this country that actually seeks new solutions to problems, and is bold enough to implement solutions despite the powerful opposition by the energy lobby.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> The part Conservatives seem to forget (or have no appreciation for) is that Canada is providing global leadership in this issue. Trudeau's actions have been noticed on the global stage...


By whom really? At most by other countries of no real importance. The UK has far exceed Canada's leadership in CO2 emission reduction, and has far greater political and historical stature than Canada and is the birthplace of the industrial revolution. 










But no great country is inspired by it, or particularly cares, especially as China and the USA continue their plans for energy dominance and India rapidly develops. Only Europe is slowly fading into irrelevance, strangled by its high cost of energy.


----------



## AltaRed

And as I said earlier, the UK is ahead only because they will have to be strategically. Their oil and gas is running out, eventually leaving them vulnerable to anyone who squeezes their neck. Germany is dragging its heels on phasing out coal, maybe to be less dependent on Russia. Almost all of the EU needs to reduce Russian vulnerability. I think it is more for strategic reasons, not because of martyrdom to climate change.

If you look at who is looking up to Canada, I believe it is not national governments and nations and their leaders. It is more likely from the CC advocates and UN bureaucrats who are really not important at all. JT is being played best I can tell.


----------



## Just a Guy

James, Canada is a joke of a country...no one cares what we do.

Each night, if you look at the news you can see what’s happening in the USA, China, Europe, the UK, etc.

Go overseas, or down south, not a mention of Canada. We’re nothing on the world stage.

Probably most of the world thinks we’re part of the USA.


----------



## AltaRed

I'd not go so far as to say 'a joke' but we clearly are not on anyone's radar screens....except when a gov't or an institution or an organization wants something. Have to remember all nations and all governments see each other as competition, so to the extent one nation can get a strategic advantage, they will take it. That is how the game is played at the foreign policy level.


----------



## kcowan

I am personally embarrassed by having Trudeau represent Canada internationally. Where it counts in India, China and the US, he is a laughing stock. The reason I say personally is that it appears that many are buying into his line of BS. He is busy spending our tax money campaigning for his reelection. Obviously it is working based on the recent polls.


----------



## andrewf

Do you really think Trudeau stands out as an embarrassment in any respect beside Trump? You can't have it both ways, arguing that no one cares about Canada, but people being aware of/caring about Trudeau's antics.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Do you really think Trudeau stands out as an embarrassment in any respect beside Trump? You can't have it both ways, arguing that no one cares about Canada, but people being aware of/caring about Trudeau's antics.


It depends on what. When a leader does embarrassing things at a showcase political level (e.g. India trip), it is noticed. It's the subject matter that garners attention or not. Few at influential levels, e.g. political and business leaders, care about our social or environmental files. I spent enough time in Europe to know the handful of times Canada hit the media. None of them were good best that I recall.

I have participated in conversations in Europe when I was working on O&G projects that wonder why Canada is not a much larger influence economically, militarily, etc. We, as the second largest nation on earth in size, are perceived to have a wealth of resources that have not translated into economic and military wealth. Why don't we have a strong Navy to protect our shorelines? Why don't we carry our weight in NATO? Why don't we have industrial might 2-3 times larger than we do? Why don't we exploit our natural resources more? Why don't we have a larger export O&G industry? Why do we kill seal pups? 

Granted they also forget it costs a lot (and is inefficient) to build infrastructure across a vast land and we only have 37 million people....but we are compared to Australia with only about 60% of the population and Australia seems to have a much higher profile proportionately. We often are seen as wimpy 'also rans' like some other social democracies such as Netherlands, Finland, Denmark et al. We are not seen as terribly competent with the resource gifts we have and as I posted above, the climate change file is not one of them at the levels of political and business influence that count.


----------



## james4beach

Some of you guys who spent your careers in the oil & gas world have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that it's borderline ridiculous.

Canada is in fact very well regarded on the world stage, is _not_ a joke of a country, and is far more visible than some of you seem to believe. Trudeau is a very good representative of Canada and his initiative on carbon pricing is getting noticed on the world stage.

But when you live in an Alberta / oil & gas / Conservative echo chamber, only absorb right-wing media and all your social circles whine about Trudeau constantly, it's normal that you'd see the world differently.


----------



## Just a Guy

Should be easy for you to pull up some recent media from overseas or down south that mentions Canada then...


----------



## sags

_We often are seen as wimpy 'also rans' like some other social democracies such as Netherlands, Finland, Denmark et al._

Canada being compared to the top ranked countries in the world in most categories is a bad thing ?


----------



## Mukhang pera

Just a Guy said:


> Should be easy for you to pull up some recent media from overseas or down south that mentions Canada then...


I can help out on that score:

https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/05/16/ph-recalls-diplomats-from-canada-due-to-garbage-mess/


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> I have participated in conversations in Europe when I was working on O&G projects that wonder why Canada is not a much larger influence economically, militarily, etc. We, as the second largest nation on earth in size, are perceived to have a wealth of resources that have not translated into economic and military wealth. Why don't we have a strong Navy to protect our shorelines? Why don't we carry our weight in NATO? Why don't we have industrial might 2-3 times larger than we do? Why don't we exploit our natural resources more? Why don't we have a larger export O&G industry? Why do we kill seal pups?
> 
> Granted they also forget it costs a lot (and is inefficient) to build infrastructure across a vast land and we only have 37 million people....but we are compared to Australia with only about 60% of the population and Australia seems to have a much higher profile proportionately. We often are seen as wimpy 'also rans' like some other social democracies such as Netherlands, Finland, Denmark et al. We are not seen as terribly competent with the resource gifts we have and as I posted above, the climate change file is not one of them at the levels of political and business influence that count.



oh pshaw. Never heard europeans going on like ^^ that. Is it possible that you might you be reciting your own personal gripes ... which, after all, are quite well-known in these parts by now ...

as for hearing criticism that canada doesn't carry its own weight in NATO way back when you were working O & G in europe, might i confess to a bit of skepticism. Back in those days, NATO was largely ignored. I doubt there was ever even a peep about canada not contributing sufficiently to NATO. 

it's only in very recent years that NATO itself has taken to publicly reminding member countries that they are supposed to contribute a certain percentage of their budgets. And of course it was donald trump who put the idea over the top, complalning loudly all the way through the 2016 election campaign that the US should pull out of NATO because america was footing the bill singlehandedly but not getting anything in return (those were the days, back in 2016, when donald was running around saying that russia was the best friend america ever had while he & vladimir were an item)


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> ... I have participated in conversations in Europe when I was working on O&G projects that wonder why Canada is not a much larger influence economically, militarily, etc. We, as the second largest nation on earth in size, are perceived to have a wealth of resources that have not translated into economic and military wealth.
> 
> *Why don't we have a strong Navy to protect our shorelines?*


This one should be more of "Why did Canada give up their Navy?" 
It was, at the end of WWII the third largest.



AltaRed said:


> ... Why don't we carry our weight in NATO?


Likely the same reason as the hollowed out Navy.




AltaRed said:


> ... Why don't we have industrial might 2-3 times larger than we do?


We did have the Arrow that it took something like thirty years to rebuild the aerospace industry to roughly the same size. Though instead of building cutting edge aircraft, a lot of the current industry is parts.

Part may be American influence and the American market (aka "Why bother for 20 million when there's 275 million to sell to next door, where the 20 million can piggy back on the 275 million's production?"). 


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Having lived in Canada, US and Australia...

I think you guys are dramatically underselling the position of Canada. Obviously, since we're next door to the largest and most powerful economy and military power in the world, we will always look small by comparison.

But among highly developed nations, Canada has one of the strongest economies, has one of the best long term stock market performance, probably *the* best stability of any of these countries and possibly the best quality of life. Median individual wealth is quite high, life expectancy is high (and rising).

And in every place I've been, Canada has been well regarded. Why do you guys have such a low opinion of yourselves and your country?


----------



## AltaRed

It is what I saw and heard in all the years I shuttled between Houston and Europe. Has nothing to do with what others here perceive as my supposed 'narrow opinion'. So y'all can take the shots you want from your desk chairs.

Eclectic12, what Canada did in WWII is no longer relevant to current political and business leaders in Europe. What have you been doing lately? Way too much of our military spend is going to top heavy bureaucracy in Ottawa and pensions as compard to front line combat personnel and equipment. On a Joe Q Public basis, it resonates only with the specific locales where Canadians fought, e.g. Netherlands, Normandy, Italy, and mostly with the now very elderly generation. I've had a number of conversations with folks on the street in the Netherlands and Normandy over the years and it is fantastic the goodwill those folks still have for Canada but that means nothing to those that are the influencers today.

Sags, our being compared to Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands is not a ringing endorsement when it comes to what matters in global standing. Socialist policies do not bring ringing endorsements from political and business leaders but it makes social and environmental activists happy. Lest anyone be misguided, I am most pleased to live in Canada relative to most anywhere else I can think of (New Zealand and Australia perhaps being of equal or better stature due to clear cut no-nonsense policies). Just don't assume that our love for ourselves means much elsewhere.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> And in every place I've been, Canada has been well regarded. Why do you guys have such a low opinion of yourselves and your country?


I love Canada and Canada is well regarded across most of the world. But Trudeau is a laughing stock and not taken seriously.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> Some of you guys who spent your careers in the oil & gas world have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that it's borderline ridiculous.
> 
> Canada is in fact very well regarded on the world stage, is _not_ a joke of a country, and is far more visible than some of you seem to believe. Trudeau is a very good representative of Canada and his initiative on carbon pricing is getting noticed on the world stage.
> 
> But when you live in an Alberta / oil & gas / Conservative echo chamber, only absorb right-wing media and all your social circles whine about Trudeau constantly, it's normal that you'd see the world differently.


Stop with the insults. You are one of the most biased people on this site and everyone who dares to correct another one of your many errors is either said to be paid off by Big Oil or a member of the alt right. Those are the actions of someone who has no facts to argue with.

Get a life.


----------



## AltaRed

James has a rigid 'hate on' for anything outside his ideology similar to a few others who are at the extremes of both ends of the spectrum. Best to just ignore any of the trash he rights on these matters.

Most posters have more balanced views in that 80% space in the middle.


----------



## sags

Quality of Life rankings for countries.

_While Canada is ranked first, “Scandinavian countries that are well-known for their strong social welfare networks dominate the top 10,” U.S. News & World Report data editor Deidre McPhillips tells CNBC_

Maybe you think CNBC is a "lefty" news source.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/us-news-world-report-10-countries-with-the-best-quality-of-life.html


----------



## AltaRed

James, here are a few sources of GDP/capita

World Bank https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.pcap.cd?most_recent_value_desc=true Canada is 28th

CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html Canada is 34th

IMF https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/[email protected]/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD Canada is 19th

Slightly different positions on a PPP basis from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

These are the numbers that really matter in measuring wealth AND the power to fund our infrastructure, social policies and our defence. Things like quality of life do matter, and I wouldn't want it any other way, but only as part of the basket of what make a country.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> I love Canada and Canada is well regarded across most of the world. But Trudeau is a laughing stock and not taken seriously.


The way the election is shaping up, you will have the opportunity to bash Trudeau for another 4 years.


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> It is what I saw and heard in all the years I shuttled between Houston and Europe. Has nothing to do with what others here perceive as my supposed 'narrow opinion'. So y'all can take the shots you want from your desk chairs ...


Maybe I'm wrong but it reads that you are under the mistaken impression that I disagree with you.



AltaRed said:


> ... Eclectic12, what Canada did in WWII is no longer relevant to current political and business leaders in Europe.


Where did I say it was?

My point was that Canada gave up a strong navy and being a world leader in aviation (post WWII). Those around me assume that what is today is all that there has ever been.




AltaRed said:


> ... What have you been doing lately?


Well I was trying to encourage that what is does no reflect what was and what could be ... but apparently I'm taking shots and/or living in the past.




AltaRed said:


> ... Way too much of our military spend is going to top heavy bureaucracy in Ottawa and pensions as compard to front line combat personnel and equipment.


And there's paying several times over for what little equipment is received, constant refits to extend well beyond the usual life expediency, the Mark Norman mess with multiple retirements - among other things. 




AltaRed said:


> ... On a Joe Q Public basis, it resonates only with the specific locales where Canadians fought, e.g. Netherlands, Normandy, Italy, and mostly with the now very elderly generation. I've had a number of conversations with folks on the street in the Netherlands and Normandy over the years and it is fantastic the goodwill those folks still have for Canada but that means nothing to those that are the influencers today.


Maybe for Normandy and Italy ... the twenty somethings when I visited the Netherlands wanted pictures with the vets, not to make the vets happy but for themselves and essentially for bragging rights among their friends and family. According to them, school kids are assigned to care for specific graves and they insisted the whole family including grand kids and new born baby met the vets. 

It's certainly going to die out at some point but it doesn't sound like it has yet.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> The way the election is shaping up, you will have the opportunity to bash Trudeau for another 4 years.


The results will be a mess.... a minority gov't most likely one side or the other...potentially being held hostage by economy destroyers.


----------



## AltaRed

Eclectic12 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong but it reads that you are under the mistaken impression that I disagree with you.


Yes, I probably misunderstood you, at least in part. We've gone a long ways to being a strong military with country pride to a joke of a defense wasting money all over the place. An unmitigated disaster.

P.S. I do agree that some Netherlands youth are taught to remember though i've never had occasion to talk to youth while in Den Haag or Amseterdam. Usually folks middle aged.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> It is what I saw and heard in all the years I shuttled between Houston and Europe.



like i said, i doubt you ever met any soul, back in that day, who told you it was shameful that canada wasn't contributing her share to NATO. NATO was ignored for decades. Most europeans back in that day had probably never heard of NATO.

similarly i doubt you ever met any soul, back in that day, who said it was shameful that canada no longer had a large navy. Most of the folks BITD would not have known whether canada had a navy or not.

i'd be willing to bet a truly interesting amount of money that most of the europeans you met at work - back in that day - initially assumed you were an american, since you were commuting from an oilco based in houston.


as for today, there's a lot to be said for the nimbleness of small states, as sovereignists in quebec like to point out. Pierre qui roule n'amasse pas mousse. There's no reason for canada to harbour grandiose ambitions, not while countries like england & france are having to discard the last tatters of grandiosity.




> Way too much of our military spend is going to top heavy bureaucracy in Ottawa and pensions as compard to front line combat personnel and equipment.



everybody else's pension is too much, except your own, right? canada is having difficulty recruiting forces, so abolishing pensions & maltreating veterans are certainly fruitful ideas when it comes to attracting capable young soldiers.

also sorry but i'm not getting this about "front line combat personnel." Is canada about to declare war but i just don't know it?

the country is - very wisely imho - putting an emphasis on elite special forces for rescue & peacekeeping operations. These are not brute old force fighters, the special forces are more like super-skilled emergency room surgeons dropped directly into live battle or disaster environments.

then there's the north. The coasts. The southern border. Defense, defense, defense.

really with everything the canadian military have to look after these days, i don't see how they have any time left over to go make war.


----------



## AltaRed

HP, you have no idea about how any of my business was conducted in Europe and how I spent my spare time, weekends, etc. And no, I was not mistaken for an American to anyone I met, either in business or on the street in shops, plazas, bars and even the beaches in summer. I don't identify with the public by my working persona.

You made the assumptions about what I consider front line combat personnel and equipment. We have a huge job patrolling our soverign boundaries. We have neither the Coast Guard ships (including icebreakeers and frigates and even destroyers), surveillance planes, helicopters nor enough functioning interceptors to rightfully protect our coasts. One only has to look at what Russia is doing in Siberia to prepare themselves for an ice free Arctic and their defence. They have, and continue to, establish bases in Siberia. We can't even patrol fisheries quotas off our primary coasts, never mind have any presence in the Arctic. Canada is setting itself up for encroachment and loss of many of our Arctic islands. Our defense budget sucks and not much of it makes it to the front line.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> All blather HP.



on the contrary, the blathering person is yourself






> You made the assumptions about what I consider front line combat personnel and equipment. We have a huge job patrolling our soverign boundaries. We have neither the Coast Guard ships (including icebreakeers and frigates and even destroyers), surveillance planes, helicopters nor enough functioning interceptors to rightfully protect our coasts. One only has to look at what Russia is doing in Siberia to prepare themselves for an ice free Arctic and their defence. They have, and continue to, establish bases in Siberia. We can't even patrol fisheries quotas off our primary coasts, never mind have any presence in the Arctic. Canada is setting itself up for encroachment and loss of many of our Arctic islands. Our defense budget sucks and not much of it makes it to the front line.



"front line combat personnel and equipment" are not primary resources in defense. 

not going to write a treatise but just one example: a critical modality in defense is advanced radar coupled with advanced cybersecurity. These are even more important for canada's vast unpopulated north. One highly trained radar expert or drone commander or cyber manager is worth 100,000 brute force foot soldiers.


in general - considering your outburst above - why are you imagining that dimple-cheeks andrew scheer could possibly be capable of re-vitalizing the canadian military?

any problems the canadian forces have today date back decades. They have nothing to do with the current liberal government, which has to work with the budget it has formed. There is only so much for defense. Canada's situation is not comparable in the least to a dictatorship like moscow, which can order development in the arctic & is not responsible to a free press nor to an electorate that is not free to speak its mind.

meanwhile, perhaps you are not aware but canada recently commissioned 10 new navy & coast guard ships from 3 different shipyards located in new brunswick, quebec & BC. Considerable fanfare accompanied the announcement.

what i find incongruous about many of your posts is that, on the one hand, you preach fiscal restraint, an end to debt & you want lower taxes.

yet on the other hand, you continually demand ultra-high-cost national expenditures such as rebuilding an entire canadian navy & coast guard.

i have yet to see you figure out who is going to pay for a rebuilt navy.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> We've gone a long ways to being a strong military with country pride to a joke of a defense wasting money all over the place. An unmitigated disaster.



oh dear. What a shameful piece of savagery.

it's a good thing m3 is away on holiday - happily riding his motorbike through high rocky mountain passes in colorado - i hope the brave lad never sets eyes on the above insult.


----------



## AltaRed

Front line combat personnel and equipment are indeed required on our coastal defenses. Can't shoot a pellet gun across the bow of an intruder. The US Coast Guard is way better equipped with a much smaller coast line.

I have no political ideology when it comes to our military and needed strengthening of our defenses. It's been woefully underfunded for decades. I've never mentioned Scheer or JT in this military discussion because it shouldn't be about politics. Just get it done.

10 ships is but a drop in the bucket. We likely need 100 of them, with maybe a third of icebreaking quality to patrol the Arctic. Allocate defense funds from other areas of the budget. We have billions of dollars in patronage giveaways and useless ideological programs that doesn't do anything for GDP growth. It really does not have to be that difficult.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Front line combat personnel and equipment are indeed required on our coastal defenses. Can't shoot a pellet gun across the bow of an intruder.



i believe we have different ideas about what is a "front line combat personnel."

to me, most of the real military work takes place before that intruding ship reaches canadian gunshot distance. In the case of an intruding vessel, defense would have begun days before, since it would have been possible to track the vessel at all times.

every canadian force is trained to fire a weapon. This feat in itself does not make him an elite special force or even an experienced soldier who specializes in live combat operations.





> I have no political ideology when it comes to our military and needed strengthening of our defenses. It's been woefully underfunded for decades. I've never mentioned Scheer or JT in this military discussion because it shouldn't be about politics. Just get it done.
> 10 ships is but a drop in the bucket. We likely need 100 of them, with maybe a third of icebreaking quality to patrol the Arctic.



david pugliese of the ottawa citizen - a meticulously accurate reporter - said on 19 june/19 that 15 new surface combatant warships to be built by irving shipyards in new brunswick are now expected to cost $70 billion (the estimate keeps rising, as pugliese pointed out)

sorry my math gets a little creaky when we get into the billions. But is that not a cost of roughly 4.66-billion-dollars-per-warship?

would that not mean that your dream fleet of 100 new ships would cost something like _466 billion dollars_ ... would that not be almost half-a-trillion canadian dollars?

there you go. _Half-a-trillon-dollars_. How to find them without taxing the country back into the stone age? easy peasy, just sideline a little cash from patronage accounts, problem solved!




> Allocate defense funds from other areas of the budget. We have billions of dollars in patronage giveaways and useless ideological programs



oh it must be so much fun being a deck chair warrior in beautiful british columbia


----------



## AltaRed

There is no issue with finding the money. Half a trillion can be found over a 10-20 year period if Ottawa would stop pissing the shite away. 

BTW, it is indeed fun sitting here by the pool this aft with a cool beer and music with a gaze over the vineyards down to beautiful Okanagan Lake under the shade of an umbrella. And how is your day?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Some of you guys who spent your careers in the oil & gas world have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that it's borderline ridiculous.
> 
> Canada is in fact very well regarded on the world stage, is _not_ a joke of a country, and is far more visible than some of you seem to believe. Trudeau is a very good representative of Canada and his initiative on carbon pricing is getting noticed on the world stage.
> 
> But when you live in an Alberta / oil & gas / Conservative echo chamber, only absorb right-wing media and all your social circles whine about Trudeau constantly, it's normal that you'd see the world differently.


Canada is very well regarded on the world stage, in spite of the actions of Trudeau.
Other democracies understand that domestic politics matter.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> ... every canadian force is trained to fire a weapon. This feat in itself does not make him an elite special force or even an experienced soldier who specializes in live combat operations.


Do you really want the personnel that spend most of their time behind a desk doing the shooting?

The current top brass have said they want to expand the senior ranks despite that in the period the lower ranks grew by 2%, the senior ranks grew by 60%.
http://cafdispatch.blogspot.com/2018/05/caf-grows-more-top-heavy.html





humble_pie said:


> ... david pugliese of the ottawa citizen - a meticulously accurate reporter - said on 19 june/19 that 15 new surface combatant warships to be built by irving shipyards in new brunswick are now expected to cost $70 billion (the estimate keeps rising, as pugliese pointed out)
> 
> sorry my math gets a little creaky when we get into the billions. But is that not a cost of roughly 4.66-billion-dollars-per-warship?


Interesting that you focus on the updated increased costs while ignoring that delays have increased the costs (this was started by the Conservative gov't) or that the selected design had originally been rejected by DND (rejection years ago, revisiting the possibility and later changes to the design don't affect costs, right?).

With the UK cutting their order from thirteen to eight and the US keeping to the original DND requirement of a proven design, it does not look there are going to be economies of scale to benefit from.
https://nationalpost.com/news/warsh...ll-now-be-the-backbone-of-canadas-future-navy
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/nati...ition-americans-accepting-only-proven-designs
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/nati...s-to-70-billion-according-to-new-pbo-estimate




humble_pie said:


> ... would that not mean that your dream fleet of 100 new ships would cost something like _466 billion dollars_ ... would that not be almost half-a-trillion canadian dollars?
> there you go. _Half-a-trillon-dollars_. How to find them without taxing the country back into the stone age?


There has been the suggestion that abandoning having a military at all is the way to go since the public does not care.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ot...nadas-military-so-lets-abandon-it-altogether/

While others identify that only a public outcry will change how the politicians are operating.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-only-thing-that-will-fix-canadas-military-is-public-outcry/


The program was initiated in 2008 where the Iroquois class destroyers and Halifax class frigates were supposed to be replaced. The last Iroquois destroyer was retired in 2017 (forty seven years of service for the class), at least two years *before* any ships start construction. 


The Russians are ramping up their Arctic capability while Canada has turned the planned Churchill navy base from a large one into a jetty.


Canada is a maritime nation ... is it really that smart to be unable to operate on the ocean or be scouring eBay for parts to try to put the only supply ship on a coast back into service?
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/


Cheers


----------



## sags

Nuclear powers carry the big stick. China has nuclear weapons and the largest land army, which military analysts say would win any ground war.

Canada has little defense if push comes to shove. We rely on our NATO partnerships to share our defense.

Some NATO countries do have nuclear capability.......US, UK, France and we rely on them for deterrence against invaders.

India, Israel and Pakistan also possess nuclear weapons and are "friendly" countries who would likely step up if needed in a world crisis.

At best we can provide peace keeping troops in conjunction with others and spend more to protect our coastlines.


----------



## AltaRed

That is precisely my point. Spend more to protect our coastlines. The mere fairly continuous presence of modern Coast Guard vessels at least serves as a deterrent.

Many bonehead moves, such as those diesel subs, and perennial delays in procurement of ships and planes has cost a bloody fortune. We are in need of a desperate catch up... discussion should have been in a different thread from the get go. My bad for bringing up NATO et al.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> ... At best we can provide peace keeping troops in conjunction with others and spend more to protect our coastlines.


While an improvement over the current situation where a presence and resupply can't be done ... spending more to protect our coastlines IMO is the minimum. The best would be to fix the system so that added costs from delays, revisits to designs rejected, contract cancellation penalties etc. are avoided where the needed equipment arrives before the old equipment also adds large costs to keep it limping along.


I'll leave it at that for this thread.


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> 10 ships is but a drop in the bucket. We likely need 100 of them, with maybe a third of icebreaking quality to patrol the Arctic. Allocate defense funds from other areas of the budget.





AltaRed said:


> There is no issue with finding the money. Half a trillion can be found over a 10-20 year period if Ottawa would stop pissing the shite away.


 


AltaRed said:


> That is precisely my point. Spend more to protect our coastlines. The mere fairly continuous presence of modern Coast Guard vessels at least serves as a deterrent.
> Many bonehead moves, such as those diesel subs, and perennial delays in procurement of ships and planes has cost a bloody fortune. We are in need of a desperate catch up.




this kind of talk ^^ is preposterous imho. Parties frivolously demanding 100 new warships for canada at a cost of half a trillion dollars over next 10-20 years, are suffering from something more than too much beer.

any military threat to canada will come by air. The country is in the midst of a multi-year campaign to re-fit the navy; but after that's done, sometime within a decade, canada has to settle down & choose the new SS fighter aircraft fleet.

so far, i've heard tell of 25 new ships whose contracts have been let. This number is a far cry from an irresponsible call for 100 new naval & coast guard vessels.

in the year 2019 & going forward, canada is not going to sustain an invasion by hostile naval armada. Threats will come by air & will have to be met by the air force.

when it comes to detection & control of foreign nuclear missile armed submarines headed towards or even within our territorial waters - evidently russian submarines have occasionally been sighted within the gulf of st-lawrence - canada relies more on her air force, less on her naval vessels.

any idea that a brisk old-fashioned naval battle at sea will stop a foreign missile armed submarine is ludicrous.

repeat: new builds for the navy & the coast guard are already underway. Canada does not need 33 new icebreakers, that is a suggestion from lalaland. What we do need right now is vastly increased radar drone surveillance across the entire north of the country.

today, canada has only the barest hint of modern radar with the 10 Iron Dome radar units that were built with technology leased from israel. These were installed at mid-northern latitudes a couple of years ago. Canada needs to vastly reinforce radar survillance, aka cybersecurity, plus sooner or later we will need to replace the aging F18 fighter fleet.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> I have no political ideology when it comes to our military and needed strengthening of our defenses. It's been woefully underfunded for decades. I've never mentioned Scheer or JT in this military discussion because it shouldn't be about politics. Just get it done.
> 
> 10 ships is but a drop in the bucket. We likely need 100 of them, with maybe a third of icebreaking quality to patrol the Arctic. Allocate defense funds from other areas of the budget. We have billions of dollars in patronage giveaways and useless ideological programs that doesn't do anything for GDP growth. It really does not have to be that difficult.


.... _despite all the “Canada is back” rhetoric, we’re not exactly blowing the international community away with our leadership and influence. There’s an interesting situation in the Middle East right now that speaks to that: If Canada’s back, where is it?_

_"The Navy, of course, doesn’t have a lot of ships to spare these days. We have one converted civilian ship operating (effectively!) as a supply ship, and 12 frigates doing the work of 15 ships, since our destroyers rusted out without replacements. The fleet has been getting by using small patrol ships as Canadian contributions to exercises and missions. The light vessels have gotten the job done when watching for drug smugglers but would look awfully cute trying to survive an actual naval battle, which no one is ruling out in the Persian Gulf."_

ltr


----------



## sags

Meanwhile back to the climate change topic, the heat wave that was in Europe moved over Greenland and caused the melting of an enormous amount of ice in one day.

The scientists say that if all the ice in Greenland alone melts, it would raise sea levels more than 7 meters.

It would take centuries for that to happen, but it wouldn't happen all at once. There would be steady incremental increases between now and then.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Heat waves are normal weather. Ad I bet you're not even aware that during the latest media propaganda blitz on the recent heat wave on the US that more COLD records than hot were set during the so-called heat wave. So, you should really be screaming about an upcoming ice age instead of global warming.


----------



## sags

The scientists say this heat wave was caused by climate change. Heat waves used to happen every 1,000 years and now they are happening every couple of years.

Intensity and frequency......the footprints of climate change.


----------



## Eder

GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them.


source: https://www.theonion.com/climate-researchers-warn-only-hope-for-humanity-now-lie-1828171232


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them.
> 
> 
> source: https://www.theonion.com/climate-researchers-warn-only-hope-for-humanity-now-lie-1828171232


The funny thing about that "article" is that the pro climate change scientists get massive funding.
It's also only really 50 years since the deep concern about the coming ice age slowed down, so even that's accurate.


----------



## sags

So that's it then....no sense worrying about it.

_Pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag
And smile, smile, smile
While you've a lucifer to light your ***
Smile, boys, that's the style!
What's the use of worrying?
It never was worthwhile
So pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag
And smile, smile, smile_


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

_"the only senario in which the human races survives"_
Is that what we could call alarmist?


----------



## like_to_retire

Eder said:


> GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them.
> 
> 
> source: https://www.theonion.com/climate-researchers-warn-only-hope-for-humanity-now-lie-1828171232


Eder, I hope you're kidding.

You must know that your news source is The Onion.

_*“The Onion” is considered the most popular satire news site on the internet*, but international and national audiences have been fooled into thinking some of their stories are real. The Onion’s ironic tagline is: “America’s finest news source.”_

ltr


----------



## Eder




----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The scientists say this heat wave was caused by climate change. Heat waves used to happen every 1,000 years and now they are happening every couple of years.
> 
> Intensity and frequency......the footprints of climate change.


Well, that's believable...a 500 fold increase. What about the Medieval Warming Period and the heat waves in the 1940's. Did your memory erase them just like the computer models and "official" historical data records? :biggrin:


----------



## sags

There was no Medieval Warming Period. Everyone wore armour so it felt hotter.


----------



## AltaRed

Sags, why do you think there was grape growing and wine making in NF in the days of the Vikings? https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

P.S. I am not challenging the assertion (and the study you failed to link) that we are approaching similar times but I'd like to see someone planting vineyards in NF again and opening a winery.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> There was no Medieval Warming Period. Everyone wore armour so it felt hotter.


You never respond to a correction of one of your errors with a provable fact. 

The 40's were hotter than today. The Medieval Warming Period was hotter than today. Those are known and proven facts...ignoring those facts doesn't change those facts, it only makes you look foolish and desperate.


----------



## sags

Don't forget during the Medieval Period they not only wore all that heavy chain metal armour, but they were always practicing flailing around their heavy swords and shields.

Plus they didn't have any air conditioning or electric fans, and had to walk or run everywhere unless they had a horse.

It isn't any wonder their ancient texts speak of how hot it was.


----------



## sags

I doubt there were any vineyards in NF. It is a big rock.........maybe they made wine from rock moss ?


----------



## Prairie Guy

No cars, no SUV's, no huge factories spouting massive amounts of CO2...and no one can explain why it was so hot back then. So they just pretend that it never happened. They are the real deniers.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> I doubt there were any vineyards in NF. It is a big rock.........maybe they made wine from rock moss ?


Not vineyards per se, but wild grapes on vines that attached to tree trunks in the L'Anse aux Meadows area. Viking history talks of the expeditions from Greenland to lands across the strait and then further south to Vinland. 

One interpretation is L'Anse aux Meadows and another is NE New Brunswick though there is no consensus on that. Needless to say, the Norse were active explorers in that era via southern Norway, hopping to Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland. The Medieval Period was indeed a warm period at least as warm as today.


----------



## humble_pie

i believe sags is right, the vikings at l'Anse aux Meadow did not have any vineyards

it was so hot & dry when the vikings set sail to the new world that their prophet MosesSon was able to command the atlantic ocean to part at a certain point

the vikings then walked the rest of the journey to newfoundland, accompanied by caravans of mammoths carrying all their tropical settlor gear. Pith helmets, asian market shade umbrellas, sunscreen to protect their pale freckled northern skins, bottles of aquavit, air conditioners.

PS the Vinland Map turned out to be an academic hoax & a fraud

PPS wild grapes grow prolifically all over eastern canada today, a period which climate deniers are saying is much colder than an alleged medieval warming period. The presence of wild grapes in eastern canada including newfoundland is therefore not an accurate marker of climate change.

i know at least one farmer today who makes the most delicious red wine from wild grapes his kids casually pick on the back reaches of his acreage. His farm is located north of lachute, quebec, in a colder climate zone than my own. But the wild grapes grow happily every year.

PPPS i live in a city district along the CPR/CNR railway tracks (yes my hood has been a seedy slum). The rail tracks are heavily fenced & the federal gummint maintains those fences ferociously, since residents keep cutting the wires & trying to cross the tracks illegally. 

upon those high railway fences grow millions of wild grape vines. Every summer when driving alongside the tracks, one sees many people out picking the grapes. Me i wouldn't - too much Round-Up spray drift from the track defoliation crews - but many people do harvest those bunches of wild urban grapes.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Sags, why do you think there was grape growing and wine making in NF in the days of the Vikings? https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period
> 
> P.S. I am not challenging the assertion (and the study you failed to link) that we are approaching similar times but I'd like to see someone planting vineyards in NF again and opening a winery.


There are proven records of vineyards in England. More sun and warmth that today. Maybe a better example.


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> There are proven records of vineyards in England. More sun and warmth that today. Maybe a better example.


But not due to CO2-induced climate change, back then. The important point is that human activity and fossil fuel emissions is causing a steady warming and change in climate patterns, currently.

There have always been variations in climate over the long term. Those will continue to happen and are beyond our control. Currently, human/economic activity is causing a significant warming & other changes -- that is within our control.

It's irresponsible to wave your hands and say "it's not a big deal" just because there are multiple factors at play. It's like someone who smokes & drinks heavily saying their behaviours are no big deal because they could die in a car accident or global flu pandemic. Yes they might die of other things, but their choices (smoking & drinking... or unchecked carbon emissions) only worsen their situation and raises the probability of failure.

High carbon emissions have raised humankind's probability of failure/catastrophe.


----------



## AltaRed

So spend real money on adaptation. Canada can't do diddly squat to reduce global emissions. Put the money where it has the most impact. Seems so logical to me.


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> There are proven records of vineyards in England. More sun and warmth that today. Maybe a better example.




what are u trying to do, prove that england was so warm in the middle ages that the country hosted vineyards back then, whereas today england is so cold that she has none?

alas the argument won't fly. It's a poor example. There are plenty of thriving british vineyards today. 

care to visit? here are the top 10 vineyards dotting the emerald isle:

https://www.countryliving.com/uk/travel-ideas/staycation-uk/g22884319/best-vineyards-uk/


this winery w vineyard is located in north yorkshire in the north of england, where it's coldest. The bunch of green grapes below looks spectacularly healthy.

there are even wineries in scotland, although the few with grape vineyards are located in the borders district to the south. Northern scottish wineries - there's even one in the orkney islands - appear to be using berries, not grapes.


----------



## AltaRed

Regardless of the debate about grapes and vineyards, the evidence is still there of a medieval warm period as I linked earlier https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period


----------



## sags

You linked to an article by a well known climate change denier, with a long history of funding from the oil industry.

https://www.desmogblog.com/don-easterbrook

He has also been forecasting "global cooling" for many years. After that scenario failed to materialize he now says the current trend of global warming will reverse itself soon.

It appears his group is having some difficulty explaining the current data that shows global temperatures are rising.

Now they are blaming sunspots and cow farts........anything but the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels that scientists are confident is the cause of climate change.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Government funding exceeds Big oil by 1000 to 1. Trillions of taxpayer money a year is spent on only one side of the issue and sags worries about 0.01% funding on the other side. 

Sags is the real denier.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Lest anyone think the 'movers and shakers' of the world are really serious about climate change. The old 'do as we say, not as we do':
https://pagesix.com/2019/08/01/goog...ange-camp-mocked-as-party-for-entitled-fools/

https://pagesix.com/2019/07/30/a-li...vate-jets-mega-yachts-to-talk-climate-change/


----------



## AltaRed

Fits in with JTs jaunts to BC to surf. About 30,000 litres of fuel I understand.


----------



## sags

Further evidence the wealthy have too much money and just piss it away. They can afford to pay higher taxes for the common good.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Fits in with JTs jaunts to BC to surf. About 30,000 litres of fuel I understand.


But he does not pay it so it is invisible to him. He loves living off of the taxpayer dime!

OTOH I don't object to rich people wasting their own money. As long as they are not relying on handouts from us taxpayers. And not preaching about saving the environment like Suzuki and Gore. One of the reasons I am opposed to subsidies for electric vehicles is that it goes to people who really don't need our help.


----------



## sags

MPs from all over Canada fly to Ottawa and back home all the time, including MPs from BC.

Trudeau lives in Ottawa so he doesn't have to fly across the country to be home. Quebec is a short commuter flight away.

If I recall correctly former PM Harper was from Calgary but lived in the official residence in Ottawa. 

He was flying back to Calgary on a regular basis. He always took photo ops at the Calgary Stampede and NHL hockey games in Edmonton and Calgary.

Talking about Trudeau taking a vacation is a little silly, when put into context.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Fits in with JTs jaunts to BC to surf. About 30,000 litres of fuel I understand.




but any fuel consumed by a trudeau's return flight ottawa-BC has to pale in comparison to your own massive consumption of aircraft fuel, no?

by your own admission you've flown to vietnam & toured southeast asia for a month, to hawaii for another month, to norway for a cruise.

AFAIK trudeau has taken 2 personal holidays over the past year. One to florida for a few days in midwinter, one to BC for a few days. Surely this must be less than 1/10th your own personal consumption of jet fuel.


----------



## AltaRed

The plane was going anyway HP to all 3 places and the Viking ship was sailing anyway. My spouse's and I personal component was maybe what? 1% of the WJ flight to Hawaii? 0.5% to Norway and Vietnam? 0.1% on the Viking ship? And those seats would have been filled anyway by someone else. 

I didn't charter my own jet for any of those. JT used a government jet that could have stayed on the tarmac (as I understand it, 2 jets since one was the advance party and security). Nor do I preach one thing and do another. JT is a hypocrite just like all those so-called celebrity do-gooders, and you know it.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> MPs from all over Canada fly to Ottawa and back home all the time, including MPs from BC.
> 
> Trudeau lives in Ottawa so he doesn't have to fly across the country to be home. Quebec is a short commuter flight away.
> 
> If I recall correctly former PM Harper was from Calgary but lived in the official residence in Ottawa.
> 
> He was flying back to Calgary on a regular basis. He always took photo ops at the Calgary Stampede and NHL hockey games in Edmonton and Calgary.
> 
> Talking about Trudeau taking a vacation is a little silly, when put into context.


Out of all those, JT and perhaps CM (and maybe some PMO members catching free rides) preach one thing and do another. It's the hypocrisy of their behaviour that is at issue here. But that seems lost on those with ideological blinders on.

P.S. I think most MPs fly commercial and don't charter jets.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed has a pro energy industry agenda and picks away at everything imaginable. It's almost comical.

Kind of amazing to me that a retired guy would work _so hard_ to represent the oil & gas lobby's views on his own time. Don't worry AltaRed, these guys don't need any help. They have enough money and political influence already.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> AltaRed has a pro energy industry agenda and picks away at everything imaginable. It's almost comical.
> 
> Kind of amazing to me that a retired guy would work _so hard_ to represent the oil & gas lobby's views on his own time. Don't worry AltaRed, these guys don't need any help. They have enough money and political influence already.


You are only frustrated and angry that I pointed out the fallacy of HP's and Sags' assertions. Hypocrisy has to be called, don't you think? 

Your shot has nothing to do with the energy production industry. It has everything to do with carbon footprint, the consumer of O&G. How can you possibly get those 2 things mixed up?

Note that I don't do say one thing and do another. Hypocrisy has no place in my life.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> You are only frustrated and angry that I pointed out the fallacy of HP's and Sags' assertions. Hypocrisy has to be called, don't you think? Your shot has nothing to do with the energy production industry. It has everything to do with carbon footprint, the consumer of O&G.
> 
> Note that I don't do say one thing and do another. Hypocrisy has no place in my life.


Generally speaking you use similar talking notes as the climate change deniers (and those who try to confuse the issue). Combined with your history in oil & gas, and the fact you were a high income earner who has profited tremendously from Alberta's resource extraction, I think it's reasonable to conclude that have an agenda here... trying to sway public opinion in your own little way.

I'm not saying you're still on payroll, but you sure behave like someone who is. Maybe it's just a kinship you feel with the industry that made you rich?


----------



## sags

Such trivial matters may be headline news out west but in the east nobody cares.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Generally speaking you use similar talking notes as the climate change deniers (and those who try to confuse the issue). Combined with your history in oil & gas, and the fact you were a high income earner who has profited tremendously from Alberta's resource extraction, I think it's reasonable to conclude that have an agenda here... trying to sway public opinion in your own little way.
> 
> I'm not saying you're still on payroll, but you sure behave like someone who is. Maybe it's just a kinship you feel with the industry that made you rich?


You are now changing your attack because you have no legitimate rebuttal of the facts. Stick with the facts James. You lost this round. Quit digging.

It may come as a surprise that CO2 emissions are the result of consumption of O&G, i.e. the demand side of the equation. Why is that so hard to understand when it's been proven over man's written record that it is the demand that must be curtailed in order to make supply unprofitable and thus cease to exist?


----------



## james4beach

^ look at this guy, a professional to the end! How high in the oil & gas industry were you, AltaRed? You don't speak like a lower level engineer or technician.

You're a professional climate change denier. This isn't casual talk; this guy is a professional.


----------



## sags

James is right about the oil lobby influence in Alberta.

It is reported that Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is planning on election campaigning in riding rich Ontario, where the next election will be decided (along with Quebec).

His message will no doubt be........vote for Andrew Scheer to eliminate the carbon tax and ignore climate change.

I think he will discover that few people are interested in that message, but he is welcome to come and try.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> JT used a government jet that could have stayed on the tarmac.



it's an RCAF carrier. Required for prime ministers. They're not allowed to fly commercial. Same story for stephen harper.





> JT is a hypocrite just like all those so-called celebrity do-gooders, and you know it.



sorry i don't know any such thing. All i know is that some folks are stuck in diss-trudeau-propaganda mode. Gets monotonous.


----------



## sags

The pilots and crew are being paid if flying or not, and the airplane must be flown regularly to maintain good working order.

One might consider Trudeau is actually saving Canadian taxpayer money, when everything is factored in to the equation.


----------



## AltaRed

I've never been a climate change denier... .wrong again! I have questioned how much man contributes to climate change and what cost is reasonable to incur to reduce CO2 emissions. Indeed, I have repeatedly said that practical and pragmatic changes to energy consumption are in our best economic interests, e.g. lowers our cash flow expenditures. Stick with the facts James!

Almost anyone with brain cells knows that the way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce demand. It has little to nothing to do with supply. 

I've said before: Prostitution has existed for centuries and perhaps thousands of years because of demand. Prohibition didn't work because demand remained. Illicit drugs are on the street because of demand. Laws and law enforcement can do virtually nothing to stop it because what the consumer wants to pay for, someone will supply it.

If all you climate change advocates want to do something about reducing CO2 emissions, work on reducing demand. If you are wildly successful, prices of O&G will fall to the point that at least some supply becomes unprofitable and ceases to exist. Y'all are working on the wrong side of the equation. Until then, global demand for oil, natural gas, and even coal will continue to increase. We are at 100 million barrels per day of oil DEMAND and climbing.

Hint: Start with Sags' beloved auto industry. As I've previously posted, imagine the value of reducing global vehicle production by 50% if it was fashionable to own vehicles 20 years and automakers, especially those lousy Americans, would continue to make vehicles better. Imagine not having to mine all that iron ore, bauxite, nickel, chromium, lithium, etc. and make all those plastics, and transport them around the world and use all that energy in auto assembly plants. Imagine if you would expend your energy in pursuing higher CAFE requirements to improve mileage. Imagine if you worked to eliminate pleasure boating that guzzle fuel and mandated battery boats. There are literally hundreds of things climate change advocates could pursue that would make sense.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> The pilots and crew are being paid if flying or not, and the airplane must be flown regularly to maintain good working order.
> 
> One might consider Trudeau is actually saving Canadian taxpayer money, when everything is factored in to the equation.


The biggest pile of baloney I've heard this morning. And you know it. So does everyone else reading these posts.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> The biggest pile of baloney I've heard this morning. And you know it. So does everyone else reading these posts.



no it's not baloney. The baloney is what's coming from yourself.

sags is right, the air force crew are on duty 24/7 & they train around the clock.

here's what's baloney: calling justin trudeau "a racist" because he correctly addressed a group of protestors using 3rd person plural pronouns. Those pronouns, altaRed somehow tried to argue, prove that the PM is "a racist."

here's more baloney: frivolously calling for canada to spend half-a-trillion dollars building a new armada of 100 warships, including 33 new icebreakers. When the only threat to canada, now & in the future, will come by air, if it comes at all.

it's not normal in the least to pretend that a prime minister is not entitled to a vacation. And if a prime minister does take a brief modest vacation, it's not normal to pretend that he's not allowed to fly.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pilots and crew are being paid if flying or not, and the airplane must be flown regularly to maintain good working order ...
> 
> 
> 
> ... sags is right, the air force crew are on duty 24/7 & they train around the clock ...
Click to expand...

Maybe they should train less and maintain the air craft more?

But then again, what should we expect from planes the gov't bought from Wardair in '92, having been purchased for commercial use in '87.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can-force-one-replacement-1.4558838
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/macdougall-pm-plane-1.3834965
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mal...ag-for-prime-minister-s-aging-plane-1.3977532




sags said:


> ... One might consider Trudeau is actually saving Canadian taxpayer money, when everything is factored in to the equation.


Doubtful ... based on the breakdowns, lack of capabilities and improvements to fuel economy since '87.




humble_pie said:


> ... here's more baloney: frivolously calling for canada to spend half-a-trillion dollars building a new armada of 100 warships, including 33 new icebreakers. When the only threat to canada, now & in the future, will come by air, if it comes at all.


Good to know that Russia that has flown over the Canadian north, used their submarines to pass through and is beefing up their capabilities will stay out of our waters when push comes to shove.

The US and Brits with have submarines that can operate in the Arctic and tested capabilities as part of the Arctic and Ice Exercise (ICEX) 2018. Canada can't do any of that so it all depends on the US being willing to help out, if the Russians decide to skip the fly over tests.


Cheers


*PS*
What's the saying? Use it or lose it?

Canada seems to be depending on the US willingness to deter other countries. Not sure that is a great plan with Trump in charge.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> here's more baloney: frivolously calling for canada to spend half-a-trillion dollars building a new armada of 100 warships, including 33 new icebreakers. When the only threat to canada, now & in the future, will come by air, if it comes at all.


You don't seem to understand much about defense. Both our 12 mile limit and our 200 mile economic zone are being tested regularly by other nations. Never mind potential illicit smuggling of drugs and people into this country. We have one of the longest, largely unprotected and accessible coastlines in the world. You'd think we would at least protect it with the continual presence of coast guard ships and aerial surveillance. There is no justification for us to have a smaller coast guard than the USA, and as Eclectic12 has said, we must have a regular presence in our Arctic. To do that takes a major effort in shipbuilding and base building. I don't know that 100* ships, including 33 icebreakers is too much, or too little, but to me, it feels about right to have half that fleet at sea at any given time, with the rest in rotation, replenishment, r&r. 

* In comparison, the US Coast Guard has hundreds of cutters (>65 ft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Coast_Guard_cutters and https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/docu...15-2016_edition.pdf?ver=2018-06-14-092150-230, 1402 boats (<65 ft) and 210 aircraft. The US doesn't need many icebreakers since it is only the Chukchi Sea and portion of the Beaufort Sea they need to patrol. Compare that with Russian icebreakers here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_icebreakers#Russia (haven't gone through the list to count active only). Canada doesn't remotely compare.

HP, your ideology doesn't seem to allow you to consider factual evidence. Nor do you and Sags know what it takes to manage a corporate fleet of aircraft. RCAF pilots get their flying time on a host of military aircraft. The aircraft are maintained by the military. It is the fuel wastage by a PM that loves to surf and yet rails against CO2 emissions. That is the precise definition of a hypocrite.

Added: Don't know where HP's half a trillion comes from but there may be confusion between discussion on Coast Guard (defensive) vs Navy (defense and/or offense). I doubt the average Coast Guard ship costs $5B each. The average frigate and destroyer might but I doubt Canada would ever have that many warships and numbers of aircraft to provide air support. After all, we have no ability to take war to almost anyone and I am agnostic about that. I do believe in a strong defense, and yes, that includes fighter interceptors and a lot of surveillance aircraft. It also requires some on-the-ground presence in the Arctic like Russia is doing.


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> You don't seem to understand much about defense. Both our 12 mile limit and our 200 mile economic zone are being tested regularly by other nations ...


With Canada piggy backing on the US for defense, I'm not sure Canada is fully aware of what other nations are going through the Arctic, beyond things like the converted Russian ice breaker my cousin was on to tour parts of the north.




AltaRed said:


> ... Canada doesn't remotely compare.


Lots of SAR lifeboats with an active fleet of one hundred twenty.

Since the Russians are expanding their Arctic capabilities - there are four "medium" ice breakers and one "heavy" ice breaker.

For the second time in three years, because the oldest ship in the fleet is still in refit - private charters are being hired to carry out oceanographic science missions (commissioned in Feb '64). https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...uard-fleet-out-of-action-until-2020-1.5154930 




AltaRed said:


> ... ... Added: Don't know where HP's half a trillion comes from but there may be confusion between discussion on Coast Guard (defensive) vs Navy (defense and/or offense). I doubt the average Coast Guard ship costs $5B each ...


For the CG ships to cost $5 Billion each, there would have to a per ship cost overrun of something like $4 Billion each. Likely the preliminary numbers will increase but they are starting at eighteen for $15.7 Billion. Only two are for duties further off shore, such as the Arctic.


Cheers


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> HP, your ideology doesn't seem to allow you to consider factual evidence. Nor do you and Sags know what it takes to manage a corporate fleet of aircraft. RCAF pilots get their flying time on a host of military aircraft. The aircraft are maintained by the military. It is the fuel wastage by a PM that loves to surf and yet rails against CO2 emissions. That is the precise definition of a hypocrite.


Eh.. some RCAF pilots may hold currency of multiple platforms but it's far from the norm. There's years of upgrades on a single military platform and they need constant hours to maintain each currency/combat readiness/instructor upgrade etc. I can only think of some extremely experienced reservists who flew part time RCAF and part time for a contractor, instructors/evaluators transitioning to a new fleet, international exchanges etc.

Truth is when PM doesn't use VIP transport the RCAF uses it for training, transportation, and even emergency medical evacuations (it has been argued a small commercial VIP fleet actually saves $$$ vs tactical military aircraft hours that would be used in place of) Flying for currency/training is not uncommon at all in any Air Force because they don't fly a routine schedule like commercial fleets and they have to be prepared/trained for many contingencies. Sims cover a lot of it now but there is still a mandate for real world proficiency as well, flight safety is written in blood etc. Most platforms need to visit various locations for the sake of famil training and even the ground crew proficiency training etc etc etc

I do agree we should invest desperately in arctic surveillance and defence of arctic sovereignty/resources. Harper's Canada first defence strategy called for this over a decade ago meanwhile Russia and China have made significant progress and we only have a dusty forgotten policy. IMO this should be a major topic during the election but I'm not sure it will even be mentioned. Apparently we just assume the US will handle it


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The pilots and crew are being paid if flying or not, and the airplane must be flown regularly to maintain good working order.
> 
> One might consider Trudeau is actually saving Canadian taxpayer money, when everything is factored in to the equation.


Based on that logic, when Trudeau gropes females he's actually doing a service to women.

And when he demotes/fires people who won't cover for his illegal actions, he's promoting ethics.

And when he dresses in costume and dances like a drunken fool he's...um...?? :stupid:


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> I do agree we should invest desperately in arctic surveillance and defence of arctic sovereignty/resources.



many agree ^^

this is where someone like altaRed is out-dated old school. He still thinks 100 brand-new navy ships would make a difference to canada's northern sovereignty.

whereas what we learn from what the DOD & the MOT are actually saying & doing is that the first priority in the north is better aerial, drone, radar, cyber & space surveillance.

across gigantic unpopulated territories, state-of-the-art surveillance & rapid air defence will work better than sending a slow ship that could take 2-4 days to reach a critical zone. 

scratch that 2-4 days. In the high arctic a ship could take 2-4 weeks or not get through at all. Air defence is everything.


----------



## AltaRed

I guess the Russians and the Americans don't know what they are doing then. Perhaps someone should tell them?


----------



## m3s

Canada very recently launched 3 shiny new RADARSAT satellites. They also each happen to have 4 AIS antenna on board - the system used to identify cooperative ships. We compared AIS with airborne radar to cue the navy to potential Somali pirates with success. So now we at least have some modern eyes in the arctic but still need some teeth to inspect and enforce what we spot. Drones might be a future solution but still need coast guard in the maritime choke points and more naval/airborne SAR etc. An arctic base might have been a campaign promise that aligns with the environment and economic concerns vs the very delayed and short lived peacekeeper mission


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> I guess the Russians and the Americans don't know what they are doing then. Perhaps someone should tell them?



as a nation the US is a totally different kind of military animal than canada. The US is an aggressor warrior nation that sends armed fleets out to scour the oceans in order to maintain the pax americana.

russia has ambitions in that same direction. Same for expansionist china. 

canada? no, smaller country, defence policy more in common w scandinavian countries than w great military powers.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> as a nation the US is a totally different kind of military animal than canada. The US is an aggressor warrior nation that sends armed fleets out to scour the oceans in order to maintain the pax americana.
> 
> russia has ambitions in that same direction. Same for expansionist china.
> 
> canada? no, smaller country, defence policy more in common w scandinavian countries than w great military powers.


I am talking about the coast guard, not an offensive military. Both the USA and Russia have strong coast guards, as do other countries. I have no strong views on standard military forces. We are too small to do much of anything about offensive threats. Don't know why that keeps getting derailed.


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> Canada very recently launched 3 shiny new RADARSAT satellites. They also each happen to have 4 AIS antenna on board - the system used to identify cooperative ships. We compared AIS with airborne radar to cue the navy to potential Somali pirates with success.
> 
> So now we at least have some modern eyes in the arctic but still need some teeth to inspect and enforce what we spot. Drones might be a future solution but still need coast guard in the maritime choke points and more naval/airborne SAR etc.
> 
> An arctic base might have been a campaign promise that aligns with the environment and economic concerns vs the very delayed and short lived peacekeeper mission




there are entire books contained by reference in this ^^ brief post.

yes i remember the somali pirates, how NATO air force did em in within one short season. IIRC it was your radar aircraft or at least a sister aircraft from the same fleet, was it not?

of course canada needs to back up northern surveillance with teeth. Spreading that word to voters is an enormous challenge, given the costs & all.

i find your last sentence to be haunting. You mean that canada could have built a better northern defence system instead of contributing the $$ to anti-al quaeda, anti-ISIL. anti-terrorist peacekeeping efforts by our allies?

i suppose the costs of abandoning the allies would have made themselves known though.

do you think there is a dollar-reasonable middle road? how to arm the north while maintaining our military alliances?


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> I am talking about the coast guard, not an offensive military. Both the USA and Russia have strong coast guards, as do other countries.



OIC, canada is to have 100 new coast guard vessels, with half of them to sit in drydock undergoing repair & enjoying R & R each: ?


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> many agree ^^
> 
> this is where someone like altaRed is out-dated old school. He still thinks 100 brand-new navy ships would make a difference to canada's northern sovereignty.
> whereas what we learn from what the DOD & the MOT are actually saying & doing is that the first priority in the north is better aerial, drone, radar, cyber & space surveillance ...


Let's see ... the Churchill base has gone from large to a fuel depot that could only operate in the summer to what is described as a jetty.
That's a good plan?

If there was redirection of funds then maybe but I don't see any references to this happening.


I am also interested that up thread, there was no mention of spending is better on something else. 
How much do you figure these improved capabilities will cost?

With purchases of used aircraft from Australia, with lots of other equipment having their replacement delayed, delayed and delayed - when is this better capability going to arrive?




humble_pie said:


> ... In the high arctic a ship could take 2-4 weeks or not get through at all. Air defence is everything.


Good to know that the Russians are betting on what can't get through.

Should the surveillance detect a Russian, American or British sub in the arctic - is the air support able to do much about it?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> I am talking about the coast guard, not an offensive military. Both the USA and Russia have strong coast guards, as do other countries ...


Unless something has changed in the last four decades, a fair number of US coast guard vessels are better armed than the Canadian navy ship I was on.




AltaRed said:


> ... I have no strong views on standard military forces. We are too small to do much of anything about offensive threats. Don't know why that keeps getting derailed.


It makes it easier to keep the estimated numbers for the costs much higher. :biggrin:

I don't imagine that what "the many support" is cheap either. Where many support it, it should be delivered any day now, n'est pas? :rolleyes2:
Or maybe it will be on the long delayed path of most other military upgrades.


Cheers


----------



## m3s

humble_pie said:


> i suppose the costs of abandoning the allies would have made themselves known though.
> 
> do you think there is a dollar-reasonable middle road? how to arm the north while maintaining our military alliances?


I don't know the latest or actual circumstances but read the UN requested Canada to extend its helicopter medevac mission in Mali until Romania arrives in the fall. From an outside perspective it appears we drug our feet to arrive late and then rushed out the door early [literally abandoning allies] The whole things feels like a token mission. Again I don't know the circumstances and probably shouldn't comment

Establishing a military presence in the arctic seems to make sense strategically (military deterrence and control of strategic points) economically (protecting resources and commercial activity) and environmentally (monitoring changes and enforcing environmental protection act) It's not offensive to establish a presence - that is how Russian and China operate (see China in south China sea)

Regardless of size militaries respect other military presence because nobody wants to instigate armed conflict. If it's just no man's land then it's a different story. It's like a dark alley without a routine police presence. If there are resources and commercial activity in the arctic then the cost is an easy investment in the economy and the environment etc


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about the coast guard, not an offensive military. Both the USA and Russia have strong coast guards, as do other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OIC, canada is to have 100 new coast guard vessels, with half of them to sit in drydock undergoing repair & enjoying R & R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...

The point is that not all vessels are plying the waters 100% of the time. A good number are at base for whatever reason at any given time. You must be a joy to live with.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> OIC, canada is to have 100 new coast guard vessels, with half of them to sit in drydock undergoing repair & enjoying R & R each: ?


If they are newer (i.e. not approaching fifty years plus in age) - there would be less need of drydock refits and being off of active service.


Cheers


----------



## sags

I would rather support a fleet of nuclear submarines equipped with nuclear tipped ICBMs and short range missiles. 

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate "deterrence". We need to build defense for the future not the past. It isn't 1944 anymore.

A couple of Ohio class nuclear submarines would do the trick. They can also be built in Canada as General Dynamics has a plant in Ontario.

The sections could be built in Ontario and assembled on Lake Ontario or the east coast.

The cost would be about $3 billion a submarine in 2018 dollars. Get the submarines and a huge boost to the economy......win/win


----------



## AltaRed

It depends on what one is trying to deter. A nuclear deterrent potentially wards off an invasion by state actors. But 'boots on the ground' (or on the sea) is what is required to enforce things like fishing quotas, illicit smuggling, illegal immigration, and the like. Even the most mighty militaries know boots on the ground are required to control and defend ground. Hence the Russian buildup in the Arctic and a strong US Coast Guard.


----------



## Eclectic12

What about good old SAR in the Arctic?

Arctic Canada cruises are reported to have doubled in about eight years. If this continues, what happens when another cruise ship runs aground this time in bad weather?
In good weather, a two day wait for a Canadian ice breaker to show up wasn't a big deal ... but that won't always be the case.

In the case of the Russian research cruise ship Akademik Ioffe for a scheduled three week voyage that the U.S. National Foundation sponsored as part of the Northwest Passage Project, the Canadian response is not described as timely.



> It took nearly nine hours for a Hercules aircraft to fly in from the Royal Canadian Air Forces’s Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Trenton, Ont., 12 hours for another RCAF plane to come in from Winnipeg and 20 hours for a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter to fly over.
> 
> By then we were boarding the Akademik Vavilov, a Russian sister ship that had come to the rescue.



https://qz.com/1679630/climate-change-lures-cruise-ships-to-sail-risky-arctic-passages/
https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/artic...for_the_dangers_of_increased_arctic_shipping/


That's without factoring in increased shipping or smaller vessels using the NWP more than before.


Cheers


----------



## sags

There should be significant levies paid to ply the water of the NWP and the money can be used to develop a competent SAR station.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> There should be significant levies paid to ply the water of the NWP and the money can be used to develop a competent SAR station.


Try collecting without an 'on the ground' presence. Hard to train polar bears, seals and walruses to collect tolls. But even then, certain world powers (US and EU countries) ignore our claim of sovereignty over the NWP anyway. Use it or lose it....

http://www.environmentandsociety.or...assage/northwest-passage-question-sovereignty
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-09-04/who-controls-northwest-passage-its-debate
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ca...ignty-over-the-arctic-while-theres-still-time


----------



## sags

That's where the nuclear submarines come in to play. They are always there, lurking and waiting for trespassers.

They surface right in front of the ships and demand payment or they get a full dose of the deck guns.

Or.........any ship that doesn't pay the levy doesn't get rescued.


----------



## m3s

We'd need coast guard and/or navy at the strategic choke points to enforce any kind of levy. Those trying to sneak through on the surface could be picked up by RADARSAT and investigated by drones, planes or a ship that happens to be nearby. Subsurface is a whole other realm - there's submarine drones now

Let's just start with some ice breakers and a permanent central base for arctic SAR and arctic drones. Let's bolster the Canadian Rangers, call 'em the Arctic Rangers. Call 'em the Arctic Power Rangers! With colourful Arctic Ranger suits. Then the world will have no choice but to acknowledge our arctic sovereignty


----------



## humble_pie

Eclectic12 said:


> What about good old SAR in the Arctic?




this post is interesting because it raises the issue of why or how canada should be responsible for expensive SAR rescue efforts for any old tom, dick or harry vessel, no matter under what flag it may be registered, no matter how ill-prepared, that chooses to sail into pack ice in the uncharted northwest passage.

the 2018 russian ship incident, sailing with US sponsorship, is a good example. We don't know the history of this voyage but any US maritime presence in canada's arctic waters is generally neither invited nor welcomed by canada.

the 2 countries are at loggerheads over the definition of canada's territorial waters & have been sparking on this issue for decades. My understanding is that the only agreement in place says that canada & the US will not fight about the issue in public; nevertheless it festers in the background at all times & US ships have "invaded" canada's claimed territorial waters on a few memorable occasions.

was that 2018 russian/US expedition into the northwest passage invited or even accepted by canada? if neither invited nor accepted, how is it that canadian military & canadian coast guard can be expected to offer millions of $$ worth in SAR disaster assistance?

notice that personnel from the rock-stranded russian expedition ship herself were rescued by a "russian sister ship" that, amazingly enough, happened to be hovering close by.

in normal international shipping, vessels do not need to be accompanied by their own rescue ships. The presence of that russian sister ship so close by, clearly for rescue purposes, suggests to me that canada may have pointed out to the organizers of the expedition - namely Yale university & the russian government - that the research vessel would have to bring along its own rescue operations.

under the circumstances - possibly unwelcome visiting ship from foreign nations recognized as aggressors in canadian arctic waters - it could be viewed as remarkable that canada sent any rescue aircraft or any emergency coast guard assistance at all.


.


----------



## Prairie Guy

"A trio of Environment Canada bureaucrats ate their way through more than $12,000 worth of fine Parisian cuisine during last fall’s big climate change conference."

https://torontosun.com/2016/08/23/p...aris/wcm/0ecdde9a-cce4-47e5-89af-fd485770a097


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> "A trio of Environment Canada bureaucrats ate their way through more than $12,000 worth of fine Parisian cuisine during last fall’s big climate change conference."
> 
> https://torontosun.com/2016/08/23/p...aris/wcm/0ecdde9a-cce4-47e5-89af-fd485770a097




why all the fake rage?

129,000 for 155 delegates for 12 days breaks down to $69.35 CAD per person per day.

i don't know the CAD/euro exchange rate at the time of the paris conference but today 1 CAD is worth .68 euro.

at or near that exchange rate, each member of the delegation was expensing 69 x .68 or roughly 47 euros per day on meals.

been to a paris restaurant lately? 47 euros would get you breakfast plus one extra _p'tit noir_ if you were lucky. The canadian delegation must have starved.

the communications personnel had higher than average restaurant expenses because they were required to entertain foreigners - news media, foreign counterparts attending the conference - & they did so as part of their job.

catherine mcKenna & justin trudeau would have entertained as well but their hospitality expenses probably came under that official entertainment rubric. Evidently the 3 communications staffers put their guests' meal expenses on their own personal tabs. Either way it was all straightforward normal. Only alt-right toronto Sun & a few rightwing extremists would bother to get excited.


----------



## Prairie Guy

humble_pie said:


> why all the fake rage?
> 
> 129,000 for 155 delegates for 12 days breaks down to $69.35 CAD per person per day.


3 people spent $12,000, or almost 10% of the entire food cost of $129,000. That was my point...not the fact that the other 152 people got by on $64 a day. I wouldn't have posted a comment had those three kept their costs at $64 a day.

People wouldn't have to explain things to you if you would take the time read the comment and understand it. Please try to do better.


----------



## Prairie Guy

humble_pie said:


> the communications personnel had higher than average restaurant expenses because they were required to entertain foreigners - news media, foreign counterparts attending the conference - & they did so as part of their job.


It's not a requirement or part of a politicians job to dine with the media on taxpayer the taxpayer dime. All they have to do is call a press conference.


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> 3 people spent $12,000, or almost 10% of the entire food cost of $129,000. That was my point...not the fact that the other 152 people got by on $64 a day. I wouldn't have posted a comment had those three kept their costs at $64 a day.
> 
> People wouldn't have to explain things to you if you would take the time read the comment and understand it. Please try to do better.



i answered you already. They entertained. It was their particular job as communications specialists to entertain significant global media & critical foreign counterparts at the conference. Evidently the three put their guests' expenses on their own personal tabs.

as a matter of fact that $12,000 for official delegation "hospitality" looks way too minimal. Might have paid for a couple cocktail parties plus a couple small luncheons.

every foreign delegation/conference goes like that. They entertain. Conservatives, liberals, since time immemorial they entertain. It's time for you to clue yourself up.


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> It's not a requirement or part of a politicians job to dine with the media on taxpayer the taxpayer dime. All they have to do is call a press conference.



absolutely in foreign affairs they entertain on the taxpayer's dime. All countries do this. Have done so for hundreds of years. Clue yourself up.

i remember once coaching a baby boss - a newly-arrived vice consul on his first foreign posting. An important female journalist invited him out for dinner (entertaining works both ways.)

afterwards i mentioned to him that he should send her flowers w a thank-you note. He did.

her response was surprising. She invited him out for dinner a 2nd time (ie she didn't know how to play the game)

he came to me & asked if he was supposed to send her flowers a 2nd time. No, i said, she's crushed on you, better cool it.


----------



## RBull

Prairie Guy said:


> 3 people spent $12,000, or almost 10% of the entire food cost of $129,000. That was my point...not the fact that the other 152 people got by on $64 a day. I wouldn't have posted a comment had those three kept their costs at $64 a day.
> 
> People wouldn't have to explain things to you if you would take the time read the comment and understand it. Please try to do better.


Those meal expenses for 3 govt employees do seem a little over the top, even in Paris. Strange so many of all the others got by on a tiny fraction of that, even in Paris. 

BTW, I looked carefully but I couldn't find the rage or the fakeness. 



Prairie Guy said:


> It's not a requirement or part of a politicians job to dine with the media on taxpayer the taxpayer dime. All they have to do is call a press conference.


Yes, it does seem odd if indeed Canadian govt. communications executives are paying for meals for media. That would seem to be some kind of potential conflict.


----------



## humble_pie

RBull said:


> Those meal expenses for 3 govt employees do seem a little over the top, even in Paris. Strange so many of all the others got by on a tiny fraction of that, even in Paris.



i explained all that. In fact i explained it twice. Too bad some people are so blind.






> BTW, I looked carefully but I couldn't find the rage or the fakeness



he's faking the accusations in this thread. The facts are easily explainable. 

tyg is a well-known extreme rightwing troublemaker w numerous fake identities & incessant malignant insults in cmf forum. Since he has nothing to contribute in finance one wonders why he bothers to post here.


----------



## sags

This is an old article from 2016.

Overall a budget of less than $1 million to send an official delegation on an extended conference and meetings in France doesn't sound like much.


----------



## sags

No doubt conservatives and their news media would prefer that Canada not attend any conferences regarding climate change, given their denial of the looming crisis.

Since 2016, much more has been learned about climate change. The negative effects have arrived earlier than forecast even in 2016.

The latest report discussed the increasing problem of feeding the world because of climate change, which directly contradicts the theory that climate change will create tropical paradises.

I would expect our government to attend as many climate conferences as possible to gain a full understanding of the current science and projected future.

It is their duty as a government to seek to protect the welfare of Canadians, both present and future.


----------



## RBull

humble_pie said:


> i explained all that. In fact i explained it twice. Too bad some people are so blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he's faking the accusations in this thread. The facts are easily explainable.
> 
> tyg is a well-known extreme rightwing troublemaker w numerous fake identities & incessant malignant insults in cmf forum. Since he has nothing to contribute in finance one wonders why he bothers to post here.


Thanks for the reply. I haven't really kept up with this thread too much at all.


----------



## Spidey

sags said:


> No doubt conservatives and their news media would prefer that Canada not attend any conferences regarding climate change, given their denial of the looming crisis.
> 
> Since 2016, much more has been learned about climate change. The negative effects have arrived earlier than forecast even in 2016.
> 
> The latest report discussed the increasing problem of feeding the world because of climate change, which directly contradicts the theory that climate change will create tropical paradises.
> 
> I would expect our government to attend as many climate conferences as possible to gain a full understanding of the current science and projected future.
> 
> It is their duty as a government to seek to protect the welfare of Canadians, both present and future.


Last time Canada sent over 300 delegates to Paris. Over 300 traveling by air, using taxis, hotels and eating lots of pate de foie, Camembert and steak frites (not many vegan restaurants in Paris). And that's just Canada - not sure what the carbon impact would be from all the participants from around the globe. However, this is extremely important so they can convince the poor average Joe, driving his pickup truck for a living, that we all should be doing more. Of course, holding these conferences by video-conferencing would make a tremendous statement regarding how seriously they regard this issue but for some reason when personal responsibility is balanced against fun, free trip to Paris it is the latter that wins out.


----------



## humble_pie

Spidey said:


> Last time Canada sent over 300 delegates to Paris. Over 300 traveling by air, using taxis, hotels and eating lots of pate de foie, Camembert and steak frites (not many vegan restaurants in Paris).


wondering where you are getting the ^^ above claims?

just upthread we went through a 2016 article from toronto Sun that said 155 delegates (not 300) who spent a documented average of $69 CAD each per day for food in paris, which amount does not buy any appreciable quantity of pate, cheese or steak. Would not, in fact, be enough to buy 1 steak dinner in a middling decent paris restaurant.

from their expense accounts, one would have to conclude that the delegation starved themselves


----------



## MrMatt

Sorry, I think politicians should schmooze during these conferences.
A few thousand in meals and such to make contact and build relationships is very valuable, and I think cutting that out is a bad idea.

Relationships are incredibly valuable, and they should be building relationships, that is there job.
That's also why I think all MPs (government and opposition) should be allowed a certain budget to build relationships to further the interests of Canadians.
It's there job.

That's also why attending anti-Trump rallies during the NAFTA negotiatiosn wasn't just a bad idea, it was arguably acting against the primary responsibilities of the negotiating team.


----------



## Spidey

humble_pie said:


> wondering where you are getting the ^^ above claims?
> 
> just upthread we went through a 2016 article from toronto Sun that said 155 delegates (not 300) who spent a documented average of $69 CAD each per day for food in paris, which amount does not buy any appreciable quantity of pate, cheese or steak. Would not, in fact, be enough to buy 1 steak dinner in a middling decent paris restaurant.
> 
> from their expense accounts, one would have to conclude that the delegation starved themselves


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/the-price-of-paris-canada-sends-more-than-300-delegates-to-climate-talks-1.2686239


----------



## humble_pie

a bizarre & misleading ^^ headline. That article appeared very early during the 2015 paris conference with guesstimates of the total number of canadians who had said they were planning to attend. Thought to number 300, says the headline.

that figure is roughly twice the number of official delegates who were actually sent by ottawa & whose expenses were subsidized by the federal gummint. Numbering 155, as it would turn out.

article states that provincial & municipal visitors paid their own way. So, presumably, did corporate & NGO attendees.



> Officials from each province and municipality attending the two-week long COP21 talks are expected to cover their own costs.



the toronto Sun's figures, published after the conference had ended, are accurate. Sun said ottawa had sent a total of 155 persons to paris & followed with their audited expense account breakdown. The figures showed that the per diem per person was modest.

BTW the 2015 paris climate conference is stale old news today. Done like dinner. Perhaps the parties attempting to smear trudeau could come up with better material.


----------



## sags

The smearing of Trudeau's leadership has proven to be a difficult task for the Conservatives. 

His government has improved the lives of Canadians so much that Conservatives can't complain about his policy achievements.

Where is Conservative outrage the CPP was expanded ? Where is the outrage over increased Child Benefits, increased GIS, elimination of 1 week of waiting for EI benefits ?

The Conservatives have thin gruel to serve Canadians on the eve of a Federal election. 

They have apparently settled on critiquing his choice of clothing in India, personal vacations, and attendance at climate change conferences.

Weak......very weak. No wonder the Liberals are passing Conservatives in the polls.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/liberals-surge-ahead-of-conservatives-in-latest-poll/

https://assets.nationalnewswatch.co.../07/16051652/Political-Package-2019-07-12.pdf


----------



## like_to_retire

humble_pie said:


> Perhaps the parties attempting to smear trudeau could come up with better material.


Yeah, it's quite hard because he never gives us any ammunition. Sigh....:subdued:

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The smearing of Trudeau's leadership has proven to be a difficult task for the Conservatives.
> 
> His government has improved the lives of Canadians so much that Conservatives can't complain about his policy achievements.
> 
> Where is Conservative outrage the CPP was expanded ? Where is the outrage over increased Child Benefits, increased GIS, elimination of 1 week of waiting for EI benefits ?
> 
> The Conservatives have thin gruel to serve Canadians on the eve of a Federal election.
> 
> They have apparently settled on critiquing his choice of clothing in India, personal vacations, and attendance at climate change conferences.
> 
> Weak......very weak. No wonder the Liberals are passing Conservatives in the polls.
> 
> https://www.thepostmillennial.com/liberals-surge-ahead-of-conservatives-in-latest-poll/
> 
> https://assets.nationalnewswatch.co.../07/16051652/Political-Package-2019-07-12.pdf


There is no outrage against the increased benefits, because it's hard to get upset about those things.
There is a problem with the fact that the government is getting buried in debt.

You miss the point, it's that he's a liar and a hypocrit.
On India, it wasn't only that he was embarrasing but he also quite blantantly committed the "crime" of cultural appropriation.
So many vacations is one issue, but the jet setting way that is so far from what normal Canadians can afford, or what his environmental emergency considers appropriate is the issue.

Trudeau is blatantly sexist and discriminatory, and that's wrong.
He's a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches.
He's unethical. Not only does he commit ethical breaches himself, he doesn't seem to even comprehend why that's a problem.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> There is no outrage against the increased benefits, because it's hard to get upset about those things.
> There is a problem with the fact that the government is getting buried in debt.
> 
> You miss the point, it's that he's a liar and a hypocrit.
> On India, it wasn't only that he was embarrasing but he also quite blantantly committed the "crime" of cultural appropriation.
> So many vacations is one issue, but the jet setting way that is so far from what normal Canadians can afford, or what his environmental emergency considers appropriate is the issue.
> 
> Trudeau is blatantly sexist and discriminatory, and that's wrong.
> He's a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches.
> He's unethical. Not only does he commit ethical breaches himself, he doesn't seem to even comprehend why that's a problem.




do go on. You forgot the legalization of emmjay. That topic used to drive you into a frenzy.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> Trudeau is blatantly sexist and discriminatory, and that's wrong.
> He's a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches.
> He's unethical. Not only does he commit ethical breaches himself, he doesn't seem to even comprehend why that's a problem.


We are visiting friends in Victoria. They are both retired government workers. They are smart and well-read. They think Trudeau has done a good job. When I raise the ethical breaches, they shrug and claim all politicians do it! They are willing to forgive the Indian fiasco because he was just learning! We could be in trouble in October.

The Liberal rep who I voted in has decided to retire this year. She had spent two terms as mayor. But she was ignored by JT when looking for ministers.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> The smearing of Trudeau's leadership has proven to be a difficult task for the Conservatives.
> 
> His government has improved the lives of Canadians so much that Conservatives can't complain about his policy achievements.
> 
> Where is Conservative outrage the CPP was expanded ? Where is the outrage over increased Child Benefits, increased GIS, elimination of 1 week of waiting for EI benefits ?
> 
> The Conservatives have thin gruel to serve Canadians on the eve of a Federal election.
> 
> They have apparently settled on critiquing his choice of clothing in India, personal vacations, and attendance at climate change conferences.
> 
> Weak......very weak. No wonder the Liberals are passing Conservatives in the polls.
> 
> https://www.thepostmillennial.com/liberals-surge-ahead-of-conservatives-in-latest-poll/
> 
> https://assets.nationalnewswatch.co.../07/16051652/Political-Package-2019-07-12.pdf


Sags, you wear rose coloured glasses. Nothing would ever change your mind that conservatives are evil and Trudeau is wonderful. Facts are he came in at the right time when people were tired of Harper and the conservatives- a normal thing after several terms of any government. Now after getting a significant majority Trudeau and company have nearly squandered it completely before even the end of their first term. Quite an accomplishment. Why is that? Those of us that don't wear rose coloured glasses understand the reasons why. Its been proven here many times there is no point in rehashing that for obvious reasons. You and other Trudeau and Liberal supporters don't and won't see anything negative about this government. There's no point trying to convince you or some others on here that he doesn't walk on water. For my money he's the worst Prime Minister we've had by far, since I've been voting for over 40 years (and I've voted Liberal before). The hyprocisy alone is certainly unprescedented. 

The primary reason Liberals are doing as well as they are is the Conservatives don't have a leader that looks and sounds as good. It's a shame because Canada deserves much better than what it has now.


----------



## Spidey

humble_pie said:


> a bizarre & misleading ^^ headline. That article appeared very early during the 2015 paris conference with guesstimates of the total number of canadians who had said they were planning to attend. Thought to number 300, says the headline.
> 
> that figure is roughly twice the number of official delegates who were actually sent by ottawa & whose expenses were subsidized by the federal gummint. Numbering 155, as it would turn out.
> 
> article states that provincial & municipal visitors paid their own way. So, presumably, did corporate & NGO attendees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the toronto Sun's figures, published after the conference had ended, are accurate. Sun said ottawa had sent a total of 155 persons to paris & followed with their audited expense account breakdown. The figures showed that the per diem per person was modest.
> 
> BTW the 2015 paris climate conference is stale old news today. Done like dinner. Perhaps the parties attempting to smear trudeau could come up with better material.


I will remind you that the climate conference push was initiated by Sags and it is appropriate to point out the environmental costs and alternatives to such conferences. If you prefer to believe the Toronto Sun over CTV that is fine. The point still remains that there are more environmentally effective ways to hold such conferences. Video-conferencing technology has improved immensely and participants can interact and ask questions. The broader point is that those requiring the rest of us to make significant sacrifices seem to have significant difficulty leading by example in their personal lives. I have mixed feelings about the "flight-shame" movement in Sweden but at least it brings home the type of sacrifices demanded to meet climate targets. Not sure how jet-setting Mr. Trudeau or DiCaprio might respond to such initiative. 

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-04-30/flight-shame-sweden-prompts-rail-only-travel-movement


----------



## humble_pie

RBull said:


> Now after getting a significant majority Trudeau and company have nearly squandered it completely before even the end of their first term.



au contraire they've accomplished the impossible, given that the planet is so challenged. Unemployment down to record levels. Real progress with indigenous nations. Still dancing with washington. TransMountain startup soon. Weaning the economy away from deep oil & into new tech, with an eye to the future.




> Its [trudeau failure] been proven here many times there is no point in rehashing that for obvious reasons.



i don't recall anything remotely like the above being "proven here" let alone "many times." What the media are reporting is a counry in decent shape.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> do go on. You forgot the legalization of emmjay. That topic used to drive you into a frenzy.


Still does.
We have a government that promised '"science based policy"

Then proceeded to legalize a product known to cause brain damage in those under 25, and didn't ensure adequate procedures to detect impairment.

It was clear cynical politics to the detriment of the Canadian people.
I think "science based" means "political science based" decisions, if it gets votes, we'll do it.


----------



## humble_pie

Spidey said:


> If you prefer to believe the Toronto Sun over CTV that is fine.


it's not a question of preferring to believe anything. It's a question of fact.

on the one hand CTV published an early guesstimate as to the number of canadians they believed would attend the paris conference. They published during early days of the conference, therefore no official figures.

you went with this guesstimate - which included 50% non-ottawa sponsored delegates - apparently in order to slam trudeau.

on the other hand the toronto Sun published the correct number of delegates as well as their audited expense accounts, many months after the conference was history & all the facts could be determined.

you said 300 delegates. But half of those were non-federal attendees who paid their own way or they were subsidized by provincial or municipal governments.

the toroto Sun said 155 delegates plus a modest per diem.


as for more tele-conferencing in the future, good idea. Have you communicated with your MP to voice your support for this idea?

in general, i think it's regressive to keep harping negatively on four-year-old history. Water under the bridge. Instead why not work positively towards more gummint teleconferencing. Enough voters speak up & MPs wiill listen during this election year. They may not take action yet but baby steps, getting them to listen is already a small accomplishment.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Still does.
> We have a government that promised '"science based policy"
> 
> Then proceeded to legalize a product known to cause brain damage in those under 25, and didn't ensure adequate procedures to detect impairment.
> 
> It was clear cynical politics to the detriment of the Canadian people.
> I think "science based" means "political science based" decisions, if it gets votes, we'll do it.



what the cannabis legislation did was remove a good part of this gigantic industry out of the hands of criminals who purvey explicitly to kids & youths.

my son's high school was a wreck zone with student drug dealers. Each one was a puppet controlled by an outside drug lord who never set foot in the school.

i remember my astonishment when my 14-year-old related how he'd learned to never have to go to the bathroom between 7:30 am when he left the house, to 4 pm when he reached home again or else the home of one of his friends.

why on earth? i asked.

because the boys' bathroom is too disgusting to go into, it's where the druggies hang out, my son explained.

the private schools were not any better overall. They were better at patrolling the actual school premises but in response the student dealers simply took up dealing at parties.

bref drugs were in the air, everywhere. 

nowadays some of that traffic is being shut down. Kids are not being served in government stores. These are helpful developments.

.


----------



## RBull

humble_pie said:


> au contraire they've accomplished the impossible, given that the planet is so challenged. Unemployment down to record levels. Real progress with indigenous nations. Still dancing with washington. TransMountain startup soon. Weaning the economy away from deep oil & into new tech, with an eye to the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't recall anything remotely like the above being "proven here" let alone "many times." What the media are reporting is a counry in decent shape.


We will once again agree to disagree. Au contraire.....there are many deficiencies of this government and its leader that are regularly reported as proven facts in the media and presented on here. You can choose to ignore these and consider only "sunny ways" if you wish. 

I'm not interested in the Kool Aid being offered and the unprecedented hypocrisy of the current administration.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Still does.
> We have a government that promised '"science based policy"
> 
> Then proceeded to legalize a product known to cause brain damage in those under 25, and didn't ensure adequate procedures to detect impairment.
> 
> It was clear cynical politics to the detriment of the Canadian people.
> I think "science based" means "political science based" decisions, if it gets votes, we'll do it.


You mean alcohol? I thought that was already legal.

On a risk basis, marijuana is less of a concern than either tobacco or alcohol. Furthermore, legalization has not significantly increased cannabis use. Prohibition only served to waste a lot of time, money and destroy lives.

If it make any difference to you, I say this as someone who does not use cannabis.


----------



## Spidey

humble_pie said:


> you said 300 delegates. But half of those were non-federal attendees who paid their own way or they were subsidized by provincial or municipal governments.


I never mentioned Trudeau or the federal government. It doesn't really matter who sent them or even if they paid their own way, it is still a lot of supposed environmentalists burning up carbon for their cause.





> as for more tele-conferencing in the future, good idea. Have you communicated with your MP to voice your support for this idea?
> 
> in general, i think it's regressive to keep harping negatively on four-year-old history. Water under the bridge. Instead why not work positively towards more gummint teleconferencing. Enough voters speak up & MPs wiill listen during this election year. They may not take action yet but baby steps, getting them to listen is already a small accomplishment.


If I were to suggest anything to my MP it would be that the entire exercise is a waste of money and an attempt to deceive the public that they can actually make any meaningful difference. But since you believe in the cause you may want to make the video conferencing suggestion. 

Perhaps I'm misreading you as often written words can be easily misinterpreted but your posts (in general) have an air aggressiveness and anger rather than friendly, constructive conversation. While we all probably fall into this from time to time, to allow this to occur too frequently is probably not healthy.


----------



## andrewf

^Spidey, by that standard, the only way to be an environmentalist is to off yourself (lead free bullets only). And if you're not willing to do that, you might as well pour your used motor oil in the storm drain and burn your old tires.


----------



## Spidey

andrewf said:


> ^Spidey, by that standard, the only way to be an environmentalist is to off yourself (lead free bullets only). And if you're not willing to do that, you might as well pour your used motor oil in the storm drain and burn your old tires.


The reality is that almost nobody, that I am aware of, is what I would class as an environmentalist in their personal life. Perhaps Greta Thunberg comes close. If I believed the doomsday scenarios spouted by environmentalists such as Al Gore, there is no way that I could bring myself to drive a car, fly or eat meat. In fact, there is research stating that AGW skeptics are more environmentally friendly than environmental alarmists. Anecdotally, I've found this to be true. For example, I'm probably pretty environmental: I car-pool, use a clothes line, compost, cycle for short errands and eat a mostly plant-based diet. Admittedly I do enjoy air-travel vacations but I couldn't hold a candle to the vacation air-time logged by Trudeau or DiCaprio. I just find the hypocrisy of so-called environmentalists appalling and I don't know how they get away with it other than perhaps the media is too cowed to question anything they say or do. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/7/climate-skeptics-more-eco-friendly-global-warming-/


----------



## AltaRed

Plus like Standing Rock, the TMX protestors have historically been highly wasteful idealists. Using ICE vehicles, propane heaters, and strewing garbage everywhere, somehow the irony is lost on them. https://c2cjournal.ca/2018/08/standing-rock-of-the-north/ And before the idealists care to take their pot shots, I recognize the source for what it is.

Various individuals on both sides make environmentally friendly choices AND environmentally unfriendly choices. To me, it is always about 'walking the talk'. Hypocrisy is up there with violence, crime, etc. for me.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> You mean alcohol? I thought that was already legal.
> 
> On a risk basis, marijuana is less of a concern than either tobacco or alcohol. Furthermore, legalization has not significantly increased cannabis use. Prohibition only served to waste a lot of time, money and destroy lives.
> 
> If it make any difference to you, I say this as someone who does not use cannabis.


Ahh, whataboutism, the great defender of bad ideas.

Marijuanna should not have been legalized for those under 25 based on medical science.
That's it, they said they'd base their policies on science, and they didn't. That's it.

I'm not talking about all the other things. I'm talking about actual policies they "researched" and put into law.

The point is that rather than making things better with this policy, they're making things worse.
The only arguement for marijuanna legalization is political.

Tobacco isn't safe at any level
Alcohol is very bad for many groups as well.
I'm all for effective policies to reduce harmful consumption of either. But that wasn't your purpose, it was just to distract.


----------



## andrewf

You have no evidence they are making anything worse. That's it. 

No evidence that prohibition made a lick of difference on marijuana consumption among that group which you consider to be a concern. If we allow 18-25 to take the risk with tobacco and alcohol, there is no reason that we shouldn't also allow them to take the same responsibility for cannabis use. You can take the authoritarian position if you want, but you might not like what other impose on you.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> You have no evidence they are making anything worse. That's it.


Yeah, I've always been positive for legalizing marijuana. Why the heck not? I think the tax dollars can help. I think it will put a big dent in organized crime for this issue. I suppose for those that partake, the quality will have some consistency. I'm not convinced that it will change consumption that much, but maybe it will.

I know I wouldn't put smoke in my lungs of any product, but this CBD oil stuff seems interesting. When they start selling that stuff, maybe I'll be interested with regards to better sleep, pain relief, anxiety, and all sorts of other claims - who knows.....?

I'd rather see marijuana than tobacco sold. They've pretty much established that tobacco is bad, so lets ban it. I can't believe I still see people walking around smoking cigarettes. Have they watched the news?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

Tobacco smokers remain in denial for the most part. Those with severe nicotine addiction should have graduated to the patch, gum, etc. It took me many years to kick a habit I foolishly started as a teen.


----------



## sags

Marijuana has been researched for decades. The "Reefer Madness" theory was contrived by the pharmaceutical industry to keep people buying pills.

The companies owned politicians like Ronald Reagan who started the "war on drugs" policy that was a dismal failure. 

The last scientific studies I read concluded there is no permanent damage from using marijuana, aside from possible lung damage from smoking it on a continual basis.

Nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose, unlike opioids and other medications pumped by the pharma companies who bribe doctors to prescribe them.

If people are that worried about toxins introduced into their lungs they should support eliminating the fossil fuel industry forthwith and without delay.

Smog alerts aren't issued because hordes of people are puffing away on marijuana.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Tobacco smokers remain in denial for the most part. Those with severe nicotine addiction should have graduated to the patch, gum, etc. It took me many years to kick a habit I foolishly started as a teen.


Yeah, I smoked from the age of 15 to 23 because everyone else in the world smoked.

Then when they finally admitted it was a health hazard, I stopped. It was hard, but that's what reasonable people do.

Who are these people that continue to smoke? Are they fucking idiots?

Why do we continue to sell this product? It's actually hidden now and you have to specifically ask for it.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Marijuana has been researched for decades. The "Reefer Madness" theory was contrived by the pharmaceutical industry to keep people buying pills.
> 
> The companies owned politicians like Ronald Reagan who started the "war on drugs" policy that was a dismal failure.
> 
> The last scientific studies I read concluded there is no permanent damage from using marijuana, aside from possible lung damage from smoking it on a continual basis.
> 
> Nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose, unlike opioids and other medications pumped by the pharma companies.
> 
> If people are that worried about toxins introduced into their lungs they should support eliminating the fossil fuel industry forthwith.
> 
> Smog alerts aren't issued because hordes of people are puffing away on marijuana.


"the last studies I read", then you should read more.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ng-adulthood/9EA453AD067E600380E763BBA8220824


Marijuanna has neurological effects, particularly on developing minds. 
That's a well established medical fact.

That's also why people have been suggesting its a possible treatment for things like MS.
I understand, you smoke pot and like it, and want the data to support it. Thats fine, just don't demand I also pay to take care of you.


----------



## sags

AltaRed said:


> Plus like Standing Rock, the TMX protestors have historically been highly wasteful idealists. Using ICE vehicles, propane heaters, and strewing garbage everywhere, somehow the irony is lost on them. https://c2cjournal.ca/2018/08/standing-rock-of-the-north/ And before the idealists care to take their pot shots, I recognize the source for what it is.
> 
> Various individuals on both sides make environmentally friendly choices AND environmentally unfriendly choices. To me, it is always about 'walking the talk'. Hypocrisy is up there with violence, crime, etc. for me.


It isn't the goal of environmentalists to return to the days of 100 years ago. They aren't interested in reducing personal consumption of fossil fuels so we can continue to burn them.

What they want is 1000% of government funding, research, development and policy to be directed at clean energy sources and 0% at maintaining or expanding the use of fossil fuels.


----------



## AltaRed

That seems perverse in the extreme. A champion can't have credibility in a cause without making a personal commitment in support of that cause. And in this case, that is indeed a concerted effort to reduce personal fossil fuel usage.

No sovereign entity is going to subsidize clean energy on a commercial scale for very long. Energy production in whatever form has to be economically priced.

Added: Policy can make a difference such as CAFE increases and mandating other energy conservation measures but taxpayers are not going to stand for long term subsidization at their expense.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> "the last studies I read", then you should read more.
> 
> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ng-adulthood/9EA453AD067E600380E763BBA8220824
> 
> 
> Marijuanna has neurological effects, particularly on developing minds.
> That's a well established medical fact.
> 
> That's also why people have been suggesting its a possible treatment for things like MS.
> I understand, you smoke pot and like it, and want the data to support it. Thats fine, just don't demand I also pay to take care of you.


Yea okay, 

This is the conclusion of one of the studies that you linked to.

_*Conclusions.* Among African Americans and Puerto Ricans, early marijuana use predicts less adequate performance on some developmental tasks integral to becoming an independent young adult. Marijuana is not a benign drug and is associated with future risks for the individual and society at large.
_
Seriously, among African Americans and Puerto Ricans ? 

It looks like the study was trying to prove that some racial groups suffer higher consequences from smoking marijuana than others.

That is total nonsense and scientific gibberish.

According to themselves, the other study set an hypothesis and then picked the studies that "aligned" with their interests. I bet they did.

Sorry, but I don't smoke marijuana or use recreational drugs. I just know the damage caused in the criminal justice system from convictions for simple pot possession.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Yea okay,
> 
> This is the conclusion of one of the studies that you linked to.
> 
> _*Conclusions.* Among African Americans and Puerto Ricans, early marijuana use predicts less adequate performance on some developmental tasks integral to becoming an independent young adult. Marijuana is not a benign drug and is associated with future risks for the individual and society at large.
> _
> Seriously, among African Americans and Puerto Ricans ?
> 
> It looks like the study was trying to prove that some racial groups suffer higher consequences from smoking marijuana than others.
> 
> That is total nonsense and scientific gibberish.
> 
> According to themselves, the other study set an hypothesis and then picked the studies that "aligned" with their interests. I bet they did.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't smoke marijuana or use recreational drugs. I just know the damage caused in the criminal justice system from convictions for simple pot possession.


There is more money available to research disadvantaged populations, specifically "not white male".
Since they only tested those populations, the summary reflects that.

Care to point out any study in the last 2 decades that shows marijuanna is safe for young people?
It has to be in a reputable journal, not on some pro-pot website.
I'd bet you're going to abandon this subthread.
Marijuanna is bad, you know it, and you don't care because it helps elect Trudeau.


What? Being a convicted criminal has negative repercussions!! It's almost like we don't want people committing crimes.


----------



## sags

_Care to point out any study in the last 2 decades that shows marijuanna is safe for young people?_

If you search for studies that support your hypothesis you will find some but they may not be credible.

There are decades of studies into marijuana that concluded the health risks were minimal and temporary.

It is fairly recently the anti-legalization of marijuana movement has moved the goal posts to ........."but the marijuana is more potent today" argument.

An analysis of studies where there were pronounced effects of marijuana on the brain, revealed that ridiculously high amounts of marijuana were administered.

It is akin to eating corn flakes until you are sick and then declaring corn flakes are bad for your health.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> _Care to point out any study in the last 2 decades that shows marijuanna is safe for young people?_
> 
> There are decades of studies into marijuana that concluded the health risks were minimal and temporary.


Care to share them?
To be perfectly honest, I am not aware of any reputable studies that shows marijuanna is safe.

2002 is "fairly recently"?

Oh like Supersize Me, where I completely change my lifestyle then blame McDonalds.


----------



## humble_pie

RBull said:


> I'm not interested in the Kool Aid being offered and the _*unpresecedented hyprocisy*_ of the current administration.



since when did record low unemployment plus booming tech startups in eastern canada become Kool Aid though

PS were you meaning unprecedented hypocrisy


----------



## humble_pie

Spidey said:


> If I were to suggest anything to my MP it would be that the entire exercise is a waste of money and an attempt to deceive the public that they can actually make any meaningful difference.



would your MP be a liberal by any chance?

if so, holding an alt-right conspiracy gun to his or her head in the manner described above is an approach that will most likely fail .each:

surely the art of politics is negotiation. That would be why starting with e-conferencing as opposed to expensively massing thousands of people in one of the world's costliest cities is a suggestion that might fly with a politician of any stripe. At least it would resonate.

but sorry, i don't see how threatening a politician with rude accusations could encourage any kind of collaborative response


----------



## RBull

humble_pie said:


> since when did record low unemployment plus booming tech startups in eastern canada become Kool Aid though
> 
> PS were you meaning unprecedented hypocrisy




https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drink the kool-aid
an idea, a perspective, a commitment etc etc

Where did I suggest that was Kool Aid? 

Yes, obvious typos, but I think you know that.


----------



## humble_pie

RBull said:


> Where did I suggest that was Kool Aid?


actually it wasn't clear whether you were thinking liberal gummint offers Kool Aid or whether you were thinking certain cmffers are offering the beverage ...






> Yes, obvious typos, but I think you know that.


au contraire i don't know anything of the sort. I see "unpresecedented hyprocisy" which is not being edit/corrected & i go Hmmmn never thought he was a Hayseed in the past but alas look at this now ...


----------



## Spidey

humble_pie said:


> would your MP be a liberal by any chance?
> 
> if so, holding an alt-right conspiracy gun to his or her head in the manner described above is an approach that will most likely fail .each:
> 
> surely the art of politics is negotiation. That would be why starting with e-conferencing as opposed to expensively massing thousands of people in one of the world's costliest cities is a suggestion that might fly with a politician of any stripe. At least it would resonate.
> 
> but sorry, i don't see how threatening a politician with rude accusations could encourage any kind of collaborative response


Agreed it would be a waste of time. I don't know if I agree with you regarding the "rude accusations" or "alt-right" part but you are entitled to your opinion. I just honestly believe that these conferences simply result in politicians delivering promises and optimistic targets that they know fully well they will never be able to even come close to delivering on. But I take it you feel differently. C'est la vie. I hope you have a good evening.


----------



## RBull

humble_pie said:


> actually it wasn't clear whether you were thinking liberal gummint offers Kool Aid or whether you were thinking certain cmffers are offering the beverage ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au contraire i don't know anything of the sort. I see "unpresecedented hyprocisy" which is not being edit/corrected & i go Hmmmn never thought he was a Hayseed in the past but alas look at this now ...


Liberal govt.

Well I moved from the city to rural so maybe the hayseed transformation is in progress.


----------



## MrMatt

MrMatt said:


> Care to share them?
> To be perfectly honest, I am not aware of any reputable studies that shows marijuanna is safe.
> 
> 2002 is "fairly recently"?
> 
> Oh like Supersize Me, where I completely change my lifestyle then blame McDonalds.


sags, 
are you going to back up your assertations with evidence?


----------



## sags

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicati...a/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain

Studies are mixed on the effect of marijuana use on the brains of adolescents using marijuana at a young age and continuing for many years, but there is no evidence of any similar effect on adults who use marijuana through the later years. 

The perceived impact on adolescents isn't certain either, as scientists think there may be other genetic and familial causes unrelated to cannabis.

The legalization of marijuana for adults has no relevance to use by young adolescents. Nobody is advocating for young kids to smoke pot.

It simply decriminalizes a drug that is well documented to be safer than other drugs and also has medicinal benefits for a lot of people.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicati...a/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain
> 
> Studies are mixed on the effect of marijuana use on the brains of adolescents using marijuana at a young age and continuing for many years, but there is no evidence of any similar effect on adults who use marijuana through the later years.
> 
> The perceived impact on adolescents isn't certain either, as scientists think there may be other genetic and familial causes unrelated to cannabis.
> 
> The legalization of marijuana for adults has no relevance to use by young adolescents. Nobody is advocating for young kids to smoke pot.
> 
> It simply decriminalizes a drug that is well documented to be safer than other drugs and also has medicinal benefits for a lot of people.


Sags, that research says EXACTLY what I was saying, marijuanna use by young adults is bad. (and very bad for adolescents)

It definately doesn't say that use by young adults is minor and temporary. 
Until you can substaniate your claims, which are blantantly false by the evidence YOU present.
There are only 2 possibilities.
1. You lack the ability to read the research and honestly don't understand.
2. You're purposely saying untrue things to cause trouble.
I'm going to simply ignore you in political debates.


----------



## sags

Quotes from the study.

_Several studies, including two large longitudinal studies, suggest that marijuana use can cause functional impairment in cognitive abilities but that *the degree and/or duration of the impairment* depends on the age when a person began using and how much and how long he or she used._

_*People who only began using marijuana heavily in adulthood did not lose IQ points*. These results suggest that marijuana *has its strongest long-term impact on young people* whose brains are still busy building new connections and maturing in other ways_

_However, recent results from two prospective longitudinal twin studies *did not support a causal relationship between marijuana use and IQ loss*. Those who used marijuana did show a significant decline in verbal ability (equivalent to 4 IQ points) and in general knowledge between the preteen years (ages 9 to 12, before use) and late adolescence/early adulthood (ages 17 to 20). *However, at the start of the study, those who would use in the future already had lower scores on these measures than those who would not use in the future, and no predictable difference was found between twins when one used marijuana and one did not. This suggests that observed IQ declines, at least across adolescence, may be caused by shared familial factors (e.g., genetics, family environment), not by marijuana use itself*._


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Quotes from the study.
> 
> _Several studies, including two large longitudinal studies, suggest that marijuana use can cause functional impairment in cognitive abilities but that *the degree and/or duration of the impairment* depends on the age when a person began using and how much and how long he or she used._
> 
> _*People who only began using marijuana heavily in adulthood did not lose IQ points*. These results suggest that marijuana *has its strongest long-term impact on young people* whose brains are still busy building new connections and maturing in other ways_
> 
> _However, recent results from two prospective longitudinal twin studies *did not support a causal relationship between marijuana use and IQ loss*. Those who used marijuana did show a significant decline in verbal ability (equivalent to 4 IQ points) and in general knowledge between the preteen years (ages 9 to 12, before use) and late adolescence/early adulthood (ages 17 to 20). *However, at the start of the study, those who would use in the future already had lower scores on these measures than those who would not use in the future, and no predictable difference was found between twins when one used marijuana and one did not. This suggests that observed IQ declines, at least across adolescence, may be caused by shared familial factors (e.g., genetics, family environment), not by marijuana use itself*._


"Quotes from the study" Yes the study you didn't actually link to.
I'd be surprised if they found a statistically valid sample of identical twins where one smoked pot and the other didn't.

This is pointless, you "quote" from studies you don't even cite.


----------



## sags

Oh I see. The National Institute on Drug Abuse for the US government isn't a valid source.

Let's go find some oddball psychologist who says marijuana is evil and causes people to go crazy and start jumping off buildings.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Oh I see. The National Institute on Drug Abuse for the US government isn't a valid source.
> 
> Let's go find some oddball psychologist who says marijuana is evil and causes people to go crazy and start jumping off buildings.


I didn't say that. 
I said you didn't cite the actual study that contains the claims you made. You simply linked to a summary page. 

Interesting point is that even in your quotes there is no statement saying it is safe for young adults.


----------



## Eder

Well my colleagues have invited me to endorse more climate initiatives...it feels good that they treat my carpenters endorsement with equal weight as their own...surely we will save our planet!

*Dear Colleague, we are excited that thousands of scientists have already signed the new paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.”  It is not too late for you to sign and have your name published with the article. This will help achieve the goal of 10,000 scientist signatories, and get this unified message on climate change to world leaders. Please take a few minutes to sign and forward to your network of scientists soon. See website link http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/. Thanks, Bill

William J. Ripple
Distinguished Professor of Ecology, Oregon State University*


----------



## AltaRed

The list is contaminated beyond recognition. Saw the same push a number of years ago with an invite to sign up. Incredible.


----------



## sags

That is a pretty impressive list of scientists from many different areas of expertise.

The list reflects the reality that the negative effects of climate change are widespread and cross many different scientific disciplines.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Well that was an easy petition to sign. No personal commitments or anything.

I feel so much better now, knowing that governments and policymakers have been told to take responsibility for fixing this issue and save us from extinction.

Now I need to get my flights and hotel booked for the science convention in New Orleans this fall.


----------



## kcowan

Why does Whipple need a new consensus? Is his support eroding among carpenters?


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> Why does Whipple need a new consensus? Is his support eroding among carpenters?


Perhaps he is paid by the signature, even if from a Congolese monkey?


----------



## sags

This list is just one of the many consensus opinions of scientists on climate change.

All of the major scientific organizations hold similar views and even more revealing is the absence of scientific bodies or organizations who disagree with the consensus.

There is no amount of scientific evidence that would convince climate change skeptics as their beliefs are not founded in science.


----------



## Eder

I think you are mistaking tradesmen for scientists but thanks for the vote of confidence.


----------



## sags

The warmest global temperatures for July in recorded history, which followed the warmest June in history. The warming trend has been continuing for years.

The heat is causing the water temperatures to rise and killing off Pacific salmon before they spawn. Orca whales may suffer from lack of salmon.

The Greenland ice layer is the smallest in recorded history. 

Thawing permafrost is wreaking havoc with the Dempster Highway and Arctic infrastructure. Methane gas is being released at increasing rates.

There is no doubt anymore. We are in the soup already. All we can do now is paddle around in it and deal with the consequences.


----------



## AltaRed

As I have said many times, start doing something effective by spending real money on adaptation measures.

It is pure fantasy to believe there is going to be any meaningful global reductions in actual CO2 emissions for years, perhaps a decade or more, to come. No country is prepared to give up GDP, never mind GDP growth, to do so. No one comes to the rescue of someone falling on their sword.


----------



## sags

It is going to be expensive.

Nothing is free.......carbon taxes or some other tax to pay the mitigation costs.

The people don't like a carbon tax aren't going to like the "mitigation taxes" any better.


----------



## AltaRed

At least mitigation (adaptive) measures do something for Canada by Canadians, as compared to carbon taxes which do essentially nothing either globally or domestically. It is simply the math. A 10% reduction in our 1.8% of CO2 emissions is like pissing on a forest fire. Why can't the ideologists do math?


----------



## Eder

sags said:


> The warmest global temperatures for July in recorded history,



Oops...


Summer Cold Grips Russia: Temperature Records Tumble — Hard Frosts Reported July 28, 2019 Cap Allon 
*Arctic air has plunged into ALL of transcontinental Russia this week, from east to west, north to south. In fact, average temperatures have been holding at least 8C below normal for vast swathes of the 17,125,200 km2 nation ALL MONTH.*
And, over the past few days, a large number of new all-time record-low temperatures were set in the Magadan region, _located to the east of the country_, in northeast Yakutia (Sakha Republic).
I’ve listed a few of them below (data courtesy of _*(*__*[url]http://www.hmn.ru*_[/URL]):




On July 24, in *Susuman*, a record breaking *-4.1C (24.6F)* was observed — busting the previous daily record of -3.5C set back in 1973 (_solar minimum of cycle 20_).
In *Seimchan*, *-2.9C (26.8F)* beat the previous record for the date of -2.4C (27.7F) from 1991.
In *Brokhovo*, the new record low for July 24 is now *4C (39.2F)*, which surpasses the 4.6C (40.3F) from 1973 (_solar minimum of cycle 20_).
The *-1.4C (29.5F)* in *Talon *comfortably ousted the -0.6C (30.9F) from 1973 (_solar minimum of cycle 20_).
*Tompo’s -0.3C (31.5F) *bumped-off the previous all-time record 0.3C (32.5F) from 1977 (_again,_ _solar minimum of cycle 20_).
While in *Zyryanka*, the mercury fell to *2.7C (36.9F)*, busting 1956’s 2C (35.6F).
 In addition, *hard summer frosts* have also reported across Russia likely resulting in untold damage to open-field crops.



btw it snowed in Canmore last nite 



Oh,...and

The CFSv2 reanalysis dataset goes back to only 1979, and from it we find that July 2019 was actually cooler than three other Julys: 2016, 2002, and 2017, and so was 4th warmest in 41 years. And being only 0.5 deg. F above average is not terribly alarming.


and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Eder said:


> ... July 2019 was actually cooler than three other Julys: 2016, 2002, and 2017, and so was 4th warmest in 41 years. And being only 0.5 deg. F above average is not terribly alarming.
> 
> and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.


:encouragement: and such an appropriate ending for the 50th anniversary.


----------



## Prairie Guy

AltaRed said:


> Why can't the ideologists do math?


Because their entire argument would fail. They are brainwashed cultists who are being used to help promote a socialist agenda.


----------



## sags

Geez.......people really should read the linked stories before they post them.

The collection of climate change stories on that website would be more suitable on the Onion website.


----------



## Eder

Yes...all the record July lows are pure fantasy...thats why CNN didn't report "Russian July Coldest Ever" right?


----------



## Spidey

Eder said:


> Yes...all the record July lows are pure fantasy...thats why CNN didn't report "Russian July Coldest Ever" right?


We've had a remarkably short period of accurate climate records so it is no surprise that records are being broken in both directions. Even the standard of 1880 as the year of accurate climate measurements is not very applicable to reporting global data. Until 1920 almost all of the good climate data came from the US, supplemented with a small amount of data from Europe and a little bit from Australia. In 1940 there were only a couple of climate stations in South America, there was almost no coverage in Africa and still only sparse coverage over Europe and Asia. From what I understand, there was almost no plotted ocean data until 1950- which would make sense if there was only sparse coverage of land data in 1940. So we may have only accurate data for global climate since the mid 1900s. 

But as you point out the media is only interested reporting the highs. This summer in Ottawa there was a week or 2 where the weather was in the low 30s. Such would have been reported with a yawn when I was a child - typical summer weather. But the entire television screen was hues of bright red with warnings that the temperature is equivalent to 40 degrees with humidity (they simply reported that there would be high humidity when I was a child) and to stay inside if possible. No wonder youngsters such as Gretta are in a deep state of panic.


----------



## sags

Google ....."warmest july in history" and pick any reference you want.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

But there is no more climate change problem. Justin Trudeau promised to solve the problem if we gave him our power and money and we gave him $70 billion. So how can there be a climate change problem?


----------



## Eder

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> :encouragement: and such an appropriate ending for the 50th anniversary.


Yep...seems so long ago that us whities weren't racist and free love rather than MeToo was prevalent...


----------



## Eder

Well here a pic of yesterday's CO2 emission sources...notice the evil empire of oil & gas in our country doesn't register.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Great image Eder, thanks for posting.
Sure puts Canada's paltry emissions into global context.


----------



## sags

Trump the climate change denier, wants to buy Greenland to have access to all the natural resources that will be exposed when the ice doesn't melt.


----------



## sags

The Amazon delta known as the "lungs of the earth" is on fire and burning historical numbers of acres.

Not only is the fire releasing all the carbon stored in the trees, but it will take decades for them to grow back and collect carbon again.


----------



## Prairie Guy

When temperature is not affected by the urban heat island effect or otherwise "adjusted" there is no measurable warming across the entire lower 48 states. This is according to NOAA and their new state of the art weather stations:

"In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). *USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.*

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago."

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...s_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html


----------



## sags

The Heartland Institute had a much better report but the dingos ate it.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The Heartland Institute had a much better report but the dingos ate it.


No one is fooled by your deflection. It's obvious that you refuse to debate facts even when they're from NOAA. This is a discussion board, not a "run and hide when the facts don't go my way" board.

Coward.


----------



## sags

NOAA doesn't need Heartland Institute to decipher their data.

NOAA is very clear the long term trend is global warming. Global warming is a big part, but not the only part in climate change damage.

_When you filter out all of the natural 'noise' by averaging over large areas and long periods of time, however, *the global warming trend is loud and clear*. And of course, warming is also evident in a suite of other climate indicators, including loss of sea ice, glaciers, and ice sheets; increasing ocean heat content; rising sea level; and geographic shifts in the ranges of plants and animals on land and in the ocean._

https://www.noaa.gov/education/reso...te-education-resources/climate-change-impacts


----------



## Spudd

Prairie Guy said:


> When temperature is not affected by the urban heat island effect or otherwise "adjusted" there is no measurable warming across the entire lower 48 states. This is according to NOAA and their new state of the art weather stations:
> 
> "In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). *USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.*
> 
> The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago."
> 
> https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...s_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html


He might think this is "real clear" but he is wrong. 

Luckily, the NOAA have published the raw data. 

Just by looking at the graph (which is also in the realclearenergy article), it seems obvious to me that there are more temperature anomaly points above zero than below it. Zero is the long-term average of temperature (definition here). It's hard to see a trend, though, with so many data points and so much variability.

So I pulled the raw data into Excel from the link above, and turned it into a graph. Then I used Excel's trendline function to add a trend line, which shows what the general trend of the data is. Not only has the trendline been above zero since 2005, it is also trending upwards. I have attached the results. You can duplicate this for yourself if you have Excel (or use Google Sheets, which is online and free). 

You cannot just look at the first and last points on a long-term graph and say that's the trend.


----------



## humble_pie

Spudd said:


> He might think this is "real clear" but he is wrong.
> 
> Luckily, the NOAA have published the raw data.
> 
> Just by looking at the graph (which is also in the realclearenergy article), it seems obvious to me that there are more temperature anomaly points above zero than below it. Zero is the long-term average of temperature (definition here). It's hard to see a trend, though, with so many data points and so much variability.
> 
> So I pulled the raw data into Excel from the link above, and turned it into a graph. Then I used Excel's trendline function to add a trend line, which shows what the general trend of the data is. Not only has the trendline been above zero since 2005, it is also trending upwards. I have attached the results. You can duplicate this for yourself if you have Excel (or use Google Sheets, which is online and free).
> 
> You cannot just look at the first and last points on a long-term graph and say that's the trend.
> 
> View attachment 19580




thankx Spudd

time & again i'm happy to see Spudd's posts in cmf. Always logical, thoughtful, grounded, accurate. Like this one.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> thankx Spudd
> 
> time & again i'm happy to see Spudd's posts in cmf. Always logical, thoughtful, grounded, accurate. Like this one.


I agree. If it was so easy for Spudd, what is wrong at the NOAA?


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> I agree. If it was so easy for Spudd, what is wrong at the NOAA?




nothing wrong at the NOAA. They published their data & Spudd graphed it.

the problem is coming from the "interpretation" proferred by realclearenergy & its porteparole in this thread.


----------



## AltaRed

For those who feel (and know) they have been piled on by the alarmists (and media) wetting their pants, some refreshing sensibility (balance?) brought to the table 

https://www.thegwpf.com/wmo-boss-says-climate-discussion-has-gone-off-the-rails/


----------



## james4beach

The source AltaRed links to is an arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a well known climate change denial lobby group.

Not "refreshing" at all AltaRed. It's science denial from a lobby group whose agenda and financial backers are hidden behind UK laws. Pretty crooked and deceptive stuff. Who is funding it? Which corporations are backing it?


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> For those who feel (and know) they have been piled on by the alarmists (and media) wetting their pants, some refreshing sensibility (balance?) brought to the table
> 
> https://www.thegwpf.com/wmo-boss-says-climate-discussion-has-gone-off-the-rails/


Good article, but nothing different than we've been saying for years other than it's being said in this case by The Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

He says:, 

_"that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety."_

_"The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism."_

_"We should consider critically, and with reservations, the thoughts of experts…”_


Again, it parrots what many at CMF and any other sensible thinking person also says, but it matters not since 'The end of the world is nigh' is far more media worthy position to take.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

Alarmist narrative is not helpful, and not going to help us - I agree.

Good science (which already exists) followed up by tangible government policies is exactly what we need.

We're now starting to get those policies as governments wake up. Trudeau is one of the world leaders in that area, giving Canada some of the more ambitious carbon-reducing policies. That's exactly the kind of leadership that makes Canada more than a small nation... showing by example, setting norms of what the most advanced countries do.

I'm very proud of Trudeau for this. And very embarrassed and disgusted by the regressive policies that other politicians in Canada are pushing.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> The source AltaRed links to is an arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a well known climate change denial lobby group.
> 
> Not "refreshing" at all AltaRed. It's science denial from a lobby group whose agenda and financial backers are hidden behind UK laws. Pretty crooked and deceptive stuff. Who is funding it? Which corporations are backing it?


Except your response is BS James. It is not WHERE the link comes from, it is the legitimacy of the SOURCE, i.e. the WMO. You are typical of the alarmists which look for a weak spot such as it being linked on GWPF rather than the SOURCE itself. Predictably, I expected you, or Sags or Andrew to jump all over my post......and I was not disappointed in that. I am disappointed though that you did respond the way you did. Goes to prove the point of one track thinking......


----------



## james4beach

It shows that you hang out at climate changer denier web sites. You've been indoctrinated by the industry you worked in; that's very natural.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Climate change is just another way to tax people and impose more government control over all aspects of the economy.

Some see through the scam for what it is and others drink the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> It shows that you hang out at climate changer denier web sites. You've been indoctrinated by the industry you worked in; that's very natural.


I don't think anyone on this site has been more indoctrinated that you james.


----------



## sags

I am happy to see certain CMFers finally see the light and agree with the WMO, despite being fooled into it by fake news on the climate denial website. 

This organization (WMO) founded the IPCC and supports the scientists and studies.

Petteri Taalas (the Secretary General quoted out of context in the article) says that climate change is happening and is caused by burning fossil fuels. 

Taalas is a strange hero for the climate deniers to point to, considering how radical he is on achieving the Paris Accord targets by any means possible.

He says the only way to defeat climate change is to reduce and then eliminate the use of fossil fuels as soon as possible. 

I doubt he would approve of any new oil pipelines or projects that would make the fossil fuel problem worse.

Welcome aboard the climate change train to our new converts. Spread the word far and wide.

https://www.upm.com/news-and-storie...-change-is-to-reduce-the-use-of-fossil-fuels/


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> It shows that you hang out at climate changer denier web sites. You've been indoctrinated by the industry you worked in; that's very natural.


Wrong again. I saw that link from another forum and decided to post it here as a test to see which of the climate change alarmists might bite. Until today, I'd never heard of GWPF but have heard of the WMO. Shame on you for making broad brush erroneous assumptions. Quit digging James.


----------



## hboy54

james4beach said:


> Alarmist narrative is not helpful, and not going to help us - I agree.
> 
> Good science (which already exists) followed up by tangible government policies is exactly what we need.
> 
> We're now starting to get those policies as governments wake up. Trudeau is one of the world leaders in that area, giving Canada some of the more ambitious carbon-reducing policies. That's exactly the kind of leadership that makes Canada more than a small nation... showing by example, setting norms of what the most advanced countries do.
> 
> I'm very proud of Trudeau for this. And very embarrassed and disgusted by the regressive policies that other politicians in Canada are pushing.


This is funny. Trudeau is a great part of why I don't get concerned about global warming. I follow more what people do, not so much what they say. What Trudeau does is fly off on vacations in airplanes, 
burning fossil fuels, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is entirely discretionary. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Trudeau only deserves my derision.


----------



## sags

AltaRed said:


> Wrong again. I saw that link from another forum and decided to post it here as a test to see which of the climate change alarmists might bite. Until today, I'd never heard of GWPF but have heard of the WMO. Shame on you for making broad brush erroneous assumptions. Quit digging James.


Too late. You are now a bona fide member of the radical climate change alarmist gang and David Suzuki and Al Gore are your best buddies.


----------



## AltaRed

James was too obsessed to take the time to go through the links to the WMO site. The quotes and concerns expressed by the Secretary General are valid. There has been alarmist reporting and cherry picking by the media and other vested interests in the climate debate. There has been no room for rational discussion or debate. James instead decides to go postal about a certain website and make false accusations.

For the 49th time, few people deny climate is changing. The majority expressing caution are the rational ones that know climate is changing but disagree on the 'hail mary' panic on what to do without further thought. Not so long ago, I suggested Canadian money would be best spent on adaptation measures, not pissing it into mostly useless emission reductions that won't make a dent in the global totals. Global emission numbers will continue to climb for years to come. Just maybe global emission growth will be arrested some 10+ years from now. Never mind talking about reductions! We will look like dumb fools not having put the money into adaptation measures like some savvy jurisdictions are starting to do.

Sags, your posts are the usual throwaways. Find something to do.


----------



## sags

LOL.........you quoted it and linked to it. Maybe you should find something to do, or at least find some worthwhile science to link to.


----------



## sags

Carbon taxes aren't pissing anyone's money away. We received tax rebates from our carbon taxes.

Are you, like Andrew Scheer going to try to convince voters that eliminating carbon taxes (eliminating their tax refunds as well) improves their finances ?

Good luck with that.


----------



## AltaRed

I also have oceanfront property in Saskatchewan for suckers to buy. You know the rebates are politically skewed to targeted audiences AND won't remain revenue neutral long term (like good ol' BC reneging). Keep digging.....dig....dig....dig....

Added: Sags, given you've never acknowledged (or maybe its lack of comprehension of?) the benefits of adaptation to save our Canadian souls, here is an example of where money is likely being well spent https://www.cnn.com/style/article/staten-island-seawall-climate-crisis-design/index.html You could tax the hell out of carbon in NY State and not affect the rate of global climate change in a measurable way. Rising oceans would still flood the coastal areas of New York. Why don't you climate alarmists make yourselves useful and advocate for getting on with adaptation measures that will have to be undertaken anyway?


----------



## kcowan

AR and LTR
The broken record clicking is getting to you both (and others).

Why not take a break and watch the US Open Tennis Finals? At least that will lead to a conclusion.


----------



## MrMatt

hboy54 said:


> james4beach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist narrative is not helpful, and not going to help us - I agree.
> 
> Good science (which already exists) followed up by tangible government policies is exactly what we need.
> 
> We're now starting to get those policies as governments wake up. Trudeau is one of the world leaders in that area, giving Canada some of the more ambitious carbon-reducing policies. That's exactly the kind of leadership that makes Canada more than a small nation... showing by example, setting norms of what the most advanced countries do.
> 
> I'm very proud of Trudeau for this. And very embarrassed and disgusted by the regressive policies that other politicians in Canada are pushing.
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny. Trudeau is a great part of why I don't get concerned about global warming. I follow more what people do, not so much what they say. What Trudeau does is fly off on vacations in airplanes,
> burning fossil fuels, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is entirely discretionary. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Trudeau only deserves my derision.
Click to expand...

They are acting like hypocrites because they don't care about climate change.

They are playing the long game. They want to build a global wealth transfer scheme.
It's a political tool.


----------



## Spidey

kcowan said:


> AR and LTR
> The broken record clicking is getting to you both (and others).
> 
> Why not take a break and watch the US Open Tennis Finals? At least that will lead to a conclusion.


Exactly, and why I no longer dedicate much time to this site unless I'm in a masochistic mood. The most interesting dialogues allow at least a little give and take even though they may still hold to their core position. It doesn't make for the most stimulating conversation when some becomes so predictable and locked into position that you could write their response in advance.


----------



## Spidey

Feeling masochistic today. 



> Not only did the court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. A detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.
> 
> This extraordinary outcome is expected to trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr. Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.” (snip)
> 
> Dr. Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers (the ‘working out’) behind the world-famous ‘hockey stick’ graph (shown below).


https://www.davidharrisjr.com/rich/global-warming-hoax-exposed-hockey-stick-graph-creator-loses-major-lawsuit-must-pay-defendants-legal-fees/?fbclid=IwAR3E7lLNR-8TaZqSHa5Z5ANxBGl3Ic21lKQvCkKUEuSGkHn7ZnZx8ml_l2E


----------



## sags

I will await the transcripts from the BC court. They should clear the air as they did in the previous court case Weaver vs Ball.


----------



## like_to_retire

Ship with Climate Change Warriors caught in ice, Warriors evacuated.

_"Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors."_

Yes, this was nothing less than the 6th attempt by a green documentary crew to film the devastation of the so named 'climate crisis', only to be caught in the ice once again. I guess that qualifies as a crisis. It's too bad we have to keep rescuing these people. I hope they pay for the costs.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> AR and LTR
> The broken record clicking is getting to you both (and others).
> 
> Why not take a break and watch the US Open Tennis Finals? At least that will lead to a conclusion.


I agree. And what fantastic finals they were.....!!!


----------



## like_to_retire

kcowan said:


> AR and LTR
> The broken record clicking is getting to you both (and others).
> 
> Why not take a break and watch the US Open Tennis Finals? At least that will lead to a conclusion.


For sure, I watched the last 4 matches. It was tense. Normally the team that I root for loses (hockey), but this time it was a win. Happy times. I thought it was typical Canadian when she said she was sorry she won to the crowd. Great stuff.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> Ship with Climate Change Warriors caught in ice, Warriors evacuated.
> 
> _"Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors."_
> 
> Yes, this was nothing less than the 6th attempt by a green documentary crew to film the devastation of the so named 'climate crisis', only to be caught in the ice once again. I guess that qualifies as a crisis. It's too bad we have to keep rescuing these people. I hope they pay for the costs.
> 
> ltr


I wonder if they pay for the carbon offsets of the rescue operation?


----------



## AltaRed

Finally something that talks about what should be a key focus of the CC discussion and debate. Adaptation! https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49635546

We are never going to arrest increasing temperatures simply because CO2 emissions are global in nature and GDP growth trumps almost everything. We will still be burning 80-110 million barrels of oil per day many years (if not a decade) from now. Never mind more natural gas, more meat production and more methane emitting landfills. Start adapting today!

Added: FWIW, there is some ongoing discussion/ideas/plans in Canada around adaptation but it doesn't get nearly enough media and activist attention. And consequently minimal to zero political public policy discussion. Examples:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/adapting.html
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/impacts-adaptations/10761
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...a-should-start-adaptation-measures-to-offset/


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Finally something that talks about what should be a key focus of the CC discussion and debate. Adaptation! https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49635546
> 
> We are never going to arrest increasing temperatures simply because CO2 emissions are global in nature and GDP growth trumps almost everything. We will still be burning 80-110 million barrels of oil per day many years (if not a decade) from now. Never mind more natural gas, more meat production and more methane emitting landfills. Start adapting today!




canadian cities are not going to up & walk themselves 2000 km farther north at no cost though

what's _your_ plan to pay for populating le grand nord du canada while slashing debt, lowering taxes & balancing the budget?

please don't forget to first include those 100 mandatory new naval vessels - including 33 spiffy new icebreakers - so we can fight off those huge enemy armadas that keep circling our shores & threatening to invade this land of the silver birch/home of the beaver

it's true that russia populated siberia but the kremlin played a big role incentivizing the moves. Even today ukrainians fleeing war in east ukraine are told that their immigration settlement choices within russia include siberia, or else siberia, or come again siberia.

.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> canadian cities are not going to up & walk themselves 2000 km farther north at no cost though
> 
> what's _your_ plan to pay for populating le grand nord du canada while slashing debt, lowering taxes & balancing the budget?
> 
> please don't forget to first include those 100 mandatory new naval vessels - including 33 spiffy new icebreakers - so we can fight off those huge enemy armadas that keep circling our shores & threatening to invade this land of the silver birch/home of the beaver
> 
> it's true that russia populated siberia but the kremlin played a big role incentivizing the moves. Even today ukrainians fleeing war in east ukraine are told that their immigration settlement choices within russia include siberia, or else siberia, or come again siberia.
> .


My plan.
Governments should stop doing things that are not their core constitutional responsibilities.
Stop giving billions away, particularly to foreign groups.

Instant billions!


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> My plan.
> Governments should stop doing things that are not their core constitutional responsibilities.
> Stop giving billions away, particularly to foreign groups.
> 
> Instant billions!


You must be a Libertarian.

Sounds like the PPC party platform.

Will you be voting Bernier?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

@ MrMatt: Wish you hadn't done a reply with quote. I started to read HP's first line, then quit because of the ridiculous comment, and I have had HP on ignore for awhile now.....

There is much that can be done, i.e. the links I provided suggest there is some thinking going on but there is no public discussion on adaptation measures that should be implemented on any new construction and/or upgrades and renovations, e.g. pier and wharf repairs, new water/sewer infrastructure, better water management as glaciers melt, etc. 

Example: Will the new LNG project be engineered to adapt to much higher sea levels, mandating xeriscaping in arid urban areas, etc.


----------



## AltaRed

Another reason to focus on adaptation measures rather than singular focus on emission reduction. https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/265476/Wildfires-spewed-GHGs

Another reason to keep the Greens at bay with their dumb policies https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/265473/GHG-levels-slow-to-fall What does Weaver think the world is being powered by? LNG should be welcomed to offset some of that nasty oil SE Asia is burning.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Finally something that talks about what should be a key focus of the CC discussion and debate. Adaptation!


I just spent a day on the road listening to an interesting new podcast "Fall of civilizations"

The recurring theme is our inability to adapt to a combination of climate change, rising inequality, chain reactions of human migration and eventually excessive violence. I think we have beaten the dead horse that climate change is happening and has happened throughout history. Inequality and human migration is also on the rise again. We have become a lot more versatile and adaptive this time but it's like forest fire prevention just creating more tinder. Human population and inequality are now at all time highs.

The good news is we don't go extinct, just decline to simpler lives. The healthiest resilient rural communities survive. The environment slowly repairs itself. Forest fires are natural and necessary cycle of the ecosystem. It wipes out disease, invasive species and restores fertility to the soil. The most resilient plants and animals get a fresh start. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## AltaRed

As someone who grew up on a cattle ranch high in the Rockies, survival was all about adaptation to one's environment. People who work around the world recognize they must adapt to their environment. We just have too many people today who don't realize significant changes are constantly in motion.


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> You must be a Libertarian.
> 
> Sounds like the PPC party platform.
> 
> Will you be voting Bernier?
> 
> ltr


Though I consider core principles and a lean Libertarian, I'm also pragmatic, I vote strategically. 
It also looks like PPC has a diverse slate, and I'm not sure if the candidate would be acceptable.


----------



## sags

Election announcement today.

Canadian voters will decide the path the government takes on climate change, and that is how it should be.


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> The good news is we don't go extinct, just decline to simpler lives. The healthiest resilient rural communities survive. The environment slowly repairs itself. Forest fires are natural and necessary cycle of the ecosystem. It wipes out disease, invasive species and restores fertility to the soil. The most resilient plants and animals get a fresh start. Rinse and repeat.



aren't you making it sound like a cute children's tale about Noah's Ark though, with its happy ending on mount ararat

_the animals went in two by two
the elephant and the kangaroo_

the reality won't be so pretty


----------



## Pluto

air conditioner company profits decline due to cooler climate.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/air...citing-significantly-cooler-temperatures.html


----------



## sags

Thank goodness there is still ice in the Arctic or we would under 20 feet of water.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

You're 251m asl in London Sags. I wouldn't build a dock yet.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Barack Obama just bought a $14.8 million dollar beach house on Martha's Vineyard that is less than 10 feet above sea level. He joins such climate alarmist beach house owners as Al Gore and David Suzuki (who owns 2 beach front properties near Vancouver, one in partnership with an oil company). So I wouldn't worry about rising sea levels.

I would like to know what banks hold the mortgages on all the beach front properties and who insures them? Banks are not known for loaning money on properties sliding into the ocean, and insurance companies don't sell policies that are sure to cost them money. I can only conclude that these companies have studied the issue carefully and concluded they are in no danger of losing money due to rising sea levels. And so have Al Gore, Barack Obama and David Suzuki.


----------



## Eder

Actions speak louder than words as always.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Thank goodness there is still ice in the Arctic or we would under 20 feet of water.


Yep, the world has gone through many climate cycles with both the Antarctic and Arctic boasting some nice forests. I suppose the water levels were much higher during those periods and will be so again. Thank goodness man wasn't around during those periods as we would have been blaming ourselves.

Our job today is to adapt rather than waste time destroying our economies with silly taxation measures.

_"Cretaceous polar forests were temperate forests that grew at polar latitudes during the final period of the Mesozoic Era, known as the Cretaceous Period 145–66 Ma.[1] During this period, global average temperature was about 10 °C (18 °F) higher and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were approximately 1000 parts per million (ppm), 2.5 times the current concentration in Earth's atmosphere."_

ltr


----------



## sags

What was the human population on earth during those eras ?


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> What was the human population on earth during those eras ?


Irrelevent


----------



## sags

Population - 0


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Population - 0


What's your point?

Is it that the global warming that occurred during that period wasn't caused by man as it isn't today?

Seems reasonable.

ltr


----------



## sags

The point is that there are humans on the earth today who depend on an interwoven fabric of nature to survive, which are all affected by climate change.

Some climate change deniers seem to want to go back to the good old days when human life couldn't exist on the planet.

That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.


Adapt - don't tax and ruin.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The point is that there are humans on the earth today who depend on an interwoven fabric of nature to survive, which are all affected by climate change.
> 
> Some climate change deniers seem to want to go back to the good old days when human life couldn't exist on the planet.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.


Humans would have done just fine in the Mesozoic Era if they had been around then. What makes you think otherwise?


----------



## humble_pie

like_to_retire said:


> Adapt - don't tax and ruin.



quebec has had a carbon tax since 2007

12 long years & we never noticed it

today quebec is booming
canadians moving here from western canada for jobs, housing, good food, joie de vivre

let's not gloom on about *ruin*
only the you-know-who's are glooming on & on about ruin


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> quebec has had a carbon tax since 2007
> 
> 12 long years & we never noticed it
> 
> today quebec is booming
> canadians moving here from western canada for jobs, housing, good food, joie de vivre
> 
> let's not gloom on about *ruin*
> only the you-know-who's are glooming on & on about ruin


I think we can all agree, Quebec is a wonderful, high tax, high red tape, socialist paradise.
Funded by the rest of the country. It would have been bankrupt years ago if not for the constant bailouts, and billions in transfers.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The point is that there are humans on the earth today who depend on an interwoven fabric of nature to survive, which are all affected by climate change.
> 
> Some climate change deniers seem to want to go back to the good old days when human life couldn't exist on the planet.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.


But we're not having a debate with climate deniers. They are such a minority as to be insignificant.
I don't even think there are "climate deniers" here, but of course, I don't know what a "climate denier" is.
I think everyone can accept that climate exist.


Most of the opposition to the current Liberal plan is that it isn't effective.

The costs dramatically outweigh the benefits, and we should pursue a better solution.

I'm not "denying" anything to do with the climate, I just think the current plan sucks.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Humans would have done just fine in the Mesozoic Era if they had been around then. What makes you think otherwise?


They wouldn't have survived the dense layer of toxic CO2. 

It would be similar to putting your head in a plastic bag. 

Not good.


----------



## sags

Even if humans had managed to survive the period, they wouldn't look as they do today.

Evolution would have provided them with gills or a snorkel to filter out the toxic fumes.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

MrMatt said:


> But we're not having a debate with climate deniers. They are such a minority as to be insignificant.
> I don't even think there are "climate deniers" here, but of course, I don't know what a "climate denier" is.
> I think everyone can accept that climate exist.
> 
> 
> Most of the opposition to the current Liberal plan is that it isn't effective.
> 
> The costs dramatically outweigh the benefits, and we should pursue a better solution.
> 
> I'm not "denying" anything to do with the climate, I just think the current plan sucks.


I prefer to believe that the current Liberal climate plan is a smashing success. And that therefore no new taxes or laws are necessary to control the climate. I don't know about you, but where I live the climate has been unusually cool and wet this year. In fact, the water level in the Great Lakes was at a record high.


----------



## Eder

humble_pie said:


> quebec has had a carbon tax since 2007
> 
> 12 long years & we never noticed it


Why would you ...living on Alberta's dime the whole time.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Well, things are really in the shitter if Western Canadians are prepared to move to Quebec.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Thank goodness there is still ice in the Arctic or we would under 20 feet of water.


Not really. All the ice around the north pole could melt, and it won't make much difference to sea levels.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> They wouldn't have survived the dense layer of toxic CO2.
> 
> It would be similar to putting your head in a plastic bag.
> 
> Not good.


1000 ppm isn't dense. Even 2000 ppm isn't dense or dangerous.

Where do you get your "facts" from?


----------



## MrMatt

The thing is, since global warming is projected to result in a net benefit to Canada, why wouldn't we be for it?


----------



## sags

Pluto said:


> Not really. All the ice around the north pole could melt, and it won't make much difference to sea levels.


If all of the glacier ice on Earth were to melt, sea level would rise ~ 80 m (~ 265 ft), flooding every coastal city on the planet. 

If all of Earth's temperate glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 0.3–0.6 m (~ 1-2 ft). 

If all of Greenland's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 6 m (~ 20 ft).

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would...s_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products


----------



## sags

Some people are harkening back to ancient times, when sea levels were 60 feet higher than they are today..........hence I mentioned the "snorkel".


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> 1000 ppm isn't dense. Even 2000 ppm isn't dense or dangerous.
> 
> Where do you get your "facts" from?


Science. 

There is general consensus among scientists that concentrations above 450 ppm are dangerous to humans due to the negative effect on global warming.

As for breathing of CO2, anything above 1000 ppm is considered dangerous for humans. CO2 is considered a pollutant.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Science.
> 
> There is general consensus among scientists that concentrations above 450 ppm are dangerous to humans due to the negative effect on global warming.
> 
> As for breathing of CO2, anything above 1000 ppm is considered dangerous for humans. CO2 is considered a pollutant.


The EPA under Obama declared CO2 a pollutant for political reasons, not scientific reasons. The industry standards for CO2 exposure are well known and are even built into government regulations:



Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air

1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas. Therefore, 10,000 ppm of a gas in air is a 1% concentration. 

At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy. 

The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations. 

Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations. 

If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent. 

Breathing rate doubles at 3% (30,000 ppm)CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% (50,000 ppm)CO2. 

Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]

OSHA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration, OSHA, has set Permissible Exposure Limits for Carbon Dioxide in workplace atmospheres at...

10,000 ppm of CO2 measured as a Time Weighted Average (TWA) level of exposure 

OSHA has set 30,000 ppm of CO2 as a Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL). 

OSHA has also set a Transitional Limit of 5,000 ppm CO2 exposure TWA. 

[OSHA's former limit for carbon dioxide was 5000 ppm as an 8-hour TWA.]

OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6%, the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm.


----------



## Eder

sags said:


> Science.
> 
> There is general consensus among scientists that concentrations above 450 ppm are dangerous to humans due to the negative effect on global warming.
> 
> As for breathing of CO2, anything above 1000 ppm is considered dangerous for humans. CO2 is considered a pollutant.


I guess thats why NASA sets co2 targets on the space station at an unsurvivable level of 5250 ppm.


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science.
> 
> There is general consensus among scientists that concentrations above 450 ppm are dangerous to humans due to the negative effect on global warming.
> 
> As for breathing of CO2, anything above 1000 ppm is considered dangerous for humans. CO2 is considered a pollutant.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess thats why NASA sets co2 targets on the space station at an unsurvivable level of 5250 ppm.
Click to expand...

Clearly NASA doesn't understand science.
To be fair when Liberals say science, they mean political science.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> If all of the glacier ice on Earth were to melt, sea level would rise ~ 80 m (~ 265 ft), flooding every coastal city on the planet.
> 
> If all of Earth's temperate glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 0.3–0.6 m (~ 1-2 ft).
> 
> If all of Greenland's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 6 m (~ 20 ft).
> 
> https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would...s_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products


the ice around and at the North Pole isn't glaciers. the North pole ice is floating, not a glacier. When floating ice melts, it doesn't impact sea levels in any significant way. 
Yes, if all the land based ice melted, that would impact sea levels. Reportedly, it has hapened before, so its possible it will happen again. When it does, there is no known way to stop it.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Some people are harkening back to ancient times, when sea levels were 60 feet higher than they are today..........hence I mentioned the "snorkel".


Oh, gee. In ancient times sea levels were 60 feet higher you say. Hmmmm. How did that happen? How did sea levels get lower to todays levels?


----------



## MrMatt

Pluto said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people are harkening back to ancient times, when sea levels were 60 feet higher than they are today..........hence I mentioned the "snorkel".
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, gee. In ancient times sea levels were 60 feet higher you say. Hmmmm. How did that happen? How did sea levels get lower to todays levels?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's the ice age we're currently in?


----------



## AltaRed

The consensus is more like 210-220 ft of sea level rise if all land fast ice melted, with some uncertainty because scientists do not have a firm grasp on the actual volume of land fast ice. Floating ice makes no difference to sea level rise.There will also be thermal expansion as ocean temperatures warm. The latter is more consequence due to the havoc to marine life and the likely loss of food, for which the world relies considerably on, if species cannot adapt fast enough. The planet has been there before and will definitely go there again despite anything mankind does. 

It is just a matter of how many dozens of centuries depending on which side of the inter-glacial period we are in (down slop, or up slope). There is nothing to fear about sea level rise. It is happening slowly regardless. https://www.sciencealert.com/distur...t-earth-would-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted

There is nothing to fear about CO2 levels. They will never get to toxic levels due to the carbon already permanently trapped (won't be extracted) in the earth's crust. It is all fearmongering and vested agendas. *Sags' disc is still skipping.

* I now have him on Ignore due to the low signal to noise ratio, and because I toss discs that skip. I only notice his material when quoted by others. P.S. I have a few others way over on the other side on ignore too.


----------



## sags

The science goes right over the climate denier's heads. Maybe it is just too complicated for them.

The scientists aren't talking about the CO2 levels we breathe. 

They are talking about the CO2 levels that rise and get trapped in the atmosphere and cause global warming.

The "debate" on climate change is over. It is a big issue for the public because they believe the science over ignorance.

The only solution is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. The only question is how fast we can achieve that goal.

Few in the general public owe allegiance to either the oil industry or the climate change industry.

The public has chosen the side they support.


----------



## MrMatt

Someone claims that we are getting close to fatal levels of CO2, someone pulls up safe limits from NASA.
Then you change what you mean by fatal. 

There is a reason these debates with leftists need to start with definitions. You guys change definitions and argue in circles with logical contradictions.


----------



## Pluto

MrMatt said:


> Maybe it's the ice age we're currently in?


That's a thought that doesn't dawn on the alarmists.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Science.
> 
> There is general consensus among scientists that concentrations above 450 ppm are dangerous to humans due to the negative effect on global warming.
> 
> As for breathing of CO2, anything above 1000 ppm is considered dangerous for humans. CO2 is considered a pollutant.


Currently, "pollutant" seems to be a social construct. so, no real worries.


----------



## sags

It is Prairie Guy who continually refers to dangerous levels of CO2 as a breathable gas, which has nothing to do with climate change at all.

It is the CO2 that rises and is trapped in the atmosphere that is causing global warming that is the issue.


----------



## AltaRed

Pluto said:


> Currently, "pollutant" seems to be a social construct. so, no real worries.


Lots of lemmings out there being led by bull ring


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> It is Prairie Guy who continually refers to dangerous levels of CO2 as a breathable gas, which has nothing to do with climate change at all.


I quoted OSHA and someone else quoted NASA as to what dangerous CO2 levels are. You ignored settled science and made up your own definition of dangerous and then criticized me for quoting science.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look? Any idea at all?


----------



## sags

You are quoting science that isn't relevant to climate change.

Once again..........it is the CO2 stacking up in the upper atmosphere that is creating global warming.

Emissions take decades to rise to the upper atmosphere, so there is a lot more that is going to rise which will continue to intensify global warming. 

Even if we stop all emissions tomorrow.........the CO2 level will continue to rise for decades.

The timeline to make meaningful change is short. We don't have the luxury of the 50 or 100 hundred years that some want to wait.

The time for talk is over. We need action now.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The time for talk is over. We need action now.


We get it President Bush. , "you're either with us or against us".


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> You are quoting science that isn't relevant to climate change.


You made up your own definition of toxic CO2 levels and when proven wrong refused to correct or amend. I no longer take anything you say on this topic seriously. You're trolling.


----------



## Eder

It appears the Alliance of World Scientists that were gracious enough to accept me even though I listed my qualifications as Carpenter now want me to peer review some or all of their new publications...heres the list...which should I endorse with my expertise?

Published or in press articles
*Topic/Working Title** Lead Author* 
*World Scientists warning of a climate emergency (in press) William Ripple

**Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity** Charlie Gardner

**Scientists’ Warning on Soundscapes** Jérôme Sueur

**Scientists’ Warning on Wildfire** Sean C P Coogan

**Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: microorganisms and climate change** Rick Cavicchioli

**Scientists’ Warning on the Conservation of Subterranean Habitats** Stefano Mammola

The Second Warning to Humanity – Providing a Context for Wetland . . . C. M. Finlayson*
In Preparation articles
Scientists’ Warning on Marine Conservation David Johns

Scientists’ Warning on Indigenous Knowledge Dana Lepofsky

Scientists’ Warning on Congo Fish Conservation Tchalondawa Kisekelwa

Scientists’ Warning on Inland Water Conservation Lars Tranvik

Scientists’ Warning on Invasive Alien Species Petr Pyšek

Scientists’ Warning on Coral Reefs Carla Elliff

Scientists’ Warning on Medicinal Plants Wendy Applequist

Scientists’ Warning on Pollination Conservation Peter Kevan

Scientists’ Warning on Limbless Subterranean Amphibians Ramachandran Kotharambath

Scientists’ Warning on Deserts Glenda Wardle

Scientists' Warning for Gynecologists Jan Greguš, MD

Scientists’ Warning on Old Arctic Sea Ice Benjamin Lange

Scientists' Warning on Bird Conservation Jeff Snyder

Scientists’ warning on insect conservation Michael Samways

Scientists’ warning on the arthropod-borne pathogens Agustín Estrada-Peña

Scientists’ Warning on the connection with nature. Jerónimo Torres-Porras

Scientists' Warning on climate change and infectious diseases Kyrre Kausrud

Scientists' Warning on Pesticide Impact Gwenaël Imfeld

Scientists’ warning and forest disturbances Alex Leverkus

Scientists’ Warning on Food Gardens Daniela Soleri

Scientists’ Warning on chemical pollution Thomas Backhaus

Scientists warning to humanity and animal behavior Wolfgang Goymann

Scientists’ warning on endocrine-disrupting chemicals Martin L. Kaonga

Scientist’s Warning on Human Population Growth William Lidicker

Scientists’ Warning to Humanity – Endangered Food Webs Ruben Heleno

Scientists’ Warning on Large Lakes Conservation Jean-Philippe Jenny

Scientists’ Warning on Sea Ice Peter Wadhams

Scientists’ Warning on the World’s Population Helen Kopnina

Scientists’ Warning on Semiarid Savannas Ana Andreu

Scientists’ Warning on Freshwaters James S. Albert

Scientists' Warning from Conservation Physiologists Christine Madliger

Scientists’ Warning on Affluence Tommy Wiedmann

Scientists’ Warning on Beaches and Coastal Wetlands Chip Fletcher

Scientists’ Warning on our Deep Ocean Rachel Jeffreys

Scientists’ Warning is a Warning to Science Marek Cuhra

Emergency Climate Warming above 1.5C Peter Carter

Scientists’ Warning for Health Systems Jade Khalife

Scientists’ warning on landscape homogenization Victor Arroyo-Rodriguez

Warning on ElectroMagnetic Waves Gauthier LASOU

Scientists’ Warning on Ethical Security Jean S. Renouf

Scientists’ Warning on Refugees and the Environmental Crisis Mukul Sharif

Scientists’ Warning on Rocky Outcrop Vegetation Fernando Silveira

Scientists’ Warning on climate change in cities Brenda Lin


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

:highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused:

I don't see listed: _Scientist's Warning on Alliance of World Scientists' Warnings_

:cower:


----------



## sags

Climate change has been studied and discussed enough. Time to get a plan together and implement it.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Climate change has been studied and discussed enough. Time to get a plan together and implement it.


Nothing is ever discussed enough. 

That being said, we still need a real plan. Nobody is actually proposing one.


----------



## Eder

Looks like Environment Canada replaced a 100 years of observed weather temperatures with models..Doesn't fit with the narrative so out the door it goes....


https://www.blacklocks.ca/data-not-meant-to-mislead/


Environment Canada omitted 100 years’ worth of weather data from a federal website intended to illustrate climate change. Staff also used “modeling” instead of actual temperature readings to plot dramatic graphs, but said the result was not intended to be misleading: “It is simulated.”

Blacklock's reports that Vancouver was hotter in 1910 than it was in 2017. Toronto was warmer in 1852 than it was in 2017 and Moncton was warmer in 1906 than in 2017. All in the name of climate emergencies I guess. Propaganda in Canada live & well...


----------



## Prairie Guy

MrMatt said:


> Nothing is ever discussed enough.
> 
> That being said, we still need a real plan. Nobody is actually proposing one.


Here's my plan...CO2 is necessary and good. Ignore it and cancel the carbon tax.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Climate change has been studied and discussed enough. Time to get a plan together and implement it.


Environment Canada has decided to eliminate raw data and instead use unproven computer modeling. And now you want to end discussion?

How much are they paying you?


----------



## sags

We know what we have to do.

Forward boys...........for Trudeau and country.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Here's my plan...CO2 is necessary and good. Ignore it and cancel the carbon tax.


It is false to say that it is necessary to burn fossilized carbon.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> It is false to say that it is necessary to burn fossilized carbon.


I didn't say that. Don't make false accusations.

But I'm curious and I'm sure many others are also...how long have you gone without using fossil fuels?


----------



## andrewf

^ Your logic suggests that suicide or complete disregard for any social responsibility are your options. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that line of thinking.


----------



## sags

The Conservative government in Alberta is trying to hide the emissions numbers, according to the scientists who do the monitoring.

_The scientist who once oversaw the science division of an independent agency keeping tabs on the impact of industrial pollution in Alberta is leaving the province and speaking out about the politics that he says has come to permeate Alberta's petroleum-based economy.

Bill Donahue says he fears the quality and depth of environmental monitoring in the province will continue to decline, imperilling the public's understanding of potentially harmful pollutants produced by the oilsands and related industries.
_
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/new-oilsands-agency-1.5287514


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

We never seem to read about the investments that companies are making which continue to enhance Canada's status as an O&G producer. 

All that gets ragged on by the ignorant and uninformed here is the 'bad' news. 

So, here's something positive to put in your bong:

Suncor investing $1.4B in oil sands plant upgrade to reduce emissions
_Calgary-based Suncor will build two natural gas co-generation units that will replace three petroleum coke-fired boilers.
... will generate 800 megawatts of power that will be transmitted to Alberta’s power grid.
Suncor said the investment will cut greenhouse gas emissions associated with the plant’s steam production by 25 per cent.
... the new units are also expected to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 45 per cent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 15 per cent_

Also: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...cogeneration-oilsands-fort-mcmurray-1.5277056


----------



## like_to_retire

Maxime Bernier responds on Twitter to a tweet by Elizabeth May.









ltr


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

^+1 :applouse:
Gawd eh. How can anyone take the Lizzie May marionette seriously.


----------



## like_to_retire

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ^+1 :applouse:
> Gawd eh. How can anyone take the Lizzie May marionette seriously.


Oh man, and all these cities declaring climate emergencies makes me weak and sad at the stupidity. 

I drive around my neighborhood and see the Green Party signs and shake my head. Thank goodness I haven't been indoctrinated into the cult of insanity.

ltr


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> ^ Your logic suggests that suicide or complete disregard for any social responsibility are your options. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that line of thinking.


I think it is socially responsible to say climate change isn't in any significant way, man made. 

The climate models of the warmists all assume nature isn't involved in climate change. Only humans are. Its pure faith nature does nothing anymore, and only humans are causing change.


----------



## Eder




----------



## agent99

Pluto said:


> I think it is socially responsible to say climate change isn't in any significant way, man made.


I don't know whether or not human beings contributed significantly to the climate change/global warming currently observed. It should not be that hard to do with all the computer modelling we now have. Surely someone has done this? That would clarify "significantly" and provide better insight into what affect reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse emissions might have. I am sure there is more, but I did find this from NASA:



> The Role of Human Activity
> In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
> 
> The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.
> 
> The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf.


Seems we have at least contributed. What I am not sure about, is whether or not we can now reverse the effects. But way I look at it, is that if we reduce CO2 emissions, we will also reduce depletion of fossil fuels. This may buy time for us to learn how to better use coal. And allow us to develop totally different energy technologies. Energy conservation can also make industry more profitable and also reduce our personal living costs (we did an energy project on our home that cut our energy bills in 1/2 and paid for itself in under 10 years)

I don't see any timely solution for the effects of global warming. It's too late for some areas. Some of the time wasted arguing whether the earth is warming or not might be better used coming up with methods for mitigation of the effects. And get them implemented soon - before disasters hit.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> I don't see any timely solution for the effects of global warming. It's too late for some areas. Some of the time wasted arguing whether the earth is warming or not might be better used coming up with methods for mitigation of the effects. And get them implemented soon - before disasters hit.


The warming is going to continue forever, at least in terms of how humankind measures time. It is ridiculous why more time and effort has not been spent in having policy for mitigation and adaptation. It's a huge gap in my opinion.


----------



## Pluto

agent99 said:


> I don't know whether or not human beings contributed significantly to the climate change/global warming currently observed. It should not be that hard to do with all the computer modelling we now have. Surely someone has done this? That would clarify "significantly" and provide better insight into what affect reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse emissions might have.


The computer models is what I am talking about: they tune the computer models to assume nature contributes nothing to climate change. That assumption implies that all of climate change is of human origin. they don't know what the natural factors are that contributes to climate, they simply assume it is zero. Along side of that, they have so called studies claiming that prior to the 20th century, there was no climate change. Then, with tha advent of industry, the temperature spiked up, according to them. The reality is there is no proof climate didn't change prior to the 20th century.


----------



## MrMatt

Pluto said:


> The computer models is what I am talking about: they tune the computer models to assume nature contributes nothing to climate change. That assumption implies that all of climate change is of human origin. they don't know what the natural factors are that contributes to climate, they simply assume it is zero. Along side of that, they have so called studies claiming that prior to the 20th century, there was no climate change. Then, with tha advent of industry, the temperature spiked up, according to them. The reality is there is no proof climate didn't change prior to the 20th century.


Every time the computer model is wrong, they just release a new model that fits the historical data.
It doesn't work very well because forward predictions based on a complex system with unknown inputs and relationships makes this very very difficult if not impossible.

Look at stock price projections, they simply aren't very accurate.


----------



## agent99

Pluto said:


> The computer models is what I am talking about: they tune the computer models to assume nature contributes nothing to climate change. That assumption implies that all of climate change is of human origin. they don't know what the natural factors are that contributes to climate, they simply assume it is zero. Along side of that, they have so called studies claiming that prior to the 20th century, there was no climate change. Then, with tha advent of industry, the temperature spiked up, according to them. The reality is there is no proof climate didn't change prior to the 20th century.


I would go back and question the source of those assertions. The report I linked to earlier provides some good information. It does not assume no natural effects. I think in one place it said that 78% of increase in GHG concentrations (over some period) resulted from human sources. I always question all sources of data. 

I don't intend to remain in this discussion. It is a no-win for all and that's a pity.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> I think it is socially responsible to say climate change isn't in any significant way, man made.
> 
> The climate models of the warmists all assume nature isn't involved in climate change. Only humans are. Its pure faith nature does nothing anymore, and only humans are causing change.


This is, of course, wrong. Climate models account for natural forcings on climate, such as sunspot cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> This is, of course, wrong. Climate models account for natural forcings on climate, such as sunspot cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.


It matters which models, and how accurately they reflect that.
Of course all those details are not published.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Volcanoes -not usually. But *this study* did try incoporating them:

_Volcanoes are rarely included in simulations of future climate, because eruptions cannot be predicted. Using the behavior of past eruptions as a substitute, a new study warns that 21st Century climate may be more variable than previously thought.
Presently, climate impact and risk assessments were based on climate model simulations that did not include realistic volcanic influences in the 21st Century and hence did not cover the range of possible future outcomes.
To exclude eruptions from such simulations has been a natural choice because eruptions cannot be predicted in advance and there have been only a few such events in recent decades._


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> This is, of course, wrong. Climate models account for natural forcings on climate, such as sunspot cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.


Why should I have faith in your claim?


----------



## Pluto

"When computer climate models are first constructed, these global-average energy flows in and out of the climate system do not balance. So, modelers adjust any number of uncertain processes in the models (for example, cloud parameterizations) until they do balance. They run the model for, say, 100 years and make sure there is little or no long-term temperature trend to verify balance exists.

Then, they add the infrared radiative effect of increasing CO2, which does cause an energy imbalance. Warming occurs. They then say something like, “See? The model proves that CO2 is responsible for warming we’ve seen since the 1950s.”

But they have only demonstrated what they assumed from the outset. It is circular reasoning. A tautology."

Reference: https://www.drroyspencer.com/ 
blog post dated Sept 8, 2019


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Volcanoes -not usually. But *this study* did try incoporating them:
> 
> _Volcanoes are rarely included in simulations of future climate, because eruptions cannot be predicted. Using the behavior of past eruptions as a substitute, a new study warns that 21st Century climate may be more variable than previously thought.
> Presently, climate impact and risk assessments were based on climate model simulations that did not include realistic volcanic influences in the 21st Century and hence did not cover the range of possible future outcomes.
> To exclude eruptions from such simulations has been a natural choice because eruptions cannot be predicted in advance and there have been only a few such events in recent decades._


When explaining past warming, volcanic activity is definitely included.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Why should I have faith in your claim?


Why should faith enter into it? It seems you have faith in your financial interests, and motivated beliefs.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Pluto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I have faith in your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should faith enter into it? It seems you have faith in your financial interests, and motivated beliefs.
Click to expand...

There are incentives on both side. 
The reality is the models are all secret so we don't know what is in the models. 
We do know that most models are wrong, then someone releases a new updated model.


----------



## sags

I am going to attend Johnnies Bible College and Pool Hall and get a PHD in anti-climate change studies.

A degree cost $200 and comes in the mail in about 2 weeks. Transcripts are extra. I will be able to go on Fox News as an expert.


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> It matters which models, and how accurately they reflect that.
> Of course all those details are not published.


Maybe you have to dig a bit deeper to get to the details, but climatic modelling reports are published along with methodology, assumptions and detailed data. Scientists usually try and search for the truth - they are not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. 

However, on both sides of climate issue, there are some that distort facts to suit their own personal views, It even happens right here!


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> There are incentives on both side.
> The reality is the models are all secret so we don't know what is in the models.
> We do know that most models are wrong, then someone releases a new updated model.


Gosh that was quick - you just confirmed what I said


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> Scientists usually try and search for the truth - they are not trying to pull the wool over our eyes.


Have you ever heard the term publish or perish? 
Look how much funding is available, do you think they fund climate change equally for those who argue against it?


----------



## Eder

agent99 said:


> climatic modelling reports are published along with methodology, assumptions and detailed data. Scientists usually try and search for the truth - they are not trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
> !



I think Dr Tim Ball would disagree with you...the "truth" seems one sided.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Why should faith enter into it? It seems you have faith in your financial interests, and motivated beliefs.


It has to be faith because you have nothing to back it.


----------

