Canadian Politics

[17to85]

And you know what, it's not just that they're the wild rose party in New colours. We get the social conservatives from the wild rose combined with the corruption and arrogance of the PCs. Aka the 2 things albertans disliked in previous elections. 

 

Still blows my mind that as many people voted for them as they did given that this was always what they were going to be.

[Mark F]

what blows my mind is the hate for Trudeau.

he spent fifteen billion on a pipeline that benefits nobody but Alberta. 

 

bunch of spoiled, whining babies. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Mark F

[17to85]

2 hours ago, Mark F said:

what blows my mind is the hate for Trudeau.

he spent fifteen billion on a pipeline that benefits nobody but Alberta. 

 

bunch of spoiled, whining babies. 

Liberals have earned their  lack of popularity and trudeau is a dope. The big problem is that everyone else is worse.

[SpeedFlex27]

16 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Liberals have earned their  lack of popularity and trudeau is a dope. The big problem is that everyone else is worse.

Trudeau's climate policies are insane in a pandemic when we have to get the country rolling again. Oil & Gas still is one of the biggest contributors to our GNP providing thousands of jobs across canada not only in the Resource sector but ancilliary industries like manufacturing in Ontario. . We will be reliant on oil for the next 3 or 4 decades at the very least. We aren't ready for an oil free economy. Part of me hopes the Michigan Governor shuts down Enbridge Line 5 which sends Alberta oil to Ontario thru Michigan. That'll get Ontario's attention. This is supposed to happen in May. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by SpeedFlex27

[JCon]

30 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Trudeau's climate policies are insane in a pandemic when we have to get the country rolling again. Oil & Gas still is one of the biggest contributors to our GNP providing thousands of jobs across canada not only in the Resource sector but ancilliary industries like manufacturing in Ontario. . We will be reliant on oil for the next 3 or 4 decades at the very least. We aren't ready for an oil free economy. Part of me hopes the Michigan Governor shuts down Enbridge Line 5 which sends Alberta oil to Ontario thru Michigan. That'll get Ontario's attention. This is supposed to happen in May. 

The climate doesn't know that there is a pandemic on. It's still changing and, given that little was done to address the issues for 10 years, we need something. 

Oil is dying and throwing billions at it won't save it, despite the angry fist waving from Alberta. 

[Mark F]

59 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Liberals have earned their  lack of popularity and trudeau is a dope. The big problem is that everyone else is worse.

lack of popularity is not the same as hatred. 

why did notley get death threats?

 

 

11 minutes ago, JCon said:

Oil is dying and throwing billions at it won't save it, despite the angry fist waving from Alberta. 

Biden is converting the Federal goverment fleet to electric.

Refusing to face the change that is happening in energy is folly. oil is a curse. little Denmark has a very large wind energy industry, cause 25 years ago, they planned for this.

Alberta is too stupid, still, to do that.

Alberta could give university course in deflection and blaming others. 

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Mark F

[Tracker]

5 hours ago, Mark F said:

amazing. 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/88akk3/alberta-inquiry-jason-kenney-paid-dollar28k-for-a-report-smearing-climate-journalists

 

Albertans look like fools.

They're used to it by now. In the past they could use wads of dollar bills to insulate themselves from this but now, with the cupboard bare, this revelation will make them wince. A little. A very little. Good use of taxpayer money.

[Tracker]

48 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Trudeau's climate policies are insane in a pandemic when we have to get the country rolling again. Oil & Gas still is one of the biggest contributors to our GNP providing thousands of jobs across canada not only in the Resource sector but ancilliary industries like manufacturing in Ontario. . We will be reliant on oil for the next 3 or 4 decades at the very least. We aren't ready for an oil free economy. Part of me hopes the Michigan Governor shuts down Enbridge Line 5 which sends Alberta oil to Ontario thru Michigan. That'll get Ontario's attention. This is supposed to happen in May. 

The reality is that international spot oil prices are so low that gasoline prices lower in the Maritimes and Ontario than out west as a rule these days. So, all the Ontario petroleum companies need do is put out a call and they will get a lot of cheap oil fast. If you think this has not already been planned for, you would be wrong.

[blue_gold_84]

3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Trudeau's climate policies are insane in a pandemic when we have to get the country rolling again. Oil & Gas still is one of the biggest contributors to our GNP providing thousands of jobs across canada not only in the Resource sector but ancilliary industries like manufacturing in Ontario. . We will be reliant on oil for the next 3 or 4 decades at the very least. We aren't ready for an oil free economy. Part of me hopes the Michigan Governor shuts down Enbridge Line 5 which sends Alberta oil to Ontario thru Michigan. That'll get Ontario's attention. This is supposed to happen in May. 

Point out a single aspect of the LPC's climate policies that actually qualify as insane.

And the "bUt ThE eConOmY" narrative isn't it. As @JCon pointed out, the pandemic doesn't give two shits about our economic activity, be it here or anywhere in the world.

And it's not about just cutting off petroleum like some ripping off a bandaid or going cold turkey. It's about transitioning away from petroleum to better and renewable options, ones that don't harm the planet.

[Noeller]

6 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Point out a single aspect of the LPC's climate policies that actually qualify as insane.

And the "bUt ThE eConOmY" narrative isn't it. As @JCon pointed out, the pandemic doesn't give two shits about our economic activity, be it here or anywhere in the world.

And it's not about just cutting off petroleum like some ripping off a bandaid or going cold turkey. It's about transitioning away from petroleum to better and renewable options, ones that don't harm the planet.

100% agree with all of this. I'm still pro-O/G in the short term.... It's still a valuable factor in the economy, but we NEED to transition away and it has to start yesterday... Can't be soon enough. 

[17to85]

U have no tolerance for anti-oil and gas stances. It is still an important industry and you can support both it and a transition towards the future. 

[SpeedFlex27]

5 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Point out a single aspect of the LPC's climate policies that actually qualify as insane.

And the "bUt ThE eConOmY" narrative isn't it. As @JCon pointed out, the pandemic doesn't give two shits about our economic activity, be it here or anywhere in the world.

And it's not about just cutting off petroleum like some ripping off a bandaid or going cold turkey. It's about transitioning away from petroleum to better and renewable options, ones that don't harm the planet.

Transistion to what? Everything you use is because of petroleum. 

5 hours ago, Noeller said:

100% agree with all of this. I'm still pro-O/G in the short term.... It's still a valuable factor in the economy, but we NEED to transition away and it has to start yesterday... Can't be soon enough. 

I didn't say we shouldn't transition. But it will take decades. 

[SpeedFlex27]

8 hours ago, JCon said:

The climate doesn't know that there is a pandemic on. It's still changing and, given that little was done to address the issues for 10 years, we need something. 

Oil is dying and throwing billions at it won't save it, despite the angry fist waving from Alberta. 

Kenney is fist waving but the reality is we can't just go cold turkey off of oil. 

[JCon]

8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Kenney is fist waving but the reality is we can't just go cold turkey off of oil. 

Absolutely, correct. Which, is why we are not going cold turkey. 

 

But, the Feds can't make the price go up and that's really the issue here. The price of oil is dead, with a glut of supply around the world, so now's the time to reinvest elsewhere. 

[17to85]

1 hour ago, JCon said:

Absolutely, correct. Which, is why we are not going cold turkey. 

 

But, the Feds can't make the price go up and that's really the issue here. The price of oil is dead, with a glut of supply around the world, so now's the time to reinvest elsewhere. 

The price isn't dead, and the biggest thing suppressing the price of Canadian oil is the lack of ability to get the product to market. That's why pipelines to the west coast are a big deal. 

Keystone wasn't going to be a huge help given there's already plenty of ways to get oil to the US. 

[Tracker]

The point of the carbon tax and generally raising the price of petroleum is to encourage people and corporations to use the petroleum products more wisely. We do not need big honking SUVs. or poorly insulated buildings or leave lights on all the time. Persuasion is well and fine, but financial pressure is effective. You get more with a kind word and a gun than  you get with a kind word.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Tracker

[blue_gold_84]

9 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Transistion to what? Everything you use is because of petroleum. 

Well, this is flat out wrong. Sure, petroleum products make up a considerable amount of what we consume but it's not everything we consume. And to that point, you can see how much damage our reliance on that commodity has done.

As for transitioning to better and renewable alternatives, feel free to have a read (as it pertains to our nation and the world at large):

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/canadas-energy-transition/canadas-energy-transition-historical-future-changes-energy-systems-update-energy-market-assessment-introduction.html

https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/07/30/the-future-of-industrial-hemp-and-biofuels/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/partner-content-breaking-our-fossil-fuel-habit/

Just because changing the way we do things takes times doesn't mean we shouldn't do it or that we should continue extracting dirty, harmful resources from the ground. The whole purpose of advancing as a civilization is to find better ways to be sustainable and prosperous, and continuing to consume hydrocarbon resources that are finite on this planet flies in the face of that advancement. Our collective addiction to a non-renewable resource around which we've built modern civilization has a shelf life and that puts our future in a precarious position unless we make changes.

As I stated in my previous post, going cold turkey is not the solution but taking the necessary steps to eventually stop using a finite resource is beneficial to our future. The status quo of the 20th century is not a way forward in the 21st century.

[Noeller]

GM announcing they're committed to going fully electric by 2035. No more gas or diesel vehicles...

[pigseye]

In order to get to zero emissions by 2050, which is 10, 568 days from now, you need to replace 22 TW of energy generating capacity or 2.1 GW/day from now until 2050: 

• One 2.1 gigawatt (GW, 10⁹ watts) nuclear power plant each and every day until 2050, OR

• 3000 two-megawatt (MW, 10⁶ watts) wind turbines each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming there’s not one turbine failure for any reason, OR

• 96 square miles (250 square kilometres) of solar panels each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming not one of the panels fails or is destroyed by hail or wind.

I sincerely hope that everyone can see that any of those alternatives are not just impossible. They are pie-in-the-sky, flying unicorns, bull-goose looney impossible.

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Well, this is flat out wrong. Sure, petroleum products make up a considerable amount of what we consume but it's not everything we consume. And to that point, you can see how much damage our reliance on that commodity has done.

As for transitioning to better and renewable alternatives, feel free to have a read (as it pertains to our nation and the world at large):

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/canadas-energy-transition/canadas-energy-transition-historical-future-changes-energy-systems-update-energy-market-assessment-introduction.html

https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/07/30/the-future-of-industrial-hemp-and-biofuels/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/partner-content-breaking-our-fossil-fuel-habit/

Just because changing the way we do things takes times doesn't mean we shouldn't do it or that we should continue extracting dirty, harmful resources from the ground. The whole purpose of advancing as a civilization is to find better ways to be sustainable and prosperous, and continuing to consume hydrocarbon resources that are finite on this planet flies in the face of that advancement. Our collective addiction to a non-renewable resource around which we've built modern civilization has a shelf life and that puts our future in a precarious position unless we make changes.

As I stated in my previous post, going cold turkey is not the solution but taking the necessary steps to eventually stop using a finite resource is beneficial to our future. The status quo of the 20th century is not a way forward in the 21st century.

I promise I will give this a read when I have time in the next few days.

 

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

In order to get to zero emissions by 2050, which is 10, 568 days from now, you need to replace 22 TW of energy generating capacity or 2.1 GW/day from now until 2050: 

• One 2.1 gigawatt (GW, 10⁹ watts) nuclear power plant each and every day until 2050, OR

• 3000 two-megawatt (MW, 10⁶ watts) wind turbines each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming there’s not one turbine failure for any reason, OR

• 96 square miles (250 square kilometres) of solar panels each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming not one of the panels fails or is destroyed by hail or wind.

I sincerely hope that everyone can see that any of those alternatives are not just impossible. They are pie-in-the-sky, flying unicorns, bull-goose looney impossible.

I sincerely hope you can give a legitimate source for this information.  One that doesn't run along the same lines as the 'Covid is a hoax' and 'anti-vax movements.' 

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

I sincerely hope you can give a legitimate source for this information.  One that doesn't run along the same lines as the 'Covid is a hoax' and 'anti-vax movements.' 

Our Energy Needs: World Energy Consumption & Demand | CAPP

• By 2040, renewable energy sources are expected to supply 8% of total global energy demand

That still leaves 22 TW to be replaced. You can factor in hydro and hydrogen but the reality is that our current technology won't get us there. We are going to have to reduce our consumption to about 1/10 of what we use today to make this a reality. That would put us on about the same level as most third world countries. I won't be around come 2050 but I sure feel sorry for those of you who will. 

[pigseye]

Until we get a proper roadmap, Net Zero is a goal without a plan - CapX

A university consortium of engineers has generated a document entitled ‘Absolute Zero’, describing in very high-level terms what an actually zero emissions UK would look like in 2050, and a very high-level description of what is needed. The changes are so draconian, that no Parliament or electorate would vote for it as a way of stopping climate change 20-50 years ahead. ‘Absolute Zero’ is not a roadmap, as no specific projects are described, only generic requirements such as eliminating aviation and international shipping as a part of the UK’s contribution by 2050.

Take batteries. It is estimated that current battery manufacturing capabilities will need to be in the order of 500-700 times bigger than now to support an all-electric global transport system. The materials needed just to allow the UK to transition to all electric transport involve amounts of materials equal to 200% the annual global production of cobalt, 75% of lithium carbonate, 100% of neodymium and 50% of copper. Scaling by a factor of 50 for the world transport, and you see what is now a showstopper. The materials demands just for batteries are beyond known reserves. Would one be prepared to dredge the ocean floor at very large scale for some of the material?  Should securing the reserves not be a first priority?

At the end of their life these batteries, and the wind and solar power generators, produce more tonnes of hazardous waste per unit of electricity produced than a decommissioned nuclear power plant. How is this factored into the grand plan? Should this problem not be confronted now, and a circular economy developed so that materials are reused as far as possible? Is it economic or not to recycle wind turbine blades? 

My own attempt in 2008 to raise research funds to begin to construct such a roadmap to 2050 was rejected by my academic peers as wishful thinking and way over my head in complexity: I think this remains the case today, over a quarter of the way now from 2008 to 2050.

[HardCoreBlue]

23 hours ago, JCon said:

The climate doesn't know that there is a pandemic on. It's still changing and, given that little was done to address the issues for 10 years, we need something. 

Oil is dying and throwing billions at it won't save it, despite the angry fist waving from Alberta. 

Not all from Alberta. 

[17to85]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Our Energy Needs: World Energy Consumption & Demand | CAPP

• By 2040, renewable energy sources are expected to supply 8% of total global energy demand

That still leaves 22 TW to be replaced. You can factor in hydro and hydrogen but the reality is that our current technology won't get us there. We are going to have to reduce our consumption to about 1/10 of what we use today to make this a reality. That would put us on about the same level as most third world countries. I won't be around come 2050 but I sure feel sorry for those of you who will. 

I am not sure that the Canadian association of petroleum producers is an unbiased source... in fact they are known to be quite biased, and I say that as someone who worked in the oil and gas industry for 14 years and is a big supporter of continued support of the sector.