Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[suffolkowner]

Let me steer this back to current Liberal government

ENOUGH of the "climate action" (half assed or all the way), "net zero" will not move our products or people,

We need nuclear, we need oil and gas and at this point, we still need coal (China still buying lots from us).

Hydro is some parts is also an excellent energy source

Solar and wind, is good to supplement and augment but is not base load

is this a federal issue? Or is it Provincial?
Im in Ontario we have lots of Hydro and nuclear, Im not sure what influence the Carney government has had on the Ford government
Solar and wind seem to work well for some areas

 

[ArmyRick]

what specific problem are you trying to identify and solve?

40+ million people population

We need
-Transportation of people and goods
-Military to function
-Food to grow
-Food to harvest, move and store
-Infrastructure to run and maintain
-Construction of buildings, cities, roads, etc
-Heat (its a cold country)
-Governments to run
-Health care system to run (from ambulances to hospitals and everything in between)

Thats only a short list, we need nuclear, oil and gas to pull this off.

F-cking around with things that tax "carbon", or wasting huge money on sketchy tech like CCUS is a distraction, a waste of time and a big grift (some are getting very wealthy on alarming people like you)

 

[ArmyRick]

is this a federal issue? Or is it Provincial?
Im in Ontario we have lots of Hydro and nuclear, Im not sure what influence the Carney government has had on the Ford government
Solar and wind seem to work well for some areas

Your kidding, right? Or are you deliberately being like this?

WTF is PM MC talking with Alberta on MoU? For oil and gas, which is ENERGY.

Why are paying industrial carbon tax on our fuel which is ENERGY.

We ship all our food using oil and gas which is ENERGY.

The federal government has their hands in the thick of it, pretty much from start to go.

 

[ArmyRick]

Either stay in the conversation or drop it.

If your going to bring up all your stats on how horrible we are to the planet, then have a point to make and quit playing these games.

 

[suffolkowner]

Your kidding, right? Or are you deliberately being like this?

WTF is PM MC talking with Alberta on MoU? For oil and gas, which is ENERGY.

Why are paying industrial carbon tax on our fuel which is ENERGY.

We ship all our food using oil and gas which is ENERGY.

The federal government has their hands in the thick of it, pretty much from start to go.

Its not clear to me that the Carney government has had much influence on these decisions
exporting oil and gas from Alberta etc to the world market helps our energy production how?
the industrial carbon tax is 9 cents a barrel of oil

 

[suffolkowner]

40+ million people population

We need
-Transportation of people and goods
-Military to function
-Food to grow
-Food to harvest, move and store
-Infrastructure to run and maintain
-Construction of buildings, cities, roads, etc
-Heat (its a cold country)
-Governments to run
-Health care system to run (from ambulances to hospitals and everything in between)

Thats only a short list, we need nuclear, oil and gas to pull this off.

F-cking around with things that tax "carbon", or wasting huge money on sketchy tech like CCUS is a distraction, a waste of time and a big grift (some are getting very wealthy on alarming people like you)

I am in favour of electrification and decarbonization
no one is alarming me lol

Either stay in the conversation or drop it.

If your going to bring up all your stats on how horrible we are to the planet, then have a point to make and quit playing these games.

who are you having this conversation with?

 

[brihard]

Your kidding, right? Or are you deliberately being like this?

WTF is PM MC talking with Alberta on MoU? For oil and gas, which is ENERGY.

Why are paying industrial carbon tax on our fuel which is ENERGY.

We ship all our food using oil and gas which is ENERGY.

The federal government has their hands in the thick of it, pretty much from start to go.

More precisely, it’s the transportation of oil and gas, specifically via prospective pipelines. Those pipelines would be interprovincial works, which puts the feds in the mix. Likewise, offshore shipping via tanker that’s subject the federal regulation.

It’s not the simple acts of exploring for and developing deposits of oil and gas that have the feds at the table. They’re not there discussing getting the stuff out of the ground because they don’t need to be. There isn’t a simple mandate called ‘energy’ when we look at constitutional division of powers.

 

[ArmyRick]

There isn’t a simple mandate called ‘energy’ when we look at constitutional division of powers.

I am aware of that.

There are many bills and acts federally that pertain to energy (all types).

The idea that we still do charge some sort of carbon or environmental tax, charge fees, etc for any energy of any kind is mind boggling.. Especially when we are watching the Canadian economy in recession (technical or not). We need to make money off energy we sell to otheres, and we need more affordable energy to our own.

We have suffolkowner banging on about the horrible humans destroying the planet yet he is very short of REALISTIC solutions for all forms of energy production and distribution.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It’s so depressing that I have a good job and can’t afford to buy a good steak to put on the grill.

Ever tried Bear or Shark ?

I love a good steak too... Blue rare for this guy.

 

[Altair]

who are you having this conversation with?

is Steven Guilbeaut in the room with us?

 

[suffolkowner]

We have suffolkowner banging on about the horrible humans destroying the planet yet he is very short of REALISTIC solutions for all forms of energy production and distribution.

really?

 

[PrairieFella]

Glad your all in on nuclear. However many of your green zealot allies are dead against it.

Why are you so confrontational? There is no reason to be. Be honest with yourself, have you ever actually spoken to these "zealots"? Most of them are just passionate people coming from a good place.

Solar is awesome to augment and supplement power. I run all my electrical fences on solar powered chargers for example and it works great.

However there is great length discussion about solar and wind, its strengths and limitations.

You would not use a tiny smart car to haul 10,000 lbs of gravel, you use a dump truck. Right tool for the job.

The St Leon wind farm in Manitoba generates 120MW for $200,000,000 bucks in construction costs. Thats a steal compared to nuclear and even a hydro dam. They are cheap, good for spikes and incredibly efficient for $/W. Are they perfect, no? But certainly not a smart car.

The solar and wind is being forced to be a "dump truck" in energy production when it is not.

Not so sure I agree. A holistic is needed. In places thst can support it, hydro. Nuclear. Wind. Solar. Geothermal. All tools in the green transition that will benefit us all in the long run. Cheaper, more plentiful electricity.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

40+ million people population

We need
-Transportation of people and goods
-Military to function
-Food to grow
-Food to harvest, move and store
-Infrastructure to run and maintain
-Construction of buildings, cities, roads, etc
-Heat (its a cold country)
-Governments to run
-Health care system to run (from ambulances to hospitals and everything in between)

Thats only a short list, we need nuclear, oil and gas to pull this off.

F-cking around with things that tax "carbon", or wasting huge money on sketchy tech like CCUS is a distraction, a waste of time and a big grift (some are getting very wealthy on alarming people like you)

So what seems like 6 pages of this, and it still comes down to your OPINION

Tell me again why your opinion is so much better than literally everyone else's? Saying it louder with even more personal attacks does not do much to help you sell your point, and clearly reason, charm, and persuasion are not tolls you are comfortable with.

Any chance you could adjust the rheostat a bit?

 

[Altair]

So what seems like 6 pages of this, and it still comes down to your OPINION

Tell me again why your opinion is so much better than literally everyone else's? Saying it louder with even more personal attacks does not do much to help you sell your point, and clearly reason, charm, and persuasion are not tolls you are comfortable with.

Any chance you could adjust the rheostat a bit?

The past 6 pages are the biggest argument against reopening the climate thread.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regardless of the magnitude of threat or benefit increased CO2 concentrations pose, a rational policy for Canada to adopt is to promote electrification and security globally. Those aims are achieved by exporting more LNG (primarily to substitute for coal in generation and for heating fuel to conserve electricity for other purposes) and oil (primarily to politically stabilize energy-poor countries and reduce dependency on supplies that pass through hot spots).

Seeking to reduce worldwide emissions by a fraction two or three places to the right of a decimal point while impoverishing ourselves does very little to help directly and a lot to harm indirectly (by depriving the world of aforementioned resources).

 

[Altair]

Im going to laugh when the mods decide this thread goes the way of the climate thread.

 

[ArmyRick]

So what seems like 6 pages of this, and it still comes down to your OPINION

I aint the one who shoves climate dooms day into everyone's face here. Say something to them, why don't ya? Start with @suffolkowner

Why are you so confrontational? There is no reason to be.

And no one else is?

The past 6 pages are the biggest argument against reopening the climate thread.

And yet here we are. I didn't start the climate change discussion here. Others did.

Sooooo, its ok for some to express their opinions on climate change but when challenged, ohh shut the fuck up, Rick? Nope.

Regardless of the magnitude of threat or benefit increased CO2 concentrations pose, a rational policy for Canada to adopt is to promote electrification and security globally. Those aims are achieved by exporting more LNG (primarily to substitute for coal in generation and for heating fuel to conserve electricity for other purposes) and oil (primarily to politically stabilize energy-poor countries and reduce dependency on supplies that pass through hot spots).

Seeking to reduce worldwide emissions by a fraction two or three places to the right of a decimal point while impoverishing ourselves does very little to help directly and a lot to harm indirectly (by depriving the world of aforementioned resources).

Thank you, this is a valid point.

 

[Altair]

And yet here we are. I didn't start the climate change discussion here. Others did.

Sooooo, its ok for some to express their opinions on climate change but when challenged, ohh shut the fuck up, Rick? Nope.

Did I mention you Rick? If so, show me where I mentioned you. If not, pound sand please.

 

[PrairieFella]

And no one else is?

Yep - youre the only one using ad hominems. Suffolk is typing numbers.

I wash my hands of this talk, theres obviously no getting through lol.

 

[ArmyRick]

Yep - youre the only one using ad hominems. Suffolk is typing numbers.

I wash my hands of this talk, theres obviously no getting through lol.

Where did I attack Suffolkowner character or personal traits? I attacked his point of view because I disagreed with it. He threw up numbers. So did I.

Why don't you be honest and say you have a biased view on this topic?