• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,758
Points
1,260


I'll just prepare for everyone hear to slam a second pollster, Nanos, rather than acknowledge the poll having similar results to the Leger online poll.

2/3rds of anyone supporting anything doesn't mean its right. History is rife with examples of majorities being lead off of the proverbial cliffs.

This seems to be the foundation of your beliefs though, "might makes right", some would argue a very conservative position.

Meme Think GIF
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
6,906
Points
1,360
I suppose when Alberta stops using coal and keeps its NG for itself to be an über-clean electricity producer, and the pipeline-hating Easterners freeze their asses off in the winter, they’ll be overflowing with thanks for Alberta cleaning up its electrical generation.

Some people down East should be identified as being at the front of the thank-you parade…they know who they are.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,439
Points
1,110
2/3rds of anyone supporting anything doesn't mean its right. History is rife with examples of majorities being lead off of the proverbial cliffs.

This seems to be the foundation of your beliefs though, "might makes right", some would argue a very conservative position.

Meme Think GIF
This is less might makes right than it is the right thing to do and it happens to be popular.

Also people who support a cap on emissions will likely vote for parties who support a cap on emissions, and if one party will predictably be against it, we'll I suppose 2 out of 3 Canadians will be less likely to vote for that 1 party.

Good politics and environmental policy all wrapped into 1, seems like a good week for the LPC.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,227
Points
1,040
I suppose when Alberta stops using coal and keeps its NG for itself to be an über-clean electricity producer, and the pipeline-hating Easterners freeze their asses off in the winter, they’ll be overflowing with thanks for Alberta cleaning up its electrical generation.

Some people down East should be identified as being at the front of the thank-you parade…they know who they are.
Canada/US NG distribution is tightly integrated, with a huge portion of the eastern supply coming from the US. Can't find exactly how much but generally looks like Alberta exports dropped off both US and Eastern Canada because it's cheaper/shorter to use the US Marcellus source.

A lot of the Alberta NG is actually used by the oil sands now to generate power/steam to extract the oil.

It's a finite resource, so at some point we'll all need to convert off it, but Eastern Canada won't freeze if AB turns off the NG pipepline..

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/e85...wnload/18-Albertas-natural-gas-production.pdf
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,439
Points
1,110
Canada/US NG distribution is tightly integrated, with a huge portion of the eastern supply coming from the US. Can't find exactly how much but generally looks like Alberta exports dropped off both US and Eastern Canada because it's cheaper/shorter to use the US Marcellus source.

A lot of the Alberta NG is actually used by the oil sands now to generate power/steam to extract the oil.

It's a finite resource, so at some point we'll all need to convert off it, but Eastern Canada won't freeze if AB turns off the NG pipepline..

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/e85...wnload/18-Albertas-natural-gas-production.pdf
Shhh.

Don't let the reality ruin the fantasy of Alberta turning off the taps in some sort of weird revenge.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
291
Points
780
'Buying stuff' is the biggest driver of climate change, it seems. Good luck trying to change that behaviour.

Oh, and Happy Black Friday!


How Buying Stuff Drives Climate Change​


In fact, our consumer habits are actually driving climate change. A 2015 study found that the production and use of household goods and services was responsible for 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Not surprisingly, wealthy countries have the most per capita impact. A new U.N. report found that the richest one percent of the global population emit more than twice the amount than the poorest 50 percent; moreover, the wealthier people become, the more energy they use. A typical American’s yearly carbon emissions are five times that of the world’s average person. In 2009, U.S. consumers with more than $100,000 in yearly household income made up 22.3 percent of the population, yet produced almost one-third of all U.S. households’ total carbon emissions.

As more people around the world enter the middle class and become affluent, the problem is worsening.



It is true, look at the quality of products made today vs. older products. I can go to antique store or garage sale, buy a tool which is 100+ years old and usually with a small amount of cleaning and maintenance it does exactly what it was designed to do 100 years later effectively. We buy so much items which aren't needed. From remodelling our houses every decade or two (not talking about maintenance rather oh this kitchen is dated time to gut the thing and put in all new things), to buying new appliances every decade, to buying crappy cheap items which last only a few years at best, to replacing our phones every year or two. We don't do so much repairing anymore, only replacing.

30 percent of steel produced today is produced using electric arc furnaces.

As coal gets more expensive via carbon tax electric arc furnaces become more viable.

See, carbon tax works.

Electric Arc Furnaces are not the solution. You cannot make steel with a electric arc furnace, only recycle it. And the quality of steel is only low to mid grade at best. So far the only option which might be viable for actual steel production in the future is hydrogen, which Sweden is doing amazing work on, but we shall have to see if it is feasible particularly for higher grade steels and if it shall work out (I personally hope it shall). Otherwise the Blast Furnaces which environmentalists hate so much are here to stay.

Those higher grades of Steel are also more critical at the moment than ever as we want fuel economy, which means we want lighter steels, which means they need to have higher strength to get the same effect for less weight.

It is easy to point at something and go, look it uses less, until you do some research and find out it isn't viable for the future. Our carbon tax only means that steel shall be produced by blast furnaces outside of Canada with no environmental controls and then shipped overseas which is also environmentally costly. Net result is Canada pretending it helped reduce global emissions by increasing them by a larger amount somewhere else (most likely India or China). Simple example of the Carbon Tax screwing the environment and Canadians.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,137
Points
1,060
Canada/US NG distribution is tightly integrated, with a huge portion of the eastern supply coming from the US. Can't find exactly how much but generally looks like Alberta exports dropped off both US and Eastern Canada because it's cheaper/shorter to use the US Marcellus source.

A lot of the Alberta NG is actually used by the oil sands now to generate power/steam to extract the oil.

It's a finite resource, so at some point we'll all need to convert off it, but Eastern Canada won't freeze if AB turns off the NG pipepline..

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/e85...wnload/18-Albertas-natural-gas-production.pdf
back in 2000 I was reviewing a project in Kitimat to import LNG as Canada was running out. Thanks to fracking, in 10 years we had a 70 year supply of exportable LNG on top of our domestic needs. (Requirement of a NEB export licence is domestic supply must be guaranteed)
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,439
Points
1,110
It is true, look at the quality of products made today vs. older products. I can go to antique store or garage sale, buy a tool which is 100+ years old and usually with a small amount of cleaning and maintenance it does exactly what it was designed to do 100 years later effectively. We buy so much items which aren't needed. From remodelling our houses every decade or two (not talking about maintenance rather oh this kitchen is dated time to gut the thing and put in all new things), to buying new appliances every decade, to buying crappy cheap items which last only a few years at best, to replacing our phones every year or two. We don't do so much repairing anymore, only replacing.



Electric Arc Furnaces are not the solution. You cannot make steel with a electric arc furnace, only recycle it. And the quality of steel is only low to mid grade at best. So far the only option which might be viable for actual steel production in the future is hydrogen, which Sweden is doing amazing work on, but we shall have to see if it is feasible particularly for higher grade steels and if it shall work out (I personally hope it shall). Otherwise the Blast Furnaces which environmentalists hate so much are here to stay.

Those higher grades of Steel are also more critical at the moment than ever as we want fuel economy, which means we want lighter steels, which means they need to have higher strength to get the same effect for less weight.

It is easy to point at something and go, look it uses less, until you do some research and find out it isn't viable for the future. Our carbon tax only means that steel shall be produced by blast furnaces outside of Canada with no environmental controls and then shipped overseas which is also environmentally costly. Net result is Canada pretending it helped reduce global emissions by increasing them by a larger amount somewhere else (most likely India or China). Simple example of the Carbon Tax screwing the environment and Canadians.
Natural gas can be used to make iron and EAF can be used to make steel.

Doing that would cut emissions in steel making in half. So EAF can be part of the solution.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,525
Points
1,010
Almost two-thirds of Canadians support immediately capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands – even if it puts jobs at risk, according to a new poll.

Without a supplementary question identifying the 2/3 of people willing to lose jobs as being the same people whose jobs would be lost, it's just another example of people willing to trade someone else's costs for their own benefits. Polling on social/political/policy questions is full of that kind of useless bullshit.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,966
Points
1,360
If Governments were serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they would embark on ambitious infrastructure projects like Government used to do in the 60s and 70s. Massive Hydro-electric projects, Waterworks, Interstate Highways, Nuclear Power. All were at one time manageable projects for Governments. They were headed by Politicians who were actual visionaries and got stuff done.

Unfortunately the political class lack the stones for that sort of thing today.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
3,074
Points
1,160

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,439
Points
1,110
Without a supplementary question identifying the 2/3 of people willing to lose jobs as being the same people whose jobs would be lost, it's just another example of people willing to trade someone else's costs for their own benefits. Polling on social/political/policy questions is full of that kind of useless bullshit.
Yeah, but in terms of politics, that matters little, no?

If enough of those 2/3 won't vote CPC who I assume would be up in arms about a emissions cap, then isn't that the CPCs ceiling? And if that's the ceiling doesn't the LPC continue on with sizeable minorities or small majorities?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,758
Points
1,260
This is less might makes right than it is the right thing to do and it happens to be popular.

Also people who support a cap on emissions will likely vote for parties who support a cap on emissions, and if one party will predictably be against it, we'll I suppose 2 out of 3 Canadians will be less likely to vote for that 1 party.

Good politics and environmental policy all wrapped into 1, seems like a good week for the LPC.

Its hard for you to say someone else it right eh ?

Its the right thing to do only because 2/3rds of the people say so.

Only time will tell.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
6,906
Points
1,360

Countries strike deal at COP26 climate summit after last-minute compromise on coal

11th hour sneaky.

It's too bad the Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau couldn't put on an interpretative dance for the delegates from India to explain the dangers of coal.
Given that Canada has essentially pledge only to eliminate half its coal exports (thermal/energy only, not metallurgical coal), we would in no position to be arrogantly explain/preach to India why they must eliminate coal entirely.

Mind you, that would be exactly the style of PMJT to lecture India from a position of hypocrisy…
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,439
Points
1,110
Its hard for you to say someone else it right eh ?

Its the right thing to do only because 2/3rds of the people say so.

Only time will tell.
Lowering emissions is good.

This will lower emissions.

Thus this is good.

It also so happens to be supported by 2 out of 3 Canadians.

All in all, good. I'm proud of Canadians.
 
Top