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

    Please take a moment to cast your vote in today's Federal election.

Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????

Status
Not open for further replies.

GR66

Sr. Member
Reaction score
183
Points
510
I always thought that for the conservatives a smart approach to carbon reduction would be efficiency. We spend a very significant percentage of our limited money (both corporations and individuals) on heating, cooling and transportation as well as electricity generation and transmission. Focus on increasing efficiency in these areas and we'll have more money available to spend on other things (and our companies will be more competitive internationally) and as a bi-product we'll decrease our energy usage and therefore emissions. Win all around.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,636
Points
1,160
The problem is people thinking that these are mutually exclusive.

There are green folk, heck, the green party,who want oil to be dead.

And there is another side that believes that nothing at all should be done in regards to emissions.

Meanwhile, ask the average reasonable person and they can realize that there will always be a future for petroleum and petroleum byproducts, but there doesn't need to a an overabundance.

If personal vehicles and power production don't need to burn fossil fuels, then don't, move to technology that doesn't require fossil fuels.

There will always be a need for oil, and that's fine, the planet can deal with excess carbon. Just not at the levels we are currently subjecting it to.
Absolutely!

The problem is that some people believe that solar and wind power fed onto the grid is a sound basis for wholesale elimination of petroleum.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
469
Points
880
Absolutely!

The problem is that some people believe that solar and wind power fed onto the grid is a sound basis for wholesale elimination of petroleum.
There is too much noise happening on the extremes of both sides of the issue.

People like to say that 65 percent of people voted for a party that supports a carbon tax last election. And its true, but 67 percent of people also voted for a party that supports trans mountain pipeline expansion.

I think Canadians on a whole know that you can chew gum and walk at the same time, but the activists are sucking up a lot of the attention and making it seem like there are more of them than there actually are.

The greens have 3 seats.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
596
Points
910
The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change.

Stipulating that "deniers" are people who absolutely deny change (which means they must believe climate is a static system) or who absolutely deny any human involvement, just ignore them and move on. Their dismissal does not extend to other critics. Hammering away at the weakest - manifestly vacuous - arguments and arguers is no useful work at all.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
596
Points
910
The prerequisite for reducing fossil fuel usage is to increase electrification - not by an equivalent amount necessarily, since improving technology will deliver ways to move larger masses with fewer ergs and changing societies may reduce the distances masses have to be moved - but nevertheless by massive amounts. Anyone qualitatively arguing about this or that as replacements without considering the simplest arithmetic - how much energy we produce, and where it comes from, and how much we could reasonably expect to expand difference sources - is not making a useful argument. To be clear: saying we should move to bio, wind, solar, tidal, etc without looking at current and near-future projected numbers is pointless posturing.

Sure, another argument can be made that energy usage could be decreased massively, but that is a pipe dream, and more importantly, egregiously inhumane. It likely condemns billions of people to misery and poverty and war over resources, and most people will reject the solution unless forced by tyrannical government. And then there will be a revolution, the tyrants will be overthrown, and we'll be starting over burning wood and whale oil for heat and light and cooking.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
174
Points
630
If we eliminated burning fossil fuels then the price of plastics, fertilizer and other non-combustible oil extracts would go through the roof. It is the distillation and sale of fuel oils that makes plastics affordable. there just isn't enough 'plastic' in oil to make it viable otherwise. To replace our current electricity source with nuclear would require the construction of literally thousands of reactors globally. There are currently fewer than 600 operational globally. Such a process would require the current third world to remain in poverty for dozens of years. Building wind or solar is likewise a pipe dream and, except in limited places, a total waste of resources especially since they require a fossil-fuel backup to be brought on line at the same time, and should be stopped immediately. Run the numbers. According to Forbes the US would require 1.46 million turbines or the solar equivalent to come down off the use of fossil fuels. That means installing almost 50,000 per year every year until 2050. Obviously there will be other sources of energy besides wind but each windmill has to be totally replaced every approx. 20 years so your requiements are going to be closer to 75,000 than 50 and all to achieve what? The cost is not worth even starting such a project. If the green folks were serious about the risks of climate change and fuel burning they would be imposing target reductions on the globes' greatest carbon producers: India and China. They manifestly are not. Instead they pick on countries such as Australia and Canada who collectively produce less than 3% of the total carbon output. Although I cannot recall the source, I believe that the carbon sequestering by our forests at least equals, if not exceeds our carbon output.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
759
Points
860
I quoted what you said and then you went back and added a much more conciliatory second para.

You did not answer my question. Be honest.
I actually edited right after I posted. You responded just before I posted. I was honest. I thought I did answer.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,206
Points
910
I actually edited right after I posted. You responded just before I posted. I was honest. I thought I did answer.
Thanks for the response and I apologize. It had looked to me like you had, post facto, edited your post.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
2,861
Points
1,060
Public reaction to the Liberal 're-election budget'?

Meh....


Canadians unmoved by new federal budget as Liberals continue strong support: poll​


A new poll suggests Canadians are mostly giving a collective shrug to the latest federal budget, which has also barely affected the Liberals’ chances of winning the next election.

The Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News found 62 per cent of Canadians who responded didn’t have a positive or negative opinion of the budget. An equal number of those surveyed — 19 per cent — gave the budget a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Those opinions are an improvement over Canadians’ response to the last federal budget in 2019, which Ipsos found at the time was supported by just 11 per cent of those polled, compared to one in four who said it didn’t deliver.

 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
596
Points
910
It's a party-out-of-big-ideas budget: mainly a lot of small stuff. As an effective application of the principle that support for each niche of public funding tends to be narrow and intense, while opposition might be broad but is lethargic, it's just vote-buying.

The important message it delivered is that the government does not actually believe in a climate emergency. It is not a budget designed to mobilize the country's resources to fight a crisis.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
423
Points
930
Accidental my arse! Oh, and blame the staff.

via CBC:

Justice minister accidentally tweets that one of his campaign donors will become a judge.
David Lametti's office says the Twitter announcement was sent in error.

Officially, Justice Minister David Lametti appointed five new judges across the country this week.

On Twitter, however, Lametti announced three additional appointments — including that of Montreal lawyer Daniel Urbas to Quebec's Superior Court.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
37
Points
530
A little background on Mr Urbas:

Daniel Urbas

An experienced litigator, arbitrator and mediator with over 25+ years of dispute resolution experience, Daniel has earned a variety of repeat, annual peer recognitions including “Leading Lawyer” in “Commercial Arbitration” in the 2019 edition of the Lexpert ® / American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada, “Most Frequently Recommended” in the 2019 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory for Commercial Arbitration, “Thought Leader” in 2019 edition of Who’s Who Legal – Litigation and AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®.

In his litigation practice, in addition to sitting as an arbitrator and mediator, Daniel also earned other peer recognitions such as “Litigation Star: Commercial, Intellectual Property, Product Liability” in Benchmark Canada’s 2017 The Definitive Guide to Canada’s Leading Litigation Firms & Attorneys and in 2018 Best Lawyers in Canada® for “Corporate and Commercial Litigation“.

Daniel focuses exclusively on serving as an arbitrator and mediator.
As arbitrator, Daniel serves as a sole arbitrator, as chair or as party-nominated member of three (3) member arbitration tribunals. His appointments have been made by individual parties, by the parties jointly on consent, by court orders and by various administering institutions including ICC, CCAC and IATA.

A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (“CIArb”) based in London, UK, as well as a founding Director of the CIArb’s Canada Branch, Daniel is listed on various rosters including general commercial rosters organized by the ICDR, CPR, CIETAC and VanIAC (formerly BCICAC) and on more specialized, industry/activity specific rosters such as the Canada Transport Agency’s roster.

Daniel’s arbitration and mediation efforts involve all variety of commercial and civil disputes Daniel’s dispute resolution experience spans a variety of commercial and civil matters, intellectual property (including anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting litigation) and information technologies, energy (wind, bio), natural resources (mining, forestry, fishing), shareholder disputes, real estate and lease disputes, product liability, construction, distribution and franchise, Aboriginal law matters including treaty and land claims litigation and dispute resolution of agreements relating to governance and natural resource development on native peoples’ territories.

He handled trial and appellate advocacy, as well as urgent and extraordinary applications. He has appeared before the provincial and federal courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as before arbitration tribunals and various administrative tribunals.

Fluently bilingual in both English and French with degrees in both Common Law and Civil Law, Daniel is an active member of the Barreau du Québec, the Law Society of Ontario and the Law Society of British Columbia.

At his former national law firm, up until June 2017, Daniel served as Regional Leader of the International Trade Litigation and Arbitration group and Regional Leader of the Intellectual Property Litigation group. Formerly, Daniel was also Regional Leader of the Commercial Litigation group and National Leader of the Intellectual Litigation group.

Link
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,013
Points
1,010
It's easy to run tests on human beings. It's really hard to model nature. I have seen elaborate (and expensive) modelling of a well known and studied river by a very experienced company fail to predict the actual results of putting a bridge pier in. Now expand that to global and to the solar system and the reality is we barely have a clue as to what, how and when things are playing a part. We know climate changes, we know Humans have an effect. However we don't know for certain how big our effect is beyond the other natural occurring events going on. We also disagree on how best to limit those effect. When many of the solutions conveniently result in limiting peoples choices and having minimal effect on the lifestyles of the rich and powerful, then there is likley to be suspicion as to why certain things are forced onto people.

A favorite Liberal bugbear

CO2 at Mauna Loa exceeds 420 ppm for the first time in human history

So, Mother Nature bad in this case, or just Mother Nature doing what she/it has always done. Recriminations to follow.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,636
Points
1,160
The Governor of Hawaii needs to issue an apology.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
481
Points
860
Accidental my arse! Oh, and blame the staff.

via CBC:

Justice minister accidentally tweets that one of his campaign donors will become a judge.
David Lametti's office says the Twitter announcement was sent in error.

Officially, Justice Minister David Lametti appointed five new judges across the country this week.

On Twitter, however, Lametti announced three additional appointments — including that of Montreal lawyer Daniel Urbas to Quebec's Superior Court.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon...

TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.

If a Justice Minister has something to announce to the public (along with any other politician) - it should be done at the appropriate time (the time of the official announcements) - verbally at a press conference, or in writing as a press release.

Things don’t get “accidentally released” via Twitter. Someone has to ask a staff member to type it out on that platform. It doesn’t type itself. I highly doubt an office assistant just randomly decides to post things on Twitter - they need some instructions on what to say and when.

Twitter is for public announcements such as “Thank You to the public!” Or government feel good PR. “Celebrating Black History Month!” Or “Happy International Women’s Day!”

It’s not the place to prematurely announce specific details, challenge Saudi Arabia on being dicks, etc
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,158
Points
910
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon...

TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.
There should be a regulation saying officials can't use Twitter etc to announce stuff. Its ridiculous that a complicated matter has to be summed up in 140 characters or whatever the amount is.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
288
Points
980
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon...

TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.

If a Justice Minister has something to announce to the public (along with any other politician) - it should be done at the appropriate time (the time of the official announcements) - verbally at a press conference, or in writing as a press release.
1980 called and wants its press release back....
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
301
Points
1,130
There should be a regulation saying officials can't use Twitter etc to announce stuff.
I subscribe to a newspaper to read official announcements. But, some people, these days, may believe "stuff" on social media more than newspapers. 🤷‍♂️
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,474
Points
890
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon...

TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.

If a Justice Minister has something to announce to the public (along with any other politician) - it should be done at the appropriate time (the time of the official announcements) - verbally at a press conference, or in writing as a press release.

Things don’t get “accidentally released” via Twitter. Someone has to ask a staff member to type it out on that platform. It doesn’t type itself. I highly doubt an office assistant just randomly decides to post things on Twitter - they need some instructions on what to say and when.

Twitter is for public announcements such as “Thank You to the public!” Or government feel good PR. “Celebrating Black History Month!” Or “Happy International Women’s Day!”

It’s not the place to prematurely announce specific details, challenge Saudi Arabia on being dicks, etc
Are they announcing things solely on Twitter, or are there social media releases scheduled to go out at the same time as written media releases, and of course proper publishing in the Canada Gazette? Pretty much any time you see social media posts about such things, there’s a link to a more comprehensive press release. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using social media to get the word out.

Obviously if a release is prepared and accidentally goes out early - by any means - that’s a bit of a problem. But only on the scale of ‘gaffe’. We aren’t talking about a big crisis here in how that happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top