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

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

Carbon taxes.
Western alienation.
Green policies.
Central government imposition.
Liberal unpopularity

Stephan Dion
Green Shift
2008

 
Stephan Dion in Warsaw 2023

Dion offered some thoughts... “If I may say… the main challenge we have [in facing] all these problems, is the two definitions of multilateralism that [are] always in tension. One is the Westphalian definition, which is cooperation across regimes — you cooperate with regimes you dislike because you need to tackle problems like these. And the other is the liberal definition of multilateralism, which is the universal declaration of human rights. Each human being on this planet has a right to the same dignity. We need to make sure it will happen.

This is reflects the use of subordination to promote supra-nationalism. One regime, the Westphalian nation-state, is undermined by another regime, the Supra-nationalists, by the Supra-nationalists claiming a higher moral authority over the nation-state's citizens. The communists call this Internationalism, the Catholic Church called it Ultra-Montanism, the Social-Democrats call it Globalism. The commonality is the urge to impose order.

“So these two definitions of liberalism are in tension, more and more, because we are more and more [interdependent] with regimes we dislike. We don’t like the regime in China but we need to work with China more than ever. So we have a situation where we sanction regimes with which we trade and interact, more and more. That’s the challenge of the time in which we are.”

Some Westphalian nation-states are easier to work with than others. China, from the Supra-nationalist point of view, has the advantage of having already imposed order. There is now a single point of contact with which to negotiate and convince to adjust the nature of the order that has been imposed.

With that, Dion yielded the floor to the moderator,.... back to Dion. The moderator asked him something else about the “collective West.” He didn’t like the term, he said, any more than he likes “Global South.”

These definitions are dichotomizing the world in an artificial way,” he said. “What exists are developed countries that are also liberal democracies. And they are not only in the West. We have Japan, we have Korea, Australia, and so on. So if we talk about these liberal democracies, I see millions of human beings risking their life to migrate to these countries. I see the rich of authoritarian regimes buying properties and making sure that their children are [educated] in these liberal democracies.”

Plainly, developed liberal democracies are attractive places to live and work. And yet “the challenge they have to face is that authoritarianism is a fierce rival. And why is that the case? It’s not only because authoritarian visions have repressive and propaganda capabilities. It’s also because human beings are afraid of uncertainty. And unanimous ideologies are always attractive” because the certainty of an ideology backed by a strong-man regime “may be preferable, in the mind of many people, to the uncertainty of competition of ideas, and parties, and opinions. A strong man will solve the problem.

So far I find little to disagree with.

But from my post above, Stephan Dion, Liberal leader, 2008

It was a revealing moment during the English-language leaders’ debate when Stéphane Dion was asked how he intended to implement his Green Shift plan despite opposition to it from several premiers, including some Liberal ones. His response was that prime ministers are elected by Canadian voters, not by the premiers. What Dion was saying was that he was prepared to ignore the reality that the provinces also have jurisdiction over environmental issues and their cooperation would be essential in implementing his plan.

Dion, presented with the prospect of power, was prepared to suborn the provinces by claiming that their citizens supported his Supra-provincial federal government. He was willing to impose order. He was willing to be an authoritarian, a strong man.

Back to Warsaw.

“And if you have a choice between chaos and despotism, humankind is likely to choose despotism. And maybe they are right to prefer despotism to chaos. So the challenge for us liberal democracies is to convince these populations that between chaos and despotism, there is democracy, which [offers] security to people, but in freedom instead of in servitude.”


I kind of believe him and agree with him but I don't believe that he sees that balance in the same way that I might.

I believe that he leans more towards despotism, perhaps driven by a greater fear of chaos, than I would. A kinder, gentler form or despotism (an ugly word) could be authoritarianism (a despot pro tem with support).

Dion is an environmentalist. That is his chosen source of authority. My problem is that one of the great environmentalist talking points these days in "Wilding" - the return to the state of nature. Places are set aside for burrowing owls and spotted skinks and weeds are allowed to grow through sidewalks. The result is a very disordered, not to say chaotic, order.

Between despotism and chaos there is an infinity of alternatives all of which depend on individuals deciding whether or not to follow some one else's plan in the hopes of escaping chaos, or deciding to enjoy chaos for the opportunities it presents.

Some people like the structure and order of towns seeing them as safe havens. Others want to be left to their own devices in the Wilds. And individuals born into one or the other situation should be free to move between those situations.

But what happens when the safe havens no longer seem as safe? When they become wild?

Do you seek more authoritarianism? Do you ry to impose your own authority? Do you seek to escape the existing authority entirely?

My sense is that there is a large community of followers in Canada that are comfortable with authority generally and that it will require a massive shock to their collective system to give up the security of authority.

There is a smaller community that is comfortable with authority but not this authority. They are convinced that they could do it better. And some of those are willing to act out violently in order to establish their authority. I would consider them fascists regardless of the labels they claim for themselves.

And finally there is another small community of people that are not comfortable with authority at all. Some of that community will accept
no authority at all. Anarchists and libertarians come to my mind.

However some of those that are uncomfortable with authority accept the utility of authority while regretting the need for it. Those are the people that I would consider as liberals. They will accept a light hand on the reins and tolerate a degree of chaos for the opportunities it brings even if it means a greater degree of risk.

I don't know which party best exemplifies that latter group. I do know that the party of Dion and Trudeau does not, nor does that of Jagmeet nor that of Elizabeth May. They lean too heavily towards the despotic end of the authoritarian spectrum for my taste.

The Conservatives? The best I can say about them and their history is that for me a degree of chaos and disorder is a feature not a bug.

...

In the States the bete-noire of the day is Representative Gaetz. He appears to have committed the crime of creating chaos and disorder. This is indeed an un-opportune time to do so.

But from what I can gather from his words what he is arguing against is wrapping all the government's business into one grand package which must be voted on as a single issue with a time constraint that provides no opportunity for debate and for the individual representatives to have their say.

From his words, again, it seems that what he would prefer is that the single omnibus bill be presented as individual, single issue votes that would be debated on the floor of the House, in the open, rather than behind the closed doors of the West Wing and the Oval Office. He acknowledges that there would be more chaos, more uncertainty. He acknowledges that he is likely to lose as many votes as he wins, maybe more. But that degree of uncertainty is the price of democracy.

As trying as that must be to those that appreciate the basic dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party.
 
Item 1

Russia's Putin signals OPEC+ cuts are here to stay​

By Vladimir Soldatkin and Olesya Astakhova
October 11, 2023 8:11 AM MDT Updated 13 hours ago

Now if only we knew of alternate sources of supply.

Item 2

On LNG, Canada turned away Germany, then Japan – this country cannot keep doing that​

LESLIE PALTI-GUZMAN AND RACHEL ZIEMBA
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED JANUARY 23, 2023UPDATED JANUARY 24, 2023

Item 3

Oil and gas cannot be ‘shut down overnight’ on path to net zero, says Carney​

Economies must ‘build up alternatives’ before winding down fossil fuel production

BySzu Ping Chan IN MARRAKECH and Tim Wallace11 October 2023 • 5:58pm

Mark Carney

Mr Carney says that it is impossible to 'divest your way to net zero' CREDIT: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg

Mark Carney has said it is “not right” to expect countries with oil and gas industries to “shut down overnight”, admitting that fossil fuels have a role to play in net zero.
The former governor of the Bank of England said it was important for economies to “build up the alternatives” before winding down oil and gas production, adding that it was impossible to “divest your way to net zero”.
Speaking at an event hosted by the International Monetary Fund annual meeting in Marrakech, he said: “In economies that have conventional energy — so oil and gas production — you can’t shut those down overnight. That’s not right. That’s not a just transition.
“You need to build up the alternatives. You need to work with the communities, train people, undergo the transition and all elements of that need to be financed. And they are equally worthy.”

Mr Carney, who now serves as UN special envoy for climate action and finance, added:
“You can’t overnight divest your way to net zero, you have to be investing all across the chain.”

Earlier this year in an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Carney said the war in Ukraine had shown the oil and gas system “doesn’t provide energy security, it’s incredibly volatile” while encouraging manipulation by the Opec cartel.
“We have a system that is expensive. It’s volatile. It’s unreliable, and it’s unsustainable. It reinforces the importance of not just sustainability in that energy system, but energy security,” he said.
His latest comments come as Vladimir Putin told the Russian Energy Week conference in Moscow that the cuts to oil supplies imposed by Saudi Arabia and Russia will “most likely” be extended, as the Opec+ cartel tries to prop up prices. It is the strongest signal to date that Opec+ supply cuts will endure well into 2024 and probably beyond. Despite the comments, Brent crude, the international benchmark, is down 1.25pc at $86.50 per barrel.
Top City analysts warned the shift to net zero will leave the world exposed to more spikes in inflation, as plunging investment in oil and gas production leaves little spare capacity in a tight market.


Trevor Greetham at Royal London Asset Management warned of a new era of “spikeflation” caused by geopolitical risk, high debt — and net zero.
This is because major oil and gas companies are slashing investment on new capacity, because of the planned shift away from fossil fuels.

“They are not building a lot of deep water oil rigs, and as a result they don’t have that spare capacity that is there for the future, to use today. So when you get a big surge in demand it has got nowhere to go, so you get a price spike,” he said.
“Every business cycle will have a commodities shock during this transition period because we are still using fossil fuels but we are decreasing supply gradually.”
Mr Carney this week endorsed Labour shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves at the party’s conference in Liverpool. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to end North Sea oil and gas exploration but has confirmed that a Labour government will honour any Tory decisions to approve oil and gas exploration, including the Rosebank oil field, the UK’s underdeveloped oil and gas field.
Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow energy secretary, attacked the Rosebank oil field earlier in 2023 as a “colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”.
Labour’s comments came after the Prime Minister last month pushed back some net zero policies.
Rishi Sunak delayed the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, and delayed the ban on oil boilers from 2026 to 2035.


Item 3 Trudeau?

1697079385418.png

That was then. This is now.
 
More footsteps


The Supreme Court has found the Trudeau government’s Impact Assessment Act, dubbed the no more pipelines act by Conservatives, is unconstitutional and goes beyond the federal government’s powers.

The bill, passed in 2019, overhauls the federal government’s role in major projects, allowing it to consider the broader impact of climate change when assessing major natural resources projects like mines and pipelines.

In a 5-2 decision, the court found that the law could apply to projects on federal land or those receiving federal financing, but said the federal government was acting outside of its jurisdiction if it used the law more broadly.

“Environmental protection remains one of today’s most pressing challenges, and Parliament has the power to enact a scheme of environmental assessment to meet this challenge, but Parliament also has the duty to act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution,” Wagner wrote.
 
Imagine where this country would be right now if we did the opposite of Trudeau.

-We'd be a major supplier of energy to our EU allies in need, thus lessening the impact of dictator oil.
-The ramp up in LNG extraction/transport would create jobs/wealth/increased tax base.
-The increased government revenue would be avail to jack up defence spending and any other important thing (new tech, etc)
-Canada's usefulness to the world would dramatically increase
-Canada would become a major middle power again and actually have clout and influence

I'm sure there are far more.

But here we are.
 
Imagine where this country would be right now if we did the opposite of Trudeau.

-We'd be a major supplier of energy to our EU allies in need, thus lessening the impact of dictator oil.
-The ramp up in LNG extraction/transport would create jobs/wealth/increased tax base.
-The increased government revenue would be avail to jack up defence spending and any other important thing (new tech, etc)
-Canada's usefulness to the world would dramatically increase
-Canada would become a major middle power again and actually have clout and influence

I'm sure there are far more.

But here we are.

Trudeau is either incompetent or anti-Canada. Likely both.
 
The sustained setbacks can't be deemed from incompetence at this point. It's been purposeful from the beginning.
Hanlon Razor Hanlon Razor....I tell myself......but its getting impossible to believe it anymore.
 
I'd like to see a discussion on the possibility of the US and Canada joining into a fossil fuel program. One that would put a significant damper on OPEC output, blackmail and bottom line. Between the two countries, I think we could flood the market with product and pose a very serious threat to mid east oil, which is their only real source of revenue.
 
Also, on April 22, a new electoral map goes into force which will see five new ridings in conservative-leaning areas, namely three in Alberta and one each in Oshawa and the BC Interior, so if he waits until then to call an election, the Conservatives will get an extra five free seats.
 
Imagine where this country would be right now if we did the opposite of Trudeau.

-We'd be a major supplier of energy to our EU allies in need, thus lessening the impact of dictator oil.
-The ramp up in LNG extraction/transport would create jobs/wealth/increased tax base.
-The increased government revenue would be avail to jack up defence spending and any other important thing (new tech, etc)
-Canada's usefulness to the world would dramatically increase
-Canada would become a major middle power again and actually have clout and influence

I'm sure there are far more.

But here we are.
Oh right because someone else would have gotten these facilities magically built?

It's not due to Trudeau that these plants and terminals aren't getting built. In fact, the only one that's officially been canceled is the Quebec one, and it was cancelled by the Quebec government.

The reason that LNG terminals aren't getting build are many, but they include:

• Infrastructure gap (LNG terminals) of a least 3 to 4 years
• Infrastructure gap (gas pipeline) of 3+ years
• Regulatory hurdles and unfriendly policy direction of Canada’s federal government
• No clear political gain in making a large federal investment
• Regulatory hurdles due to pressure from special interests
• Lack of commercial investment
• US-owned market, no clear competitive advantages for Canada to enter

You often see the claim that there are "18 LNG terminal proposals". While that's true, you need to dig deeper. 5 of those proposals are for the east coast. However, the assessment is that there would never be enough LNG available on the east coast to support more than 1 terminal, and that's only IF more pipelines get built to actually bring LNG to the east coast (because right now, they don't exist).
 
Oh right because someone else would have gotten these facilities magically built?

It's not due to Trudeau that these plants and terminals aren't getting built. In fact, the only one that's officially been canceled is the Quebec one, and it was cancelled by the Quebec government.

The reason that LNG terminals aren't getting build are many, but they include:

• Infrastructure gap (LNG terminals) of a least 3 to 4 years
• Infrastructure gap (gas pipeline) of 3+ years
• Regulatory hurdles and unfriendly policy direction of Canada’s federal government
• No clear political gain in making a large federal investment
• Regulatory hurdles due to pressure from special interests
• Lack of commercial investment
• US-owned market, no clear competitive advantages for Canada to enter

You often see the claim that there are "18 LNG terminal proposals". While that's true, you need to dig deeper. 5 of those proposals are for the east coast. However, the assessment is that there would never be enough LNG available on the east coast to support more than 1 terminal, and that's only IF more pipelines get built to actually bring LNG to the east coast (because right now, they don't exist).
You know, you are right.

Totally not the Trudeau Liberals fault.

What is the appropriate line? Oh yeah- It is HARPERS fault!
 
That is pretty much the way it works for leaders.

Well, maybe not Trudeau, but, generally otherwise…
Ok, but QV and Quirky weren't discussing "how blame works" in Canadian politics, they were claiming that if Trudeau had not been in power, that by "right now" we would have LNG terminals, be richer, defence spending would have increased, and we would now be a "major middle power".

And that's total BS and not reflective of the very complicated reality of the energy industry in Canada, who's complicated nature does not owe itself to Trudeau and the LPC.

If Harper had one in 2015, all that would happen is that between the low and high estimates for a lot of the projects to be complete (i.e. "3-4 years"), we'd simply be closer to the lower end.
 
Back
Top