Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[burn_this_city]

The NDP will be great for a parasitic wealth transfer to Ontario and Quebec via cap and trade. They won't shut it down, just guarantee an end to future investments.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Also, the biggest issue I have with climate change, is that we stupidly agree to measure in "per capita" terms, when frankly, the environment does not give two ####s about per capita. It cares about absolute numbers, and per sq/km2 might be a better way to measure our actual effect on the environment.

Also, specialization makes things more efficient, so whatever country is the best at a given activity should do the most of it. Somewhere like singapore might not make their own steel, but the skyscrapers there are all made of steel. Is there any particular reason why the emissions associated with that steel accrue to South Korea (or wherever the steel is made) instead of Singapore? S. Korea could lower their emissions by no longer exporting steel. If everyone did that, Singapore would have to build a (very small and inefficient) steel plant. That would generate more emissions in total, even though S. Korea's would decline.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Slava

I do. When I hear a star candidate come out and say that the oil will just have to be left in the ground, and no one actually refutes that from the party, it gives a pretty clear indication of their thoughts on the oilsands.

Exactly, it seems like their stance changes on audience and what part of the country they are campaigning. Not worth the risk.

[puckedoff]

What I don't understand about climate change in Canada is that if we were to shut down all factories and execute our entire population (therefore contribution 0% to GHG and climate change) it would make effectively no difference to total climate change. So what is the purpose of implementing standards which will throw people out of work and create hard times for Canada and Canadians?

It is better to have healthy economies which can create dollars that we can spend on R&D, and on mitigating the unavoidable consequences of climate change.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Slava

I do. When I hear a star candidate come out and say that the oil will just have to be left in the ground, and no one actually refutes that from the party, it gives a pretty clear indication of their thoughts on the oilsands.

She said MAY have to be left in the ground, and her comments were based on scientific consensus. I know I posted a link roughly 10 pages back but here's another one just in case. https://ricochet.media/en/542/are-ca...limate-deniers

[terminator]

Hey all, I created a new aggregrator that i thought you guys may use to follow perhaps your politics.

Visit http://newspry.com/category/news/politics/ !

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

She said MAY have to be left in the ground, and her comments were based on scientific consensus.

Hah, okay.....you''ll contort anything to make it fit your ideology. Look, we get it, Harper = Bad, NDP = Great.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

She said MAY have to be left in the ground, and her comments were based on scientific consensus.

No. Science does not say how much oil should or should not be extracted. It also makes no real specific judgments as to which part of the economy must be penalized over another. As a poster mentioned, steel manufacturing is emission intensive. Oil&Gas is a convenient target in Canada, partially due to regional envy that can be exploited by a party looking to solidify a weak base in Eastern Canada, and also due to the ideological concerns of a particular individual and party.

Why penalize the industry that has employed 100s of thousands of Canadians that are skill-based and high-paying? Why not talk about the millions of Canadians who drive, buy goods made with hydrocarbons, have inefficient furnaces? At some point, climate change will have to be made the individual or family's responsibility, and not the abstract bogey man of industry or government.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Hah, okay.....you''ll contort anything to make it fit your ideology. Look, we get it, Harper = Bad, NDP = Great.

"A lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we're going to meet our climate change targets," McQuaig said. Just a direct quote mate.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

What I don't understand about climate change in Canada is that if we were to shut down all factories and execute our entire population (therefore contribution 0% to GHG and climate change) it would make effectively no difference to total climate change. So what is the purpose of implementing standards which will throw people out of work and create hard times for Canada and Canadians?

It is better to have healthy economies which can create dollars that we can spend on R&D, and on mitigating the unavoidable consequences of climate change.

The same can be said about a lot of other countries. Or you can take it to the individual level and say my personal emissions are negligible and decreasing them has no effect so why should I do it? If everyone takes that position, then nothing will be done. Emissions reduction needs to be done collectively, with everyone doing their share. That's why we have international agreements on climate change (even if the current ones are IMO poorly designed).

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

"A lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we're going to meet our climate change targets," McQuaig said. Just a direct quote mate.

Not one page ago you ripped Harper for lying about Canadians and pot legalization. Now I'm actually completely against Harper's position on this, but what he said was accurate. When given a third option the majority of Canadians do not want the full legalization of marijuana...just a direct quote mate.

“Most Canadians (when) you actually ask them, do not want the full legalization of marijuana.”

A 2014 survey by Angus Reid Global found that 59 per cent of the 1,510 Canadians surveyed supported legalizing marijuana and 41 per cent were opposed.

However, in a survey where Canadians were given a third option -- decriminalization for possessing small amounts – only 37 per cent supported legalization, while 33 per cent chose decriminalization and 14 per cent supported the current laws. That survey included 3,000 people and was conducted by Ipsos Reid on behalf of the federal government.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

The same can be said about a lot of other countries. Or you can take it to the individual level and say my personal emissions are negligible and decreasing them has no effect so why should I do it? If everyone takes that position, then nothing will be done. Emissions reduction needs to be done collectively, with everyone doing their share. That's why we have international agreements on climate change (even if the current ones are IMO poorly designed).

And I get that but isn't there some threshold like X amount ppm CO2 in our atmosphere or the 2% warming of the climate that scientists are calling our point of no return? These amounts will be hit for sure, because you aren't going to convince India and China that they shouldn't be able to have first world comforts for their population.

So instead of us starving in the dark and facing climate change consequences anyways, I think a better approach is to strive for a healthy economy so that we have funds to build sea walls around Vancouver and reinforce our highways against mudslides (two random made -up examples).

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Serious question, do people in the O&G sector who vote purely out of self-interest just completely ignore the Conservatives refusal to adequately address climate change and economic diversification?

I don't ignore them, I just place them lower in priority. My priority would be as follows:

Oil & gas development
Climate change
...
...
...
Diversification

I'll start with oil & gas development > diversification because it's easy. Saying "we should diversify" is largely a naive feel good buzz phrase not at all rooted in fundamental economics. We have been bestowed oil & gas. We are extremely, extremely fortunate for that. Oil and gas is an extremely valuable resource that the world wants for it dense caloric value, calorific value that is required to improve or sustain a standard of living, and calorific value that far exceeds the number of calories we have to spend to get it out of the ground and sell it. It's the hand we've been dealt. The greatest way to maximize our standard of living as Albertans and Canadians is to get it out of the ground as fast and efficiently as possible. If instead you want to diversify away from oil & gas, then please accept the reduced standard of living that will come with it.

Climate change and environment is a tougher one. I believe it is valid, I believe that oil & gas production and consumption contributes to it, and I believe that it's consequences contribute negatively to our standard of living. So we are inherently faced with a tradeoff between improving our standard of living by exploiting a fortunate endowment of a valueable resource and reducing our standard of living by continuing climate change it results in. However my belief is that the calorific value of oil & gas and the financial benefit it generates can be used to drive society towards a more environmentally sustainable energy source.

Joules are needed to sustain our standard of living, joules are needed to eventually diversify into other businesses, and joules are needed to develop more environmentally sustainable energy sources. However the first law of thermodynamics teaches us that joules are not free. Thank god we as Albertans and Canadians have been gifted a tremendous number of joules right below our feet.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Not one page ago you ripped Harper for lying about Canadians and pot legalization. Now I'm actually completely against Harper's position on this, but what he said was accurate. When given a third option the majority of Canadians do not want the full legalization of marijuana...just a direct quote mate.

“Most Canadians (when) you actually ask them, do not want the full legalization of marijuana.”

A 2014 survey by Angus Reid Global found that 59 per cent of the 1,510 Canadians surveyed supported legalizing marijuana and 41 per cent were opposed.

However, in a survey where Canadians were given a third option -- decriminalization for possessing small amounts – only 37 per cent supported legalization, while 33 per cent chose decriminalization and 14 per cent supported the current laws. That survey included 3,000 people and was conducted by Ipsos Reid on behalf of the federal government.

This is assuming that people were correctly able to decipher the difference between legalization and decriminalization and that they weren't used interchangeably as they are in popular discourse in Canada.

Taken in context with the previous poll you posted, it's arguable at least some of the respondents for decriminalization were attempting to vote for legalization.

Only 13% of respondents were in favour of stricter regulations regarding marijuana, a position taken by the prime minister.

Even in Quebec, where polling in favour of decrim/legalization was the lowest in Canada, 61% of respondents were in favour of decriminalization or legalization of marijuana.

So, whether you want to nitpick what percentage of Canadians want the countries marijuana laws relaxed, the truth is, the vast majority of Canadians want marijuana laws relaxed.

Harper in this instance is being disingenuous at the least and dishonest at the worst. Hell of a semantics game to play to justify policy decisions that go against the grain of popular Canadian opinion.

Further still, if not given the option to decriminalize marijuana, the majority of Canadians were prefer outright legalization to the current status quo.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

She said MAY have to be left in the ground, and her comments were based on scientific consensus. I know I posted a link roughly 10 pages back but here's another one just in case. https://ricochet.media/en/542/are-ca...limate-deniers

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is assuming that people were correctly able to decipher the difference between legalization and decriminalization and that they weren't used interchangeably as they are in popular discourse in Canada.

Taken in context with the previous poll you posted, it's arguable at least some of the respondents for decriminalization were attempting to vote for legalization.

Only 13% of respondents were in favour of stricter regulations regarding marijuana, a position taken by the prime minister.

Even in Quebec, where polling in favour of decrim/legalization was the lowest in Canada, 61% of respondents were in favour of decriminalization or legalization of marijuana.

So, whether you want to nitpick what percentage of Canadians want the countries marijuana laws relaxed, the truth is, the vast majority of Canadians want marijuana laws relaxed.

Harper in this instance is being disingenuous at the least and dishonest at the worst. Hell of a semantics game to play to justify policy decisions that go against the grain of popular Canadian opinion.

So relax them. The problem for most proponents of total legalization is the utopian bounty of tax benefits, and social order that will come as a result of the kind of legislation that they want.

The truth is, most Canadians find heavy marijuana use to be symptomatic of a certain lifestyle that is not congruent with Canadian society.

[polak]

Originally Posted by peter12

The truth is, most Canadians find heavy marijuana use to be symptomatic of a certain lifestyle that is not congruent with Canadian society.

Source?

Your Brain again?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by polak

Source?

Your Brain again?

Thanks for capitalizing it. You've got the right idea.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

And I get that but isn't there some threshold like X amount ppm CO2 in our atmosphere or the 2% warming of the climate that scientists are calling our point of no return? These amounts will be hit for sure, because you aren't going to convince India and China that they shouldn't be able to have first world comforts for their population.

So instead of us starving in the dark and facing climate change consequences anyways, I think a better approach is to strive for a healthy economy so that we have funds to build sea walls around Vancouver and reinforce our highways against mudslides (two random made -up examples).

The goal shouldn't be starving in the dark, but rather reducing climate change while still maintaining the economy. Also why should we expect to live a lifestyle that people in other countries can't?

Mitigating climate change while not destroying the economy may not be easy. Fighting the effects of climate change will likely be worse though. That's why we need to start acting now and in a meaningful way, not just saying we're going to hit some target in 30 years but have no plan for doing that.

A lot of big oil and gas companies are completely on board with climate change action. What they want is a seat at the table so they can come up with solutions that still allow them to be profitable, and for the process to be fair.

I don't think we'll get any meaningful action from the Conservatives. On the other hand I'm not convinced the NDP will do enough to protect the economy. So while overall I haven't decided yet who to vote for, on this particular issue the Liberals are the only party that I think are likely to hit a reasonable balance.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

"A lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we're going to meet our climate change targets," McQuaig said. Just a direct quote mate.

I think I'd have been a lot more accepting of that quote if she included a lot of the other dirty industries in canada, like mining, forestry and manufacturing.

Something like: "A lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground, some mines may be shut down, and we may need to close a few auto factories, if we're going to meet our climate change targets."

But let's be real. Climate change wasn't really on her mind, it was more just attacking the oil and gas industry.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

We could be potentially looking at a total of 16-17 years of Harper as our PM depending on the result of this election. Just think about that for a minute. Personally I find that both scary and embarrassing... it's almost two decades FFS! That's enough to make even the tin-potiest of dictators jealous. I'm pretty much anyone-but-Harper at this point, craptastic alternatives or not. Considering how much of a corrupt failure the CPC and Harper have been, I can't understand how anyone would be okay with ANOTHER 4-5 years. Do people really think the NDP or Liberals are going to come in an purposely sewer AB? It's not like things are exactly rosy right now under Harper's leadership, why not give someone else a chance?