The US LNG facilities except the one in Portland(I think) were all constructed as import facilities for gas in the prefracking days.
I agree with you on the oil front.
I don’t believe so. Sure, the Corpus Christi terminal was originally permitted as an import facility, but it was constructed and commissioned (in 2018, quite a while post-fracking) as an export facility
So do you think it’s hard to take the name-calling criticism seriously for both politicians or do you think it’s valid criticism for both politicians?
Side-step, reframe. I see the road you’re heading down here Pepsi. Do you think calling some who isn’t a racist, a racist is equivalent to a name association phrase like Justinflation?
Do you have even the mildest criticism of the Trudeaus totally lack of acknowledgement of criminal behaviour in his cabinet? Or is the semantics of political name calling more important?
The Following User Says Thank You to PostandIn For This Useful Post:
Side-step, reframe. I see the road you’re heading down here Pepsi. Do you think calling some who isn’t a racist, a racist is equivalent to a name association phrase like Justinflation?
Do you have even the mildest criticism of the Trudeaus totally lack of acknowledgement of criminal behaviour in his cabinet? Or is the semantics of political name calling more important?
What road? Why is it so hard for you to answer the original question straight?
Do you think there is a big difference between “racist” (which PP has called Justin, though I’m not sure Justin has ever called PP, just so we’re clear) and Justinflation? Or is it just the semantics of political name-calling? You seem to be really desperate to have things both ways so I’m genuinely asking for some clarity as to what you think.
Let me know how much criticism I would need to hand Trudeau before you’d be comfortable answering the question. The reason I’m not talking about it is because I asked you about something else. It’s gross to enrich your friends using your political position. Trudeau should address it and deal with it but I doubt he has any issue with someone using their position to enrich their friends so I’m sure it’s very difficult for him to pretend. I also don’t think the average voter cares to be honest. Now, can you give a straight answer? Or is this just nothing but partisan whining?
Do you think it’s hard to take name-calling criticism seriously for both politicians or do you think it’s valid criticism for both politicians?
Haha, every opinion you don’t agree with is ‘partisan whining’. Everyone’s a partisan .. except you. Calling out criminality at the cabinet level and the Prime Ministers complete abdication of accountability and leadership is now ‘whining’?
To be clear, I did not mean to imply that Trudeau has called PP a racist. I’m not aware he’s done that. Though he probably will, and be cheered on for it. I was referring to Trudeaus tendency to reflexively call groups and individuals that he disagrees with racists and bigots, without evidence or cause, and the collective pass he gets for it in many circles.
I’ve already answered your question, but once more: PP’s use of jr high school phrases to characterize Trudeau is dumb and worthy of derision. (Though Justinflation is actually an accurate, if un-nuanced, name association). But they are pointed at one person and with at least a plausible link to reality. They are not nearly as corrosive and divisive as slurring entire groups of people as racists where there is no evidence of racism. So, both are bad, and one is far worse.
It is a sad commentary, if your opinion is representative of the majority Canadians, that no one really cares about the latest ethical transgression by a cabinet minister. I don’t actually think it’s true, nationally.
The Following User Says Thank You to PostandIn For This Useful Post:
Haha, every opinion you don’t agree with is ‘partisan whining’. Everyone’s a partisan .. except you. Calling out criminality at the cabinet level and the Prime Ministers complete abdication of accountability and leadership is now ‘whining’?
To be clear, I did not mean to imply that Trudeau has called PP a racist. I’m not aware he’s done that. Though he probably will, and be cheered on for it. I was referring to Trudeaus tendency to reflexively call groups and individuals that he disagrees with racists and bigots, without evidence or cause, and the collective pass he gets for it in many circles.
I’ve already answered your question, but once more: PP’s use of jr high school phrases to characterize Trudeau is dumb and worthy of derision. (Though Justinflation is actually an accurate, if un-nuanced, name association). But they are pointed at one person and with at least a plausible link to reality. They are not nearly as corrosive and divisive as slurring entire groups of people as racists where there is no evidence of racism. So, both are bad, and one is far worse.
It is a sad commentary, if your opinion is representative of the majority Canadians, that no one really cares about the latest ethical transgression by a cabinet minister. I don’t actually think it’s true, nationally.
I didn’t say it was partisan whining, I asked if it was because you struggled to answer the question straight and kept presenting weird conversational double standards for something that was very simple and straightforward. Don’t want to hear name calling criticism about PP but oh wait here’s some name calling criticism for Trudeau… but it’s actually just semantics when someone is asking you about PP’s name calling but you don’t seem to have a shortage of things to say about Trudeau’s name calling. Claiming I call everything I don’t agree with “partisan whining” misrepresents the fact that I have no problem calling partisan whining what it is and trying to clarify if that’s all it is. If you don’t like the label, don’t engage in the action. This is a you-problem. You can come up with a million reasons why the two are different, but you just finished telling me it’s semantics. “Side step! Reframe!” etc. So excuse me if I find you impossible to take seriously when you say it’s not partisan for you.
And yeah, I can name about 10 scandals worse than this cabinet ethics issue. I know you could probably name the same 10 and 20 others that you can’t stop thinking about. We’ve been through elections post-scandals worse than this and Trudeau still won. If you honestly think people care about this, you’re being impossibly naive.
Well, you cared enough to spike your BP 30 points with your reply. At least we agree that Trudeau has been in the middle of 20 things worse than this latest criminal act.
Anyone else still waiting on Peter12 to explain why natural gas is not the solution to reduce emissions?
I can't believe I'm backing up Peter here, but there is increasing evidence NG isn't really any better than coal for GHG emissions. Particularly once you add in long pipelines, shipping it across the ocean, CNG plants, regasification plants, and more transport. Many sources of leaks.
Now, it is still better for other emissions, and particulates landing on glaciers are a very bad thing, so it's not nothing. But the GHG side is going to depend a lot on transport emissions. Something Canadian exports are going to have a lot of.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Well, you cared enough to spike your BP 30 points with your reply. At least we agree that Trudeau has been in the middle of 20 things worse than this latest criminal act.
Responses like this are stupid. Nobody is spiking their blood pressure having a discussion on CP. I’m sure it’s easier to pretend you’re getting a rise out of people but trust me, you’re overestimating your impact, especially for someone who took multiple posts before he could muster the courage to give a straight answer to a simple question (and still kind of failed at it lol).
Just so you’re aware, as you’ve referred to it like this a couple different times, the act that was violated is a political document, not part of the criminal code, so this was not a “criminal act.” I’m not sure if you actually believed it was or you’re parroting the wording from some conservative outrage machine, but just FYI so you don’t look silly.
I can't believe I'm backing up Peter here, but there is increasing evidence NG isn't really any better than coal for GHG emissions. Particularly once you add in long pipelines, shipping it across the ocean, CNG plants, regasification plants, and more transport. Many sources of leaks.
Now, it is still better for other emissions, and particulates landing on glaciers are a very bad thing, so it's not nothing. But the GHG side is going to depend a lot on transport emissions. Something Canadian exports are going to have a lot of.
Did...did you even read the article you posted? Or are our respective interpretations of that article that wildly different? The article explicitly does state that natural gas is better than coal, it's just not as clean as renewables. I would love to see the source that "NG isn't really any better than coal for GHG emissions". In fact, there's direct evidence of the opposite.
The article mentions this, but have you taken a look at US greenhouse gas emissions over time?
Do you notice the uptick in natural gas production from shale gas & tight oil plays that seems to happen at basically the exact same time? Now it's not 100% of the reason, but the fact remains that the shale revolution in the US made natural gas so plentiful and cheap that it displaced coal as an energy source, and that resulted in a significant decrease in emissions.
You want evidence that natural gas does in fact help to reduce emissions - that's as clear as data gets. This is exactly the type of data that natural gas proponents point to when discussing why it's an important part of the energy transition. The keyword here is transition. It's not as binary as clean vs. dirty, and natural gas, as evidenced above and contrary to your post, is significantly cleaner than coal and can help to reduce overall emissions as renewable infrastructure continues to become more prominent and allows for the continual shift to clean energy sources. This is something that will take time and a tremendous amount of investment, and the solution will be an "all of the above" solution.
When you look at things as binary as you have done (only renewables good, natural gas = bad), you end up in the situation the world is currently in with chronic underinvestment in natural gas. And consequently, the world will be hitting a record for coal consumption. Is that better for the climate?
There's one thing I actually don't agree with in Azure's comment. Natural gas isn't and won't be the solution to reduce emissions. But it can and absolutely should be part of the solution that transitions us to a low carbon society.
Last edited by ThePrince; 12-20-2022 at 08:49 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to ThePrince For This Useful Post:
Did...did you even read the article you posted? Or are our respective interpretations of that article that wildly different? The article explicitly does state that natural gas is better than coal, it's just not as clean as renewables. I would love to see the source that "NG isn't really any better than coal for GHG emissions". In fact, there's direct evidence of the opposite.
The article mentions this, but have you taken a look at US greenhouse gas emissions over time?
Do you notice the uptick in natural gas production from shale gas & tight oil plays that seems to happen at basically the exact same time? Now it's not 100% of the reason, but the fact remains that the shale revolution in the US made natural gas so plentiful and cheap that it displaced coal as an energy source, and that resulted in a significant decrease in emissions.
You want evidence that natural gas does in fact help to reduce emissions - that's as clear as data gets. This is exactly the type of data that natural gas proponents point to when discussing why it's an important part of the energy transition. The keyword here is transition. It's not as binary as clean vs. dirty, and natural gas, as evidenced above and contrary to your post, is significantly cleaner than coal and can help to reduce overall emissions as renewable infrastructure continues to become more prominent and allows for the continual shift to clean energy sources. This is something that will take time and a tremendous amount of investment, and the solution will be an "all of the above" solution.
When you look at things as binary as you have done (only renewables good, natural gas = bad), you end up in the situation the world is currently in with chronic underinvestment in natural gas. And consequently, the world will be hitting a record for coal consumption. Is that better for the climate?
Angry man this morning, aren't you? Putting aside the straw man effigy you made of me(because I don't believe anything in your second paragraph), I can provide you with another article, if you like.
Quote:
Natural gas could warm the planet as much as coal in the short term Gas production leaks enough methane to match climate impact of coal-burning plants for 2 decades
Quote:
The study underscores how the benefits of natural gas, which emits less CO2 than coal when burned, are being undermined by the leaks, says Steve Hamburg, a main author of the study and the chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a New York City–based environmental group. "You're taking a hit, and it's an unnecessary hit," he says. The analysis also suggests the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is presenting too rosy of a picture of natural gas emissions, understating industry methane leaks by approximately 60%.
The problem with emissions graphs like you posted is they are based on estimates, not reality. And we are just discovering a lot of leaks go unaccounted for.
Angry man this morning, aren't you? Putting aside the straw man effigy you made of me(because I don't believe anything in your second paragraph), I can provide you with another article, if you like.
The problem with emissions graphs like you posted is they are based on estimates, not reality. And we are just discovering a lot of leaks go unaccounted for.
I can't argue with someone that won't look at or believe data, like how do you refute my second paragraph? It's literally data. Your rebuttal is just "ya but there could be other things in there not considered", with zero actual critical thought put into your claims.
What portion of total emissions is methane? How long does methane stay in the atmosphere? Even if you doubled methane emissions because of the leaks you proudly use as a silver bullet, methane emissions still don't hold a candle to CO2. The methane leaks are also the easiest to address via regulation, which is already being scrutinized by both Canada and the USA. These leaks will be addressed. And you are vastly overstating their impact on the final numbers. They would not change materially so as to completely invalidate the trends. If we only used data that was 100% accurate in making decisions, we would never make decisions.
As the Mark Twain saying goes: 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.' So I will sign off.
A petulant PM (so surprise there) won't supply further health care funding unless his conditions are fully met 'because the system is broken'. Yet, he will toss funding hand over fist to other avenues that are broken as long as they keep his party in power.
The skinny: Trudeau wants to be able to take full credit for any improvements that are made and can't unless his conditions are met. Meanwhile Canadian health care is on the verge of collapse (in some cases it has already) in many areas with no improvement on the horizon.
Are there problems with the system that need correcting? Yes. But when you are upping immigration (and ultimately the burden on health care), suffering through widespread illnesses that are plaguing the system, how do you expect things to get better for the average joe and providers?
Systematic changes could take months or years to trickle down and this nitwit is once again playing the fence sitting game until something completely forces his hand. What a disgrace this man is.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 12-20-2022 at 09:10 AM.
A petulant PM (so surprise there) won't supply further health care funding unless his conditions are fully met 'because the system is broken'. Yet, he will toss funding hand over fist to other avenues that are broken as long as they keep his party in power.
The skinny: Trudeau wants to be able to take full credit for any improvements that are made and can't unless his conditions are met. Meanwhile Canadian health care is on the verge of collapse (in some cases it has already) in many areas with no improvement on the horizon.
Are there problems with the system that need correcting? Yes. But when you are upping immigration (and ultimately the burden on health care), suffering through widespread illnesses that are plaguing the system, how do you expect things to get better for the average joe and providers?
Systematic changes could take months or years to trickle down and this nitwit is once again playing the fence sitting game until something completely forces his hand. What a disgrace this man is.
The provinces won’t put existing funding into healthcare, do you really think that they would devote more funding to healthcare or use it as general revenue for other purposes?
I am of the opinion that if healthcare wasn’t being starved today, the requirement for proof wouldn’t exist.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to calculoso For This Useful Post:
A petulant PM (so surprise there) won't supply further health care funding unless his conditions are fully met 'because the system is broken'. Yet, he will toss funding hand over fist to other avenues that are broken as long as they keep his party in power.
The skinny: Trudeau wants to be able to take full credit for any improvements that are made and can't unless his conditions are met. Meanwhile Canadian health care is on the verge of collapse (in some cases it has already) in many areas with no improvement on the horizon.
Are there problems with the system that need correcting? Yes. But when you are upping immigration (and ultimately the burden on health care), suffering through widespread illnesses that are plaguing the system, how do you expect things to get better for the average joe and providers?
Systematic changes could take months or years to trickle down and this nitwit is once again playing the fence sitting game until something completely forces his hand. What a disgrace this man is.
That’s what you take from the article??
In the constitution health care is provincial jurisdiction. So Trudeau is correct that his only leverage to improve performance is to set requirements to get federal funding. The article does not list the specific objection to which KPI provinces are objecting to but if you look at the comment around provinces with budgetary surpluses you can see it’s targeted at Quebec and Alberta.
This suggests that Quebec and Alberta (perhaps BC and Sask) are just have idealogical issues with reporting KPIs to the government rather than actual policy disagreements.
So unless a province can identify the specific reason they disagree with a specific KPI Trudeau is taking the correct approach.
Yeah, going to have to call that one out. Provinces have already resisted or declined federal money to put into healthcare (namely Alberta) so to turn around and blame it on the federal government is hilarious.
You also can’t say increasing immigration puts a further burden on the healthcare system without saying it increases the number of people actually paying for healthcare. The amount of people thinking about retiring and complaining about immigration is hilarious. Who do you think is going to look after your old, sick, out of work asses? lol
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Calling out criminality at the cabinet level and the Prime Ministers complete abdication of accountability and leadership is now ‘whining’? 
