Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You don't appear to be a serious person and look to be topped up with rage, so I'm not going to continue this.

Yes, it enrages me that whataboutism from a vocal portion of the population with very little expertise on a subject is standing in the way of making real progress on a problem while also enriching the lives of Canadians.

[aaronck]

Federal leadership: Trudeau enjoys end of year approval bump; Poilievre remains deeply unpopular with women



https://angusreid.org/justin-trudeau...CSKRG5fU15yaNc

[Ashasx]

you have to think that after PP, the conservatives will either wake up or die

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Yes, it enrages me that whataboutism from a vocal portion of the population with very little expertise on a subject is standing in the way of making real progress on a problem while also enriching the lives of Canadians.

You are the one ignoring new facts as they come to light. If you are the one considering yourself an expert while talking down to others presenting modern information, perhaps it's your expertise that is the issue? And what "whataboutism" have I presented? I'm sorry the facts don't suit your narrative.

And FTR, I think using NG in Alberta over coal, and a lot of other places makes all sorts of sense. If you followed my other posts here, you would know I am one of the most critical about replacing baseload with unreliable renewables. But recent information is telling us it's not always a straightforward when when we talk about moving that gas halfway around the planet.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You are the one ignoring new facts as they come to light. If you are the one considering yourself an expert while talking down to others presenting modern information, perhaps it's your expertise that is the issue? And what "whataboutism" have I presented? I'm sorry the facts don't suit your narrative.

And FTR, I think using NG in Alberta over coal, and a lot of other places makes all sorts of sense. If you followed my other posts here, you would know I am one of the most critical about replacing baseload with unreliable renewables. But recent information is telling us it's not always a straightforward when when we talk about moving that gas halfway around the planet.

What facts are you referring to? I haven't seen you put an actual argument together other than intangible and unquantifiable conjecture and articles with vague percentages and no context.

Let's even look at "recent facts" that you've provided, from this link you provided, it indicates that methane emissions are 48-76% higher than EPA estimates (which is your primary reason that natural gas is just as bad as coal):

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/methane...es-study-finds

Let's now again look at the sources of total emissions, which says that "Total U.S. emissions for 2019 totaled 6,558 million metric tons of CO2e", with 79% of that being CO2 and 11% being methane.

https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

Now 11% of total emissions is 6,558 million metric tons total * 11% = 0.721 million metric tons of CO2e. If we even take the higher number that methane emissions should be 78% higher, that number goes to 1,284 million metric tons, so your total emissions now are 7,121 million metric tons. So in total emissions is understated by 9%, and methane rises to 18% of total emissions. CO2 drops to 73% of total emissions. Does that at all change anything I've said?

Here's another link you posted that states that natural gas produces half of the amount of CO2 as coal when burned.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN25E1DR

So again, which one has more of an impact? Even increasing the amount of methane leakage by double or more still will not have the impact that reducing CO2 will. I am not the one adjusting things to this narrative, you are. You mentioned transportation, pipelines, gasification, etc. as further reasons natural gas emits more than you think - does that mean coal doesn't need to be transported anywhere? Is transporting coal on trucks and trains less energy intensive than natural gas pipelines?

You keep quoting things as recent facts and information, but you haven't actually spoken to any of it.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Yes, it enrages me that whataboutism from a vocal portion of the population with very little expertise on a subject is standing in the way of making real progress on a problem while also enriching the lives of Canadians.

This probably describes every major issue facing society today.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

This probably describes every major issue facing society today.

lol it literally describes the exact poster who made the comment. It’s why people don’t think he’s a serious person.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol it literally describes the exact poster who made the comment. It’s why people don’t think he’s a serious person.

Way to further the conversation!

Can I ask what I've said that makes me not serious? All I've seen in your posts in any thread is insulting people who don't agree with you, so who's the one that's not serious?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

What facts are you referring to? I haven't seen you put an actual argument together other than intangible and unquantifiable conjecture and articles with vague percentages and no context.

Let's even look at "recent facts" that you've provided, from this link you provided, it indicates that methane emissions are 48-76% higher than EPA estimates (which is your primary reason that natural gas is just as bad as coal):

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/methane...es-study-finds

Let's now again look at the sources of total emissions, which says that "Total U.S. emissions for 2019 totaled 6,558 million metric tons of CO2e", with 79% of that being CO2 and 11% being methane.

https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

Now 11% of total emissions is 6,558 million metric tons total * 11% = 0.721 million metric tons of CO2e. If we even take the higher number that methane emissions should be 78% higher, that number goes to 1,284 million metric tons, so your total emissions now are 7,121 million metric tons. So in total emissions is understated by 9%, and methane rises to 18% of total emissions. CO2 drops to 73% of total emissions. Does that at all change anything I've said?

Here's another link you posted that states that natural gas produces half of the amount of CO2 as coal when burned.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN25E1DR

So again, which one has more of an impact? Even increasing the amount of methane leakage by double or more still will not have the impact that reducing CO2 will. I am not the one adjusting things to this narrative, you are. You mentioned transportation, pipelines, gasification, etc. as further reasons natural gas emits more than you think - does that mean coal doesn't need to be transported anywhere? Is transporting coal on trucks and trains less energy intensive than natural gas pipelines?

You keep quoting things as recent facts and information, but you haven't actually spoken to any of it.

A high enough leakage rate can actually push natural gas-fired electricity to the same level as coal power in terms of GHG emissions per kWh, all the more so when a short time horizon is used to compute the global warming potential.

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf

Is that good enough? If not, go look yourself, this conversation appears to be pointless when you don't acknowledge facts.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf

Is that good enough? If not, go look yourself, this conversation appears to be pointless when you don't acknowledge facts.

Cool source, thanks for posting, I like that chart (not being facetious)….but how does it prove your point? It just says that there is a threshold at which methane leakage makes natural gas worse than coal and that changes based on the time horizon you are looking at, but it also shows that based on current leakage estimates, we’re well below that and natural gas is better. And you’ve provided no comment on where you think that number should be. I keep asking you to provide some actual critical thinking to your links, but you keep refusing.

But let’s go through your line of thinking, I don’t disagree with it, it’s just not fully baked. So the chart is showing that if you shorten the time horizon you’re looking at to 20 years, then the leakage rate at which coal and natural gas are equal in terms of emissions is roughly around 3%, right? So anything under an 3% leakage rate makes natural gas better than coal when looking at a 20 year time horizon? And if you lengthen that horizon to 100 years, which is generally accepted principle, that threshold is more like 5-6%? Can we agree on that?

Sweet, let’s go back to another source that YOU posted on methane leakage:

https://www.science.org/content/arti...oal-short-term

If you read through your article, it states that the estimated adjusted methane leakage was higher than the EPA estimates and is around 2.3%, so still below the threshold that makes natural gas with the 20 year time horizon, and well below the threshold for the 100 year time horizon.

Any other facts you want to throw my way?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Way to further the conversation!

Can I ask what I've said that makes me not serious? All I've seen in your posts in any thread is insulting people who don't agree with you, so who's the one that's not serious?

I’m also not serious, but less angry about it.

[Fuzz]

Sure, because the analysis you just did didn't include gas shipped overseas, it's based on European supply sources. That's why I'm saying it depends. But the fact we are even debating the details should tell you the big picture depends, and it isn't 100% better all the time.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

you have to think the after PP, the conservatives will either wake up or die

Something tells me they’ll die before they call themselves woke.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure, because the analysis you just did didn't include gas shipped overseas, it's based on European supply sources. That's why I'm saying it depends. But the fact we are even debating the details should tell you the big picture depends, and it isn't 100% better all the time.

When did I say that it was? I literally said it’s not “the solution”, but it’s part of the solution, where applicable. You are the one that made a blanket statement saying that there’s increasing evidence that NG is just as bad as coal to back up the poster saying that natural gas being part of the energy transition is BS with no qualifiers or anything.

All I have been trying to point out is that it can in fact be part of the transition, again as part of an “all of the above” solution.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

That's an odd stance - the provinces declined funding based on the way it had been offered to be handed out by Trudeau, not because they simply didn't want the money. I can certainly say that immigration is increasing the burden on health care, education and so on. You must be aware that you can get a health card, enroll in school and use other services months (sometimes years) before many will even begin to look at paying taxes or even looking at becoming regularly employed workers.

It is astonishing how removed some people are from how our immigration system actually works. You don't just arrive in the country and suddenly contribute as much as someone that has been living and working here for 10, 15 or 20 years. It takes a very long time to get through the processes and during this time each person or family is drawing far more out than it is putting in.

This is fine, but you do need to expand funding for public services at a rate far beyond what is the lowest in the last 10ish years if you are going to continue to ramp up immigration and deal with your aging and sick population at the same time.

AB and ON currently have budget surpluses, but they need more money?

They aren’t spending the money they have. They are deliberately under funding healthcare, regardless of whether there is immigration or not.

What makes you think that the AB and ON (and SK and …) governments would spend one extra cent on healthcare than they are today if they did get more money? I have 0 faith in them. The conditions are 100% justified (and no that is not a play on Trudeau’s name)

[Derek Sutton]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/canada-...2026-1.6203478

One-fifth of all passenger cars, SUVs and trucks sold in Canada in 2026 will need to run on electricity under new regulations Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault is proposing Wednesday.
By 2030, the mandate will hit 60 per cent of all sales and by 2035, every passenger vehicle sold in Canada will need to be electric.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

you have to think that after PP, the conservatives will either wake up or die

In the context of today's CPC, I'm struggling to remember what the CPC found unpalatable about Maxime Bernier.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

In the context of today's CPC, I'm struggling to remember what the CPC found unpalatable about Maxime Bernier.

He was ahead all the way until the last round, where he lost 49-51%, and ironically it may have been because he was too centrist. Scheer got the support of the social right, and the industrial cartels.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/canada-...2026-1.6203478

One-fifth of all passenger cars, SUVs and trucks sold in Canada in 2026 will need to run on electricity under new regulations Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault is proposing Wednesday.
By 2030, the mandate will hit 60 per cent of all sales and by 2035, every passenger vehicle sold in Canada will need to be electric.

I'm quite pessimistic about the upcoming 20% target coming up. From what I have seen, EV sales are about 7% this year and that is up from 5.6% last year. There is considerable pent up demand and supply shortages currently but it looks like access to cheap financing might be going away so the growth needed to hit 20% may not exist.

[Enoch Root]

Difficult to draw any conclusions from the 7% number, as supply issues are keeping inventory and deliveries way below demand