Hey stinker (if you give me your preferred pronoun, I'll use that), I'm sure you're more than capable to know the difference bewteen nominal GDP and real GDP. 1.8% growth rate over the long term, as highlighted by the TD Foreacast, reflects real GDP growth rather than nominal. Thus, the inflation-adjusted forecast likely anticipates growth.
Canada’s long-term forecast includes population-driven labor growth slowing, investment in clean energy (long overdue and the future of energy industry output) and productivity is expected to balance inflationary pressures.
Of course real GDP contractions over any sustained period are concerning, but this scenario may reflect temporary adjustments rather than systemic issues, depending on government and central bank actions.
And of course you're still on the "WHAT ABOUT CHINA US AND INDIA" bandwagon, same old tired conservative pablum. This isn't a zero-sum game—progress by any country is valuable. All three of those economies are also moving towards climate targets.
I assume people of your ilk have a vested interest in pumping out more O/G products overseas, but those economies will get their natural gas wherever makes the most sense. India and China have access to Qatari LNG as well as Australia and Russian supplies. As for the US, they're largely self-sufficient in their LNG reserves, no need for more of Canada's unless meeting spikes in demand.
Now, how can Canada meet it's own climate goals and the international commitments it has committed to without LNG and O/G products? I know you've thought this through and have deep, well-resourced answers. So I wait with baited breath for this one.
The problem is that the current administration has blinders on where all that matters is reducing Canadian emissions, which an incredibly stupid thing to do when your economy depends on resource extraction.
It's one thing if that was happening alongside the rest of our major economic trading partners participating in earnest with the same/similar targets and framework to work within, but practically it's not. The US just elected Trump for 4 more years and you cannot trust the BRICS to do anything if it puts them at a disadvantage relative to the west. So while we're not doing anything meaningful to save the planet in a global sense, we're making ourselves poorer for only symbolic purposes.
So when Trudeau says that 'fighting climate change' is more important than feeding or sheltering your family when money gets tight; What he really means is that feeding and sheltering your family is less important than a largely symbolic gesture that's exploited by our global trading partners. Canadian families are poorer so that the Saudis and other countries can reap the resource benefits instead.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Hey stinker (if you give me your preferred pronoun, I'll use that), I'm sure you're more than capable to know the difference bewteen nominal GDP and real GDP. 1.8% growth rate over the long term, as highlighted by the TD Foreacast, reflects real GDP growth rather than nominal. Thus, the inflation-adjusted forecast likely anticipates growth.
Canada’s long-term forecast includes population-driven labor growth slowing, investment in clean energy (long overdue and the future of energy industry output) and productivity is expected to balance inflationary pressures.
Of course real GDP contractions over any sustained period are concerning, but this scenario may reflect temporary adjustments rather than systemic issues, depending on government and central bank actions.
And of course you're still on the "WHAT ABOUT CHINA US AND INDIA" bandwagon, same old tired conservative pablum. This isn't a zero-sum game—progress by any country is valuable. All three of those economies are also moving towards climate targets.
I assume people of your ilk have a vested interest in pumping out more O/G products overseas, but those economies will get their natural gas wherever makes the most sense. India and China have access to Qatari LNG as well as Australia and Russian supplies. As for the US, they're largely self-sufficient in their LNG reserves, no need for more of Canada's unless meeting spikes in demand.
Now, how can Canada meet it's own climate goals and the international commitments it has committed to without LNG and O/G products? I know you've thought this through and have deep, well-resourced answers. So I wait with baited breath for this one.
You don’t really understand how to read or communicate, do you? Nowhere in your original post did you say that the 1.8% was real GDP. And you didn’t post a source, which you chastised me for, so not sure how your lack of communication is me not knowing the difference between real and nominal, when I’m the one that brought it up
Regardless, great - Canada is growing in real terms! Unfortunately, that’s still less than the US growth, so we’ll continue to see the gap widen. Maybe by 2030, the dollar will be at 1.5! If only there was anything we could do to help close the gap, maybe someone on here has some good ideas?
And I’m not sure if you have reading comprehension issues, but I said very clearly in my post that I don’t believe Canada should have domestic-only climate goals. As a resource extraction economy, we should be focusing on our ability to reduce global emissions through displacement of coal by exporting cheap LNG to Asia. What’s AECO trading at again?
You can bury your head in the sand and write that off as “conservative pablum”, but if you had an ounce of common sense, you’d see that it’s a win win as global emissions are reduced, and Canadians can benefit at once. Do you remember how the US became the global leader in oil production in a period of 15 years while reducing its emissions through displacement of coal and industry efficiencies, all without domestic climate goals? Like that.
Last edited by ThePrince; 11-22-2024 at 08:24 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to ThePrince For This Useful Post:
Militant growth of GDP does not account for things that matter in today's modern society, like wealth distribution, environmental issues, and social well-being. But if we're going to continue to be militant about it, we should be diversifying like crazy into industries like renewable energy, education, AI, biotech and health sciences, critical minerals, sustainable agriculture, advanced manufacturing in sectors like EVs and aerospace, and financial and emerging services. Things we are already doing and moving towards, especially as the world moves toward them too.
Regardless, great - Canada is growing in real terms! Unfortunately, that’s still less than the US growth, so we’ll continue to see the gap widen. Maybe by 2030, the dollar will be at 1.5! If only there was anything we could do to help close the gap, maybe someone on here has some good ideas?
Why do we have this militant focuss on competing with GDP parity with the US? What is the goal of that? I and others have already brought this up as an issue for various reasons, and people continue to ignore it. No country is going to achieve this. Again, we're better off comparing ourselves to places like Australia, Germany, or Nordic countries.
I'm assuming you're referring to LNG product exports closing that gap (you seem to be the drumstick for that well-worn drum), so how, by any realistic standard and the vast differences in the two countries, supposed to achieve parity?
Quote:
As a resource extraction economy, we should be focusing on our ability to reduce global emissions through displacement of coal by exporting cheap LNG to Asia.
By all means, convince me this is a realistic scenario in a free market world where 'Asia' has options.
Militant growth of GDP does not account for things that matter in today's modern society, like wealth distribution, environmental issues, and social well-being. But if we're going to continue to be militant about it, we should be diversifying like crazy into industries like renewable energy, education, AI, biotech and health sciences, critical minerals, sustainable agriculture, advanced manufacturing in sectors like EVs and aerospace, and financial and emerging services. Things we are already doing and moving towards, especially as the world moves toward them too.
You’re the one that brought up zero sum games, so I’m sure you can appreciate that we can do all of those things without hindering the resource extraction portion of our economy. You don’t have to be anti-oil to be pro-any of those things (and vice versa). I don’t see how supporting that sector of our economy detracts from anything you’ve listed above. In fact, I would argue that a strong resource extraction sector helps make those things better as we have a stronger economy to allocate resources to to combat things like climate change, education, etc.
It’s literally a reality right now. You have countries like Japan specifically seeking out our LNG. We’ve got one project nearly off the ground after over a decade. While that’s great, it’s nowhere near where we should or could be, and we need a government that’s supporting projects like this and removing the immense and unrealistic regulatory hurdles that currently exist to get more of these projects off the ground, not adding to them and handcuffing them with additional hurdles.
It’s literally a reality right now. You have countries like Japan specifically seeking out our LNG. We’ve got one project nearly off the ground after over a decade. While that’s great, it’s nowhere near where we should or could be, and we need a government that’s supporting projects like this and removing the immense and unrealistic regulatory hurdles that currently exist to get more of these projects off the ground, not adding to them and handcuffing them with additional hurdles.
Got any estimates or statistics to show just how exporting Canadian LNG to Japan - specifically - is going to reduce global emissions?
Got any similar agreements for BRICS countries, that you specifically mentioned earlier? And if so, estimates to show how much global emissions will be curbed by Canadian LNG exports?
In fact, I would argue that a strong resource extraction sector helps make those things better as we have a stronger economy to allocate resources to to combat things like climate change, education, etc.
This must be a typo, but in today's populist world, it's hard to tell.
Got any estimates or statistics to show just how exporting Canadian LNG to Japan - specifically - is going to reduce global emissions?
Got any similar agreements for BRICS countries, that you specifically mentioned earlier? And if so, estimates to show how much global emissions will be curbed by Canadian LNG exports?
You’re honestly ridiculous, and I think everyone has seen that by now. How do you engage with someone who continually moves goalposts like this. You’ve been provided sources and numbers for essentially everything I’ve said, refused to acknowledge them, and then arm-waved and tap danced around each point with no substance of your own other than your own conjecture.
If you can’t look at your own backyard of Alberta to see how the displacement of coal has reduced emissions, or at the US as an example of how you can become a world leader while still reducing your emissions, then I don’t know what else to tell you. You clearly can’t be reasoned with in any way.
But yes, here is a study. Not that it’s going to matter to your ridiculous brain.
You claim Canadian LNG is going to reduce global emissions. I'd like to see the estimates for the panacea you are making it out to be. That CCoC report is some good background information on the Canadian LNG industry, but ultimately it doesn't tackle the actualities of Canadian exports. It's a big "what if", such as the following statement:
Quote:
Of all the established energy options, natural gas is by far the cleanest, emitting half the carbon into the atmosphere as coal. If just 20% of Asia’s coal-fired power plants were converted to natural gas, global emissions would be reduced by more than Canada’s total annual emissions. In other words, converting a relatively small share of Asia’s power infrastructure would “save a Canada” in emissions.
In other words, 1.5% of global emissions, which you have already contextualized that such measly numbers don't move the needle, so why bother?
And then this part is just marvelous from the same report you linked to, and as someone so resoundingly against the carbon tax:
Quote:
One crucial element that makes Canadian natural gas superior to most competitors is that it is produced under a carbon price. Only two of the top 10 natural gas producers globally have prices on carbon: Canada and Norway.
So, what's up?
EDIT: It seems you removed the link to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce report, so even though you tried to ninja edit it because it says things you don't like, here's the link for everyone else:
Exporting Canadian LNG to Asia has potential but is not a silver bullet for curbing global emissions. It could offer interim emissions reductions if it displaces coal (assuming it even gets to that with major polluters), but the effectiveness depends on minimizing methane leaks (which happens with LNG production and export), ensuring it doesn't outcompete renewables, and securing a competitive market position in established markets.
As far as LNG goes it think it's already kinda happening. We got WoodFiber starting construction soon in Squamish with a 5Bn investment from Fortis for some crazy tunnel to supply the gas. Not sure who their customers are for. We got Cedar LNG up in Kitimat spearheaded by the Haisla I believe. That one kinda sucks for Canada though as it will be a floating liquefaction terminal built overseas and not with Canadian labour. Then Fortis is looking to expand their liquefaction and storage facilities on the lower mainland at Tillbury to supply marine vessels who are switching from bunker and diesel to more enviro friendly natural gas, plus they supply BC ferries and they also fill ISO containers for China as well. Seems like LNG exports are getting closer.
You’re the one that brought up zero sum games, so I’m sure you can appreciate that we can do all of those things without hindering the resource extraction portion of our economy. You don’t have to be anti-oil to be pro-any of those things (and vice versa). I don’t see how supporting that sector of our economy detracts from anything you’ve listed above. In fact, I would argue that a strong resource extraction sector helps make those things better as we have a stronger economy to allocate resources to to combat things like climate change, education, etc.
I am the ultimate loser. I barely get past 5....First Danielle Smith said if your family makes less than 180 you are losers here's a 100 dollars. Now Trudeau is saying anyone making less than 150 is a welfare schmuck.
I really should just kill myself.
Hey its 250, put it on Maholmes!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Canada’s budgetary watchdog says Justin Trudeau’s government has likely blown past a self-imposed fiscal guardrail, and is warning about the consequences of delaying the release of final spending and revenue numbers.
Yves Giroux, the country’s parliamentary budget officer, expects the federal government ran a deficit of $46.8 billion in 2023-24. That’s deeper than the $40 billion forecast by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland in the April budget, and would break a key fiscal pledge she’s offered as evidence of her party’s spending discipline.
The government has until the end of the year to provide the numbers, but usually releases them in October, as they did last year. The delay raises questions about whether the numbers are worse than expected, which would add complications for Trudeau as his party struggles to regain traction with the electorate.
Feds want $411 million to cover refugee health care as the number of new arrivals soars
There's been a sevenfold increase in refugee health-care costs in the last eight years
When the Liberals announced the program's restoration, the then-immigration minister said the program would cost roughly $60 million a year.
The cost quickly doubled to $125.1 million a year in 2019-20 and then more than doubled again to $327.7 million in 2021-22, according to government data.
In the government's supplementary estimates tabled this week — part of the legislative process for asking Parliament for more money to cover initiatives that haven't already been funded — Ottawa is now asking for $411.2 million a year for IFHP.
A pro-terrorist mob is carrying out widespread destruction in Montreal while our deeply unserious Prime Minister is doing the Austin Powers dance move at a Taylor Swift concert. Right at the front, because of course.
Friendly reminder to anyone that voted for this fool, or the clown leading the NDP keeping him in power, that you absolutely own all of this. Thanks a lot.
The Following User Says Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
Friendly reminder to anyone that voted for this fool, or the clown leading the NDP keeping him in power, that you absolutely own all of this. Thanks a lot.
You're blaming the people who voted for Giant ###### when the CPC keeps giving us Turd Sandwiches as the alternative.
You have nothing to be proud of for picking the Turd Sandwiches. (Sidenote: did you vote for the UCP? Because Smith is a gigaturd.)
