Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Mad is definitely the wrong word, I've watched the video, but when he gets into "Trudeau is a clown", and "they are all a part of an environmental cult" etc etc. it reduces his credibility. He makes some good points, but seems to lack self awareness when talking about others being a part of a cult.

I don't care if someone hates Trudeau, but the minute you start yelling about cults and calling everyone clowns I start to tune out.

Yes that’s what I meant. And I’ve heard his name get mocked by some saying why would anyone trust what a guy who calls himself Quick Dick says. But he has good points. Mad wasn’t the word to describe it.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Mad is definitely the wrong word, I've watched the video, but when he gets into "Trudeau is a clown", and "they are all a part of an environmental cult" etc etc. it reduces his credibility. He makes some good points, but seems to lack self awareness when talking about others being a part of a cult.

I don't care if someone hates Trudeau, but the minute you start yelling about cults and calling everyone clowns I start to tune out.

Don’t tune out. Open your mind and listen.

Take the Trudeau out of his message completely, and if you disagree with him, that’s fine. But don’t “tune out” because he hates a Lloyd Christmas wannabee.

And hey guys…. Look…. He still has both of his thumbs.

Must be doing something right.

[Northendzone]

i think it is safe to say that this si yet anotehr liberal policy that will cost us all big time.

meanwhile, the liberals will continue to trumpet the CT rebates and how many get back more than they pay, along with their tired old refrain about how they have lifted millions of children out of poverty thanks to them moving the line in the sand.

big time food and enery security will cast a huge shadow on our current way of life soon. it will be interesting to see the choices we have to make

[PeteMoss]

Why are we up in arms over this fertilizer emissions reduction thing when its still in the consultation phase? Because the Postmedia papers are writing articles about it?

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/abo...culture-sector

[Azure]

So we shouldn't be up in arms over it? Because that is how you make sure the Feds go ahead with it.

People being pissed off about the plan is how it gets shut down.

Seriously....

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're right, it is the same problem, particularly with golf courses.

I think the overall goal should be to find ways to be more efficient with fertilizer usage, not just blanket reductions.

Banning for decorative purposes or at least taxing the consequences for those purposes makes a lot of sense.

Grass Lawns are stupid and replaceable with no negative externalities.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Stranger

That’s a good column. Our fertilizer emissions are a fart in the wind to the total global emissions. Like you says there are other ways of dealing with it that won’t cripple a huge western Canadian industry.

The Government of Canada has been clear that the objective of the national target for fertilizers is to reduce emissions, and that the primary method to achieve this is not to establish a mandatory reduction in fertilizer use that isn’t linked to improved efficiency and maintaining or improving yields. Rather, the goal is to maximize efficiency, optimize fertilizer use, encourage innovation, and to work collaboratively with the agriculture sector, partners and stakeholders in identifying opportunities that will allow us to successfully reach this target.

So what this debate really is about is do you have any trust in government.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

Banning for decorative purposes or at least taxing the consequences for those purposes makes a lot of sense.

Grass Lawns are stupid and replaceable with no negative externalities.

Depends where. Excessive watering when you're in a drought area is pretty dumb.

People watering their lawns are not the main issue though. In states like California who are dealing with drought issues, agriculture is the biggest problem, specifically almond farming and the like.

We need to move away from growing our food across the continent and shipping it 36 hours so we can eat it 'fresh.'

Locally grown produce would solve a lot of problems.

Which kind of begs the question why the Liberals seem to keen on screwing over the Canadian farmer, when it'll just result in other parts of the world with less sustainable farming practices trying to fill the gap.

Gee, I wonder if they've ever done anything like that before. Say with oil & gas perhaps?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Depends where. Excessive watering when you're in a drought area is pretty dumb.

People watering their lawns are not the main issue though. In states like California who are dealing with drought issues, agriculture is the biggest problem, specifically almond farming and the like.

We need to move away from growing our food across the continent and shipping it 36 hours so we can eat it 'fresh.'

Locally grown produce would solve a lot of problems.

Which kind of begs the question why the Liberals seem to keen on screwing over the Canadian farmer, when it'll just result in other parts of the world with less sustainable farming practices trying to fill the gap.

Gee, I wonder if they've ever done anything like that before. Say with oil & gas perhaps?

The problem with lawns isn’t water use, it’s nitrogen and pesticides and lawn mower emmissions. At least driving a car gets you somewhere. A purely aesthetic use of emissions should be made more expensive

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what this debate really is about is do you have any trust in government.

Which government? Local government? Provincial government or federal government?

The best decisions are made closer to where the impact of that decision is felt.

So no, I don't trust the Feds to do anything right here. I think they have a terrible track record when it comes to protecting our big industries.

There is ZERO talk on wetland, marsh and lake rehabilitation. That is how I know the Liberals are not really serious.

A healthy marsh will improve water quality: it will remove harmful
phosphorus, nitrogen, and other sediments present in dangerous quantities.
Studies have shown that a healthy Netley-Libau Marsh could have the potential to remove up to 6% or more of the phosphorus from the Red River and Lake Winnipeg each year. This exceeds the amount of phosphorus that is contributed by the cities of Winnipeg, Selkirk and Brandon to Lake Winnipeg on an annual basis.

https://www.savenetleymarsh.com/copy...re-so-importan

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

The problem with lawns isn’t water use, it’s nitrogen and pesticides and lawn mower emmissions. At least driving a car gets you somewhere. A purely aesthetic use of emissions should be made more expensive

With that I agree.

Gas powered lawn mowers especially have terrible emissions. Good thing there are alternatives available.

[calgarygeologist]

If the Fed's want to subsidize or give me a tax credit for ripping up my lawn and replacing it with something sustainable like artificial turf or some other landscaping option I am all for that. Open up the wallet Trudeau.

[Ozy_Flame]

You don't need a tax credit to realize grass lawns are a waste of space and you're better off having a natural ecosystem of perennials, berry bushes, native plant species and natural ground features that looks way better anyway.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Why are we up in arms over this fertilizer emissions reduction thing when its still in the consultation phase? Because the Postmedia papers are writing articles about it?

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/abo...culture-sector

You have linked old news. I understand, because non-postmedia papers don't write about things that may negatively impact the social economic narrative, that some people will not have access to such information.

This is what triggered the most recent rise of frustration and brought on recent statements by several provinces and farmers associations.

https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture...he-sector.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture...riculture.html

This includes improved data sharing, results reporting, and a commitment to contribute to common, measurable outcomes, over the lifespan of the Framework, in particular contributing to:

3-5 MT reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions

https://www.farms.com/ag-industry-ne...ision-570.aspx

“Provinces pushed the federal government to discuss this important topic, but were disappointed to learn that the target is already set,” a July 22 joint statement from Alberta and Saskatchewan says. “The commitment to future consultations are only to determine how to meet the target that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Bibeau have already unilaterally imposed on this industry, not to consult on what is achievable or attainable.

Cannot call it a consultation phase when there is no consulting occurring and the federal government just set a funding deal directly linked to their 30% fertilizer emission reduction target.

But hey, I hear Poilievre just got backing from Harper, now that is scary indeed and worth reporting by those non-Postmedia news sources! https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/har...ship-1.6534017

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which government? Local government? Provincial government or federal government?

The best decisions are made closer to where the impact of that decision is felt.

So no, I don't trust the Feds to do anything right here. I think they have a terrible track record when it comes to protecting our big industries.

There is ZERO talk on wetland, marsh and lake rehabilitation. That is how I know the Liberals are not really serious.


https://www.savenetleymarsh.com/copy...re-so-importan

This is another one of those things you say and believe, but which isn't true(I'll add it to the list). A quick Google for "wetland rehabilitation Canada initiatives" shows many articles about initiatives across Canada, this site shows what provinces are doing:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories...21090dfde38a88

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If the Fed's want to subsidize or give me a tax credit for ripping up my lawn and replacing it with something sustainable like artificial turf or some other landscaping option I am all for that. Open up the wallet Trudeau.

Artificial turf isn’t sustainable, just creates a landfill problem down the line.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If the Fed's want to subsidize or give me a tax credit for ripping up my lawn and replacing it with something sustainable like artificial turf or some other landscaping option I am all for that. Open up the wallet Trudeau.

Many people who choose to move away from grass simply overseed with certain types of clover. Its still green, requires very little water input, and can create a grass like surface if its thick enough. You still need to cut it eventually but its much longer between cuts. It also provides good habitat for pollinators. All that being said, I still prefer grass for the kids to play on.



AND HEY! more Trudeau dollars just means more inflation! haha

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This is another one of those things you say and believe, but which isn't true(I'll add it to the list). A quick Google for "wetland rehabilitation Canada initiatives" shows many articles about initiatives across Canada, this site shows what provinces are doing:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories...21090dfde38a88

Glad you are keeping a list.

Your link is worthless. Provincial initiatives dating back to an antique agreement in 1991 mean nothing.

Ducks Unlimited does more for wetland restoration and protection than our worthless federal & provincial governments. Netley Marsh as an example has been destroyed by provincial initiatives such as flooding diversions, bypasses, etc.

You simply can't go spout off about reducing nitrogen emissions and run off without talking about wetland rehabilitation because of the essential role they play in reducing phosphorus and nitrogen levels from said run off.

Like I said, 'crickets.'

Must be hard to admit the Liberals are tone deaf when it comes to this issue.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You don't need a tax credit to realize grass lawns are a waste of space and you're better off having a natural ecosystem of perennials, berry bushes, native plant species and natural ground features that looks way better anyway.

This is what politics and government has come down to. Why should only the folks that can benefit from things like major home repairs, HVAC upgrades or electric cars, etc get a helping hand from the taxpayers. I'll do my part but I need a handout too.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Glad you are keeping a list.

Your link is worthless. Provincial initiatives dating back to an antique agreement in 1991 mean nothing.

Ducks Unlimited does more for wetland restoration and protection than our worthless federal & provincial governments. Netley Marsh as an example has been destroyed by provincial initiatives such as flooding diversions, bypasses, etc.

You simply can't go spout off about reducing nitrogen emissions and run off without talking about wetland rehabilitation because of the essential role they play in reducing phosphorus and nitrogen levels from said run off.

Like I said, 'crickets.'

Must be hard to admit the Liberals are tone deaf when it comes to this issue.

Handy the feds last year contributed $25 million, with 19 million going to Ducks Unlimited? Or do you just like to dig in on being wrong?

Ducks Unlimited Canada will receive up to $19.28 million over three years for projects to conserve and restore wetland and grassland habitats in the Prairies, including the restoration of croplands to grasslands. These lands will capture and store carbon, while providing a range of other ecological benefits.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...-prairies.html