The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet...i'd be shocked if they lost the election now.
Just shows just how incompetent Conservatives are.
Energy consumption in first world countries isn't increasing, and even if it was emissions could go down when you switch to gas.
Down overall year over year. If you increase by 3% and has emits less than half coal (which it does), until you have coal to substitute going with gas is a strong way to reduce emissions without reducing quality of life.
As for poorer countries they won't stop developing because of climate warming, just accept that
Exactly so how is energy consumption will go down even (which is impossible) the first world countries won’t expand their energy consumption ?
How t f emerging/poor countries can develop without massive increase of energy consumption ?
Good luck with that …
There is no way with natural gas, emission will go lower but I will concede it will increase more slowly .
But it ain’t a solution long term .
I’m not sure what the debt has to do with Climate change but thanks to Justin amassing more debt that all the PM’s before him you are correct Canada will never pay down its debt so should we just do what Justin proposes and count on budgets balancing themselves
The connection was why try something if in the end no reduction (wether be debt or gas emission) will ever happens ?
Obv with debt u actually need to continue trying to sustain the country and same thing should be thought of from the gas emissions.
I guess when an entire party and it's supporters have a dogmatic belief that the world is going to end you don't think much about the future. Or it's gross incompetence.
Nah the world will definitely end some day in less then 1-2 billions years .
The disagreement just comes from the how and when .
And the relationship between the world(humans) and life on earth shouldn’t be merge together .
Yes in general any claim that canadians will improve their lives by reducing emissions because that will help with climate change is objectively a lie. Canadian emissions are irrelevant for climate change.
So all efforts should be spent to manage the effects of a warmer canada (while benefitting in various ways from it as well, because it's obviously on net incredibly positive for Canada to be warmer, as it was way colder than optimal for human beings to begin with), and not a cent for reducing e
Canadian are one of the highest gaz emitters per capita in the world and Canada has one of the highest rates of immigration at this moment .
So no it’s not a lie and Canada emission do matter ….
So you are saying Justin Trudeau is not lying when he indicates his climate policies will reduce forest fires? Or is this what your calling an objective truth?
Oh this is just you playing stupid word games. All the substance here is true here:
1) It is true that climate change is real and significant
2) It is true that climate change is making forest fires worse
3) It is true that we have a moral obligation to try and reduce our effects on climate change
4) It is true that a carbon pricing scheme like ours is an effective mechanism to reduce CO2
5) It is true that Poilievre is absconding from this obligation and has no plan to do anything.
You have a very silly strawman that Canada alone can't signle-handedly fix global warming - duh - and so sure your strawman is false in the sense that Canada acting alone won't make any significant change on forest fires, but back down here in reality where the context is the global community all doing their part together the substance is all true.
Unlike Poilievre's filthy lie politicizing deaths due to overdoses that you have seemingly moved on from.
Sure, but I didn't comment on that because it's not a discussion that really interests me. Of course one small country (in terms of population) going it alone on almost any initiative is going to have a negligible impact worldwide, which is why the idea is that countries work together. It's just a repackaging of the "what difference does it make if I do X, I'm only one person" argument used to avoid doing something a person doesnt want to because it inconveniences them. That doesn't mean there c
In fact the one person should not do "it" at all if it doesn't benefict him directly and clearly.
But when it's *other countries* that clearly told you "**** you", it's truly insane
Exactly so how is energy consumption will go down even (which is impossible) the first world countries won’t expand their energy consumption ?
How t f emerging/poor countries can develop without massive increase of energy consumption ?
Good luck with that …
There is no way with natural gas, emission will go lower but I will concede it will increase more slowly .
But it ain’t a solution long term .
there are significant investments in lower energy needs for building and whatnot
Oh this is just you playing stupid word games. All the substance here is true here:
1) It is true that climate change is real and significant
2) It is true that climate change is making forest fires worse
3) It is true that we have a moral obligation to try and reduce our effects on climate change
4) It is true that a carbon pricing scheme like ours is an effective mechanism to reduce CO2
5) It is true that Poilievre is absconding from this obligation and has no plan to do anything.
WACKO!
I'm not convinced about #4 but the remainder seem pretty reasonable to me (although admittedly I don't know Poilievre's platform quite well enough to say for sure he has NO plan). With a strong response like yours, I assume you object to most or all of them - is there any point in that list you can agree with?
I'm not convinced about #4 but the remainder seem pretty reasonable to me (although admittedly I don't know Poilievre's platform quite well enough to say for sure he has NO plan). With a strong response like yours, I assume you object to most or all of them - is there any point in that list you can agree with?
Not really a strong response because.
1. It is true Uke is a WACKO.
I'm not convinced about #4 but the remainder seem pretty reasonable to me (although admittedly I don't know Poilievre's platform quite well enough to say for sure he has NO plan). With a strong response like yours, I assume you object to most or all of them - is there any point in that list you can agree with?
Do you think climate change is bad for Canada specifically, in the sense that on net the nation is worse off if it is a tad warmer?
Do you think Canadian effects on worldwide climate change are meaningful?
Do you accept a lot of people don't think countries have any moral responsibility of any kind toward non citizens, especially if non residents? and that's the premise itself is incredibly controversial, and for many people the idea itself that a country sacrifices for others with no direct gain from it is tantamout to treason, to a betrayal of the reason for the existence of the country, which for many is exclusively the furthering of the interests of the people making up that country?
Oh this is just you playing stupid word games. All the substance here is true here:
1) It is true that climate change is real and significant Scientists and Great tell us it is I believe them
2) It is true that climate change is making forest fires worse It contributes but not the sole cause
3) It is true that we have a moral obligation to try and reduce our effects on climate change
4) It is true that a carbon pricing scheme like ours is an effective mechanism to reduce CO2
5) It is true that Po
3) It is true that we have a moral obligation to try and reduce our effects on climate change
I understand that some folks feel that way . I think the right moral decision is to look at each green agenda and ask yourself is it Moral . Take electric cars. WE ship the coal we dig up by train and than barge to China to power the factories that make the components that go into an electric car. As well the minerals required for the batteries come from mining in South America and Africa were there is little to no regard for the environment and add in that children and slaves mine these minerals as well. How is that Moral?
4) It is true that a carbon pricing scheme like ours is an effective mechanism to reduce CO2
Well it hasn't reduced emissions at all in Canada
5) It is true that Poilievre is absconding from this obligation and has no plan to do anything
This is a lie Pierre's plan is to produce more LNG to ship to countries using coal currently
Do you think climate change is bad for Canada specifically, in the sense that on net the nation is worse off if it is a tad warmer?
Do you think Canadian effects on worldwide climate change are meaningful?
Do you accept a lot of people don't think countries have any moral responsibility of any kind toward non citizens, especially if non residents? and that's the premise itself is incredibly controversial, and for many people the idea itself that a country sacrifices for others with no direct gain
Even the PBO of Canada and experts have said it will have no effect. Until you get China, India , Brazil, Russia or the world on board all we can do is adapt
WE ship the coal we dig up by train and than barge to China to power the factories that make the components that go into an electric car.
While Canada exports a tiny drop in the bucket of thermal coal, the good news is at least one brave political party is going to ban it. If you care about this issue, you should support them. Regardless, energy is needed to power the factories for either an electric car or an ICE car, so it is laughable to use this as an argument against electric cars.
Well it hasn't reduced emissions at all in Canada
This is a lie Pierre's plan is to produce more LNG to ship to countries using coal currently
This is funny. Zero credit given to carbon pricing effects, but hilariously high credit given to the PUMP BABY PUMP plan. Of course independent analysis predicts that combined industrial and consumer carbon taxes will reduce emissions by 50%, but don't let the evidence effect your decision making. As to the PUMP BABY PUMP plan, well, uh, why don't YOU provide the evidence you certainly must have for how much this will reduce Canada's emissions by?
Great article on the embarassing anti-carbon tax plan: the conservatives might just have to bring it back anyways!
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines...
The EU is way ahead of Canada on one of the biggest policies I've advocated for: trade tarrifs against freeriders who don't act on climate change. This is the pressure needed to make sure more and more countries are doing their part. So if Poilievre jetison's Canada's responsibility and goes for the do-nothing plan, it could quickly find itself facing massive tarrifs from the EU and others and just have to come up with a new plan anyways. As it should.
While Canada exports a tiny drop in the bucket of thermal coal, the good news is at least one brave political party is going to ban it. If you care about this issue, you should support them. Regardless, energy is needed to power the factories for either an electric car or an ICE car, so it is laughable to use this as an argument against electric cars.
This is funny. Zero credit given to carbon pricing effects, but hilariously high credit given to the PUMP BABY PUMP plan. Of course independent an
You know as well as I do that Justin ending coal exports is a flat out lie . Its like planting a billion trees.
In Canada under Justin Trudeau every year we have seen increased coal exports so you tell me he will just say Jan 1 2030 no more coal ? Please
Of course you ignore the moral question as you really do not care if a child works 16 hours a day in the worst environmental conditions so we can drive electric cars
How horrible of a person do you have to be to sit at your keyboard and type out that your forum nemesis doesn't care about child labour? What is wrong with you? I'm 100% in support of ensuring EV supply chains are morally responsible. The way you weaponize this issue to try and justify your anti-doing anything about climate change is bad, but the way you make it personal is just disgusting. Shame on you.
Your points on coal exports are less insulting, but just as stupid. Short term ebbs and flows in the post-ukraine invasion spike in coal demand say little about the practicality of ending thermal coal in 2030. There is no reason not to believe it. In fact, the detailed plans are due out later this year. But regardless, your party isn't planning to lift a finger!!!!!! You can have doubts about whether Canada gets truly to 0 under the liberals precisely by 2030 or not (doubts based on nothing but FUD), but your party isn't going to do a thing. Stop being a hypocrite.
How horrible of a person do you have to be to sit at your keyboard and type out that your forum nemesis doesn't care about child labour? What is wrong with you? I'm 100% in support of ensuring EV supply chains are morally responsible. The way you weaponize this issue to try and justify your anti-doing anything about climate change is bad, but the way you make it personal is just disgusting. Shame on you.
Your points on coal exports are less insulting, but just as stupid. Short term ebbs and flow
The same horrible person that says if I vote for Pierre I do not really care about climate change . Typical Leftist elitist what's good for him is disgusting if someone else reverses the same argument on him
Oh and coal exports were rising before Ukraine . NO my party is going to drill drill drill baby and export all that LNG if they can just like Trump did and what was the one country that actually lowered emissions in the G&? yes the USA because of the switch from coal to Natural Gas
You are not good at whataboutisms and should stop trying to do them. You support doing nothing to fight climate change (I suppose I should say nothing "real" since obviously PUMP BABY PUMP isn't a real plan). But I don't support doing nothing to fight child labour. I support using the full power of big government to do everything it can to reign it in. So to sit back and suggest I don't care about child labour is just inept, even if you ignore how disgusting the insult attempt is.
Canada already mostly got rid of coal for electricity generation, which is great, you are just confusing timelines as recent gains from the US on this front came after similar gains in Canada. At the end of the day a single indisputable fact remains: The liberals are pledging to remove ALL thermal coal exports by 2030. The conservatives don't. If this is an issue you pretend to care about, there is a single party for you to vote for.
The liberals are pledging to remove ALL thermal coal exports by 2030. The conservatives don't. If this is an issue you pretend to care about, there is a single party for you to vote for.
Why not the green party? They have much more ambitious goals. If climate change is your biggest political concern, you would be a hypocrite not to vote for them.
You are not good at whataboutisms and should stop trying to do them. You support doing nothing to fight climate change (I suppose I should say nothing "real" since obviously PUMP BABY PUMP isn't a real plan). But I don't support doing nothing to fight child labour. I support using the full power of big government to do everything it can to reign it in. So to sit back and suggest I don't care about child labour is just inept, even if you ignore how disgusting the insult attempt is.
Canada already
Not if I believe the liberals are lying which has been the case for many of their policies
Im just a realist and know that unless China, India and a few other countries are part of the solution Id rather keep CDN jobs and a robust economy than the liberal vision
Why not the green party? They have much more ambitious goals. If climate change is your biggest political concern, you would be a hypocrite not to vote for them.
Practicality. The Green Party has effectively zero chance of becoming in power. And some of their ideas has been historically unrealistic. I have voted green before, and think they do an important part of making sure that the liberals push hard on environmental issues for fear of losing votes to the green party.
Not that anyone believes you are interested in any form of conversation beyond some imagined gotcha you have in your head, so do skip forward to that now.
If this is an issue you pretend to care about, there is a single party for you to vote for
No gotcha, just that there isn't a single party to vote for if that's what you care about.
Ya you can go ahead and imagine all future statements have an asterisk that talks about the irrelevant green party that is extremely unlikely to get into power and doesn't need to be mentioned every time. Hope that helps.
That doesn't answer the question. Do you not have an answer?
Do you think climate change is bad for Canada specifically, in the sense that on net the nation is worse off if it is a tad warmer?
I don't believe that climate change is limited to "the nation...is a tad bit warmer".
Already answered:
Of course one small country (in terms of population) going it alone on almost any initiative is going to have a negligible impact worldwide, which is why the idea is that countries work together. It's just a repackaging of the "what difference does it make if I do X, I'm only one person" argument used to avoid doing something a person doesnt want to because it inconveniences them. That doesn't mean there can't still be a discussion about whether everyone doing X is beneficial, of course, but not
Do you accept a lot of people don't think countries have any moral responsibility of any kind toward non citizens, especially if non residents? and that's the premise itself is incredibly controversial, and for many people the idea itself that a country sacrifices for others with no direct gain from it is tantamout to treason, to a betrayal of the reason for the existence of the country, which for many is exclusively the furthering of the interests of the people making up that country?
I think we have enough threads where you've espoused your extreme libertarian views; we don't need to start yet another debate of them here.
