- cross-posted to:
- canadapolitics
- [email protected]
- canada
- cross-posted to:
- canadapolitics
- [email protected]
- canada
You must log in or register to comment.
“Common sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’” a spokesperson for Poilievre told the Canadian Press.
Translation: we, Conservatives, prefer to ignore any information, no matter how well researched or sourced, that goes against our own opinion, which in all cases, is simply the opposite opinion of the governing party. In fact, we prefer the opinion of those with much to gain from us opposing these opinions, such as oil and gas companies, Christian groups, and really any person likely to receive personal monetary gain which can then be shared with us.
These days, when someone starts appealing to common sense I automatically assume their position is fraught and their other arguments weak. I have yet to encounter one instance of this not being the case. Demagoguery has destroyed whatever was left of common sense.
“common sense” is a toothless argument without a statement of fact to back it up.
Translation: Today my staff told me to focus on “common sense”. I’m very good at inserting catchphrases into every sentence. Look, I got it in 2.5 times just there!
And people think Trudeau is all substance…
How about, if you and anyone else hears it from the actual Minister? Out of his own lips. This is a short version, you can watch the full interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDxWHvPSI_k
LP Claim: Canadians will get more money back with this tax. For sure. No questions asked.
That is either incorrect or a lie, your pick based on your political bias.
Goal post moved. Yeah. It will cost more given real world context and if the models hold, but why are you a dick having an issue with that?
“Why are you a climate denying?” But that is no the point or claim, the point is that you said that was not going to happen. That most people would get money back under your magical plan. The trend to inflation will make food, local food more expensive.
Yet I do not think making importing food from say, Mexico to Canada artificially cheaper than of growing it locally so we can have a fake, smaller or cheaper footprint as a good idea. Is not big picture thinking.
CBC take, for those who want some facts and examples, they leave out the carbon footprint of exporting food to us, so the footprint of Mexican, USA or other growers, so did the Liberals. Also, I am a Liberal, just not blind.
My comment was more on the wanton discount of expert opinion, not of the particular thoughts raised in this article. Broadly discounting expert opinion with preference to the common person, as this “spokesperson” has, is an incredibly dangerous paradigm to push.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=uDxWHvPSI_k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Officially, the meeting was being held to study a section of the main estimates — the initial spending allocations the government lays before Parliament each spring — for a dozen federal agencies and departments.
A day later, Higgs and Smith put forward similar ideas — arguing that if Canada exported more natural gas, it might be used to displace dirtier coal power in other countries.
While the premiers were testifying this week, more than 300 Canadian economists were signing an open letter expressing support for carbon pricing and challenging some of the arguments made against the existing policy.
Smith objects to the Liberal government’s proposed cap on oil and gas emissions, the clean electricity regulations now being developed and the sales targets for zero-emission vehicles.
With the premiers apparently so eager to discuss climate policy, it’s tempting to wonder what might be clarified and accomplished if they were all invited to Ottawa for a televised meeting — with the expectation that they would arrive with a fully costed and independently analyzed plan for how their province would reduce its emissions in line with Canada’s national targets.
In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping Poilievre from submitting his own climate plan to the parliamentary budget officer for a study of its economic and fiscal impacts before sending it to a private firm to project its emissions reductions.
The original article contains 1,092 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
if Canada exported more natural gas
Fracking earthquakes and these people STILL want to sacrifice the water table to sell dinosaur farts.
As I mentioned in another post on this topic, that “might” is doing a TON of heavy lifting in Higg’s argument.
AFAIK, no countries have stepped up to say they’d shut down coal fired plants if only they could get hold of more natural gas. China usually comes up in this conversation, but they already have a pipeline with Russia that supplies natural gas, and AFAIK it isn’t even at capacity yet. If China really wanted to replace coal with natural gas, they’d be doing it now with Russian gas, and wouldn’t have to wait the decade-plus it would take to get the infrastructure built to ship Canadian natural gas to them.
If Higgs draws a dick on his forehead I might give him $100. I probably won’t, and have never discussed any plans to do so, but who knows? I might!
With fugitive emissions, methane is worse than coal. A coal leak just turns into a regular ol rock on the side of the railway. A methane leak is very hard to detect and releases much more GHG potential than even the burning of that coal.
I’m not advocating for coal, just saying they’re both shit and we really shouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Agreed — I think replacing coal with natural gas is just a half-step that mostly benefits those with natural gas to sell, and just delays the overall transition.
But of course the people arguing for natural gas don’t care about that, so it’s easier to challenge them on the fact that they’re also inventing some pipe dream without evidence that if we could get gas to China that they’d suddenly be all for converting (or shutting down) coal fired plants — when there is _no evidence for that anywhere, and where they could be doing that today if they really wanted to.
Natural gas is just methane (97%)
Burning methane is better than coal.
Unburnt methane in the atmosphere is about 85 times worse than CO2.
Methane extraction and pipelines already leak a shitton of methane. Liquifying methane releases more methane while cooling it to -160°C. Shipping methane releases more methane. Warming the methane back up to gaseous state releases more methane. Then you’ve got to pipe the methane again, which, you guessed it, releases more methane.
Beyond all that, the USA is the OPEC of methane, and we can never be anywhere close to a minor player; beholden to the activities of other exporters.
For more information in a fun format, here’s Rollie Williams:
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/v/K2oL4SFwkkw?version=3
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It’s amazing how they’ve twisted “frack for more and more natural gas” into a green policy. Honestly I don’t think even the stupidest voters will buy that.
