The development and export of clean Natural Gas to countries that are currently burning coal . Look at the reduction in emissions in the USA from switching many coal fired power plants over to Natural Gas

canada has the worst live games in the world compared to wealth probably other then maybe australia. only like 2 or 3 provinces are even playable. don't come to Canada for poker lol ever hear of texas? Americas better then Canada in almost everyway anyway. It turns out you need some freedom to run profitable legal poker games where the government doesn't over regulate it and make the rake unbearable.

The only real answer to forests burning down is to pay alot of money to plant more forests so if the carbon tax was used for that maybe

I'm not sure whose misunderstanding it is, but I think there clearly is one here about the role of climate change in wildfires. I don't believe any climate change policy aimed at wildfire reduction is hoping to substantially reduce lightning storms, as there is no upward trend that I'm aware of. Whether it's a lightning strike or a careless camper, it's the tinder-dry conditions that turn that spark into a fire, or a small fire into a much larger one. So while we should continue to try to reduce human-caused fires, that's addressing a completely different stage than the conditions of the forest and the impact climate change has on it.

And on that topic, provincial and federal governments need to do a lot more in terms of preparation, prevention, etc. IE dealing with what's on the ground, creating firebreaks, etc. I'm no expert on what needs to be done, I just know we're constantly hearing from those o the ground that bureaucracy and a lack of funding continue to be major stumbling blocks.

If Canadian emissions went to 0 tomorrow and stayed there forever, climate change in Canada would be identical.

Do you agree with this?

Those are already existing …

Now u believe an increase of natural gas will reduce the world emission?
The U.S. been producing more and more natural gas and emission aren’t going down worldwide .
Why makes u think Canada will ?

Ps: natural gas emit co2 as well , just less .
Since energy consumption will never go down , natural gas is not a solution long term .

So what ?
Canada will never pay down its debt , why bother trying still ?

And no I don’t agree with this , it will depends what others do .

Ofc more LNG would decrease world emissions, this isn't even controversial.

It's decrease vs counterfactual, world population is still growing and poor countries are getting richer which significantly increases emissions.

Without American gas emissions would have grown more obviously.

Emissions in first world countries keep going down also thanks to gas (not exclusively ofc).

The loooong term solution is a ton of nuclear + other renewables but in the meanwhile, which means decades, people are already not accepting small reductions in quality of life, they are simply going to refuse to suicide economically to jump to renewables alone from coal/oil.

Gas is the perfect transition

If energy consumption goes up , fossil fuel increasing ( natural gas do emits still co2 …) , how will it go down ?

Will it go up less rapidly then coal and oil ?
Yes but the trend will still increases unless the consumption of all the emergent markets and Ai etc will not I crease their energy consumption.
Good luck with that …

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

This question has absolutely nothing to do with the post it's replying to.

it does, because any notion of canadian emissions reduction helping with forest fires is an objective lie.

Even if we take it for good that a warmer canada is more prone to bigger forest fires ceteris paribus, canada isn't warmer because of canadian emissions.

But it goes to the original post were Justin Trudeau lies to folks and implies his climate policies will reduce forest fires . That is were the whole conversation started

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 emissions, IF the idea was doing what's best for canadians given climate change exists.

Now the same is not true for america for various reasons, especially not true for california. But in Canada (and Norway fwiw) you need to be the biggest liar ever to 1) claim that warming on net is negative for the country and 2) claim reducing local emissions is very useful to reduce that (non-existent) negative phenomenon

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

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.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ort-term-bonds

I think the extremely low duration of Canadian government debt issuance just reflects a peculiar characteristic of Canadian debt markets, maybe a behavioural attitude of society, maybe something else, no idea.

Unlike many (most?) other first world countries for ex, Canadians don't usually have fixed rate mortgages as well

We all remember Justin saying

Indeed. Its definitely a challenge for Trudeau is that given that Poilievre is doing this Trump-style constant lying constant saying the most ridiculous egregious nonsense day in and day out - and that like Trump it appears very effective for people like you in his base. Hard to combat it. It is kinda sad to see you doing this both-sidesism where you pretend that Trudeau saying pretty objective truths like that Poilievre has no plan to do anything about climate change it is equally "lying".

Ya totally it must be some insane conspiracy theory, or, uh, I guess it could just be a super boring market response, its 50:50 which amirite!

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?

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 can't still be a discussion about whether everyone doing X is beneficial, of course, but not doing X because one person/country can't make a difference is simply a copout.

I've got all sorts of issues with JT and will be looking to put my vote elsewhere next year, but the last thing I'm worried about is him making a comment that another politican wants to "watch the country burn", especially when it's targeted at the king of hyperbolic sound bites. I don't like it, but JT already lost my vote long ago.

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 .

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.

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 .

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 ….