Well that includes our federal government. If your goal is to eliminate fossil fuels which account for large part of your revenues you are going to have to replace it with something. You just can not run negative budgets forever
Though I am unsure what the metric would be for charging for water? $10.00 a barrel ?

You keep making this claim, insomuch that it seems to be the basis of all your posts on the subject. Feel free to worry and fret (and continue to post about) about Canada losing the Arctic to the Russians; but it won't be because the Americans decided that they didn't care about the strategic ramifications of their adversaries being on the North American continent.

Oh I forgot about the storage issue your plan would run into: you'd be building water storage facilities that would be visible from space. I'm sure the people who's lands get appropriated then drowned would be just thrilled.

My view on the economic viability of your plan will never change.

WTF are you talking about?

I quoted the US State department position upthread which it to deny and destabilize Canada's claims and my ENTIRE point is that if the US does not change this stance then Canada should potentially seek to negotiate compromises with the other biggest claimants Russia and China.

That is an IF and ONLY IF statement meaning if the US was to change that positioning then Canada could act more from a position of strength on our claims. But without US support Canada has zero strength in the area of being able to 'have and hold and defend' our claims.


Pompeo’s comment about Canada’s 'illegitimate' claim to Arctic waters a sign of North's rising strategic importance
As melting glaciers in the Arctic open up new trade corridors, the U.S., China and Russia will continue to vie for northern supremacy

When the U.S. trade commissioner called Canada’s claim to a major future Arctic shipping route “illegitimate” on Monday, it revived a long-standing feud that could become increasingly heated in coming years as new northern trade corridors open up.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a swipe at Canada in a speech during an Arctic Council meeting in Finland, when he questioned (Canada's) claim to the Northwest Passage — a waterway stretching across the north of Canada that could one day become a global hub for commercial trade.

The Canada-U.S. feud stretches back decades. But as glacial ice in the North continues to melt, in turn opening new trade corridors between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, questions of sovereignty could soon take on a new urgency, raising doubts about Canada’s sovereignty claims and its ability to protect its Arctic waters.

Questions around that designation could have huge ramifications. The Arctic has already become a strategic focus for China as it seeks to build out its so-called “Polar Silk Road,” part of the Chinese government’s Belt and Road plans to rapidly expand its infrastructure connections with Asia, Africa and the rest of the world. The initiative is a centrepiece of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitions to restore China’s place as the world’s undisputed superpower.

Canada’s Northern Passage could play a large role in those ambitions, allowing Chinese manufacturers to reach markets along the east coast of the Americas much faster than it can today. Other major channels like the Northern Sea Route through Russian waters would give the country faster access to European markets.

Last year, China released a paper outlining its Polar Silk Road plans. Between 2012 and 2017 the country spent around $90 billion on infrastructure and natural resource extraction in the Arctic, according to the U.S., as it looks to expand its reach in the region...

Such moves have raised fears over an increasingly militarized Arctic, particularly as Russia reopens some military bases that had shut down after the fall of the Soviet Union.

In his speech, Pompeo said Russia was “already leaving snow prints in the form of army boots” in the Arctic, and accused the country of wanting to remilitarize its northern territory...

The report laid out a number of recommendations about how Canada could protect its waters once the North becomes more readily accessible to commercial vessels.

It recommended topping up the National Aerial Surveillance Program to allow Canada to better monitor the North, studying the option of using more drones in the north, and reviewing whether Canada needs more infrastructure to support the use of fighter jets in the Arctic. The report also said Canada should “engage with the Government of China to understand their growing interest in the Arctic.”

The report called on the Canadian government to take a more forceful role in the future when defending its Arctic sovereignty, urging quick action in the region as time runs out.

“While the Committee started out by scrutinizing the actions and intentions of Russia and China in the Arctic, it discovered that underneath those geopolitical concerns lies a larger, interconnected, idea,” the report said. “Arctic sovereignty is secured through the Canadian government’s exercise of exclusive and effective control within its jurisdiction.”

Perhaps some people do not understand this issue well and how such claims are eventually settled or recognized by the World Court.

Simply submission of document claims almost never settles these were overlapping claims exist as both sides have their arguments.

Instead 'actual use', 'actual presence' and 'ability to defend one claim' often become the decision maker. Think of it as squatters rights. The one who actually can demonstrate they are there and using it and defending it wins.

That is why Canada used to send a yearly expedition to Hans Island to plant a flag. A stake in the ground. And Russians would send an expedition who would go pull it up and throw it away.

Obviously Canada will not win any battle to 'defend' which means AS THE STUDY SUGGESTS considering negotiations with willing parties should be a consideration for us. And if the US is not amenable to that then obviously we must speak with the other claimants.

Ya sorry.

I made the mistake of assuming you were an honest actor in this debate and not some alt troll wannabe personality of a poster here.

Your initial comment was just ignorant and dumb as is your follow up here.

The 'storage issue' is addressed by the massive natural and artificial already existing reservoirs all across the US West that are critical depletion levels.

In the event Canadian water could over fill (and fix a massive problem the US is dealing with) the US reservoirs at any period you just allow the flow to continue to the OCean with all the problems that entails.

But via the insatiable water need for desert communities that seems unlikely.

Indeed, I'm referring to the bizarre behavior that you decided twice in the same post to emphasize my profession when it had literally zero purpose there, as part of what seemed like insults? In the trans thread I revealed it to you I suppose talking about some of the inclusive language I use in the classroom, but to bring it back up out of left field when you are trying to flame me....wtf man.

I'm really not. This might be frustrating for you, but I'm going to pick and choose the conversations when I think it is worth trying to carefully engage in a thoughtful discussion. Sorry, I just think there isn't much if anything to bother with in either your armchair artic geopolitics or your "literally win/win/win" pipelines from edmonton to arizona scheme. So I gave a single, short, throwaway, tongue-in-cheek comment and uh....didn't realize you were going to be quite so sensitive to this and provoke such a large reaction. But please don't confuse you reacting so poorly with me trolling for such a reaction. That is all on you.

Nope, mocking your naive and simplistic attempt at geopolitics wasn't exposing in any way what my own actual thought are on that situation. This was a specific topic where I was not interested in engaging with you, couldn't see a productive path forward, and given the multi-part volume of lols you've since published on the topic I think I'm quite vindicated on that choice.

If St George or the Washington, Utah area is looking to spend 2 billion just to build a pipeline from the Colorado is it really a pipe dream.

Storage is not an issue. The real question is how much revenue does it bring? How do you price the water?

Lol. I'm not trolling - nor am I someone who enjoys utilizing far too many keystrokes to attempt to convince strangers, so sorry if my responses are not filling enough for you. What I base my posts on are facts, rather than my feelings - in this case on previous case studies, done about a decade ago, where people who actually took your idea seriously figured out what was required to make it happen. Sorry if it doesn't jibe with your simplistic view of attaching a pipe to a glacier and running it to Lake Mead.

You should really start a new thread about Canada losing the Arctic: It's far too important a topic to be buried in the Lol thread.

You are simply not being honest.

This reply was meant to do nothing but be a mocking reply.

it is now getting exactly the response it is designed to get which is you and fighting over it. Flame war engaged.


You acting like you are forum police and that you are just pointing this topic, as I present it has no placed here or I am not presenting in enough thoroughness to meet your standards are just garbage arguments.

You will engage me similarly in other threads and you will feign the same pretense that this is not what you are looking for then. I will bookmark this and quote it to you when you do it.

this topic is entirely appropriate as one to raise for discussion and fleshing out amongst those interested in this thread and you have brought zero but trolling to it.

What you have not and did not do is even attempt to relay any of those 'facts' you say you bring despite me asking you to.

You offered one thing and one thing only and that was casual dismissal and mocking reply even as someone like Bobo was discussing this and complimenting others as a result of what he learned in the discussion. At the same time exposing an ignorance of the US STATED position.

All the while you are laughing about how ridiculous the discussion is.

NO one is pretending to be an expert here. If you have facts, and info for us to consider then by all means bring it and they WILL be welcomed. But your haughty airs that you just know better are complete garbage.

Lol. Of course I was mocking you. Far from being dishonest, I already said it was mocking in the very post you just quoted lol: "Nope, mocking your naive and simplistic attempt....". As I explained, I didn't think you brought anything worth discussing seriously to either of your two recent topics, so you got the absolute nothing-burger throwaway insult and moved on. I should have known you would have reacted so sensitively and made a big hullabaloo about the fact that you got mocked. Sorry, Cuepee, sometimes you are going to get a little mild chiding on the internet. Move on, buddy.

Lol. Ah yes, me, now Brooktrout, who else is just a dishonest troll Cuepee? They are lurking in every shadow!

Reality is were dealing with one thread for a multitude of issues in Canada. Some folks care more about some issues than others. Also its ok to mock certain individuals on topics they do not care about. Mock them on something passionate and its an uproar to them

Water Shortage is an interesting issue and I know Brook was mocking you as well but it is an interesting topic for its own thread. As for Uke whose primary concern is Climate Change I am not sure how water shortages can be a concern On the bright side I can not blame Justin for water shortages or clean drinking water. Oh wait ....

https://www.seametrics.com/blog/future-water/

And yet others, not you, are discussing and engaging. So there is that.

The entirety of your complaint and your sh*t posting seems to be because you are not interested in the topic thus it should not be discussed or because you want to troll.

Your view of some necessary threshold of information or data anyone must bring to make a topic worthwhile is your stupid defensive view not to own your sh*t posting.

There is no minimum threshold and I certainly did post more than many do (in terms of articles) to get a discussion started if anyone is interested.

But all that misses the point.

OTHERS not you have been happy to discuss these topics so why do you see yourself aas the Police and the one who needs to come in and "mock" someone you think has transgressed some arbitrary threshold you have made up.

The answer to that is obvious and singular. You are trying to bait a flame war and now you got it. The rest is garbage pretense.

And I am happy to post as many times as you want and bury this thread, despite avoiding that prior, to satisfy you.

On a lighter note this picture pretty much sums up JT for me

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...?ocid=msedgntp

uke will determine that, so be careful what you state.

He is taking the role of gatekeeper and will attempt to derail any discussion he does not prior approve or think someone establishes to his threshold of acceptability.

My goodness. That I chose to do a very brief little post that mocked your simplistic hot takes and didn't personally want to engage further with those topics doesn't mean others might not want to! Who could have predicted that would lead to this kind of hissy fit full of wild accusations. I will try to remember how insanely sensitive to a dash of mild mockery you are.

You could have predicted as we have had this exchange prior (where you called it tone policing then) and yet here we are again in another thread.

You can predict it next time.

You will make a baiting comment, as complete derail of the topic and thread, and when i rightly call you on it you will defend, cry and protest me calling you on it with claims of 'tone policing' and other.

it is not as if this is not predictable.

In your attempt after the fact to try and say 'it is not me, it is him' you lie about the post you replied to with your baiting to suggest that is was MY FAULT as the post did not have the sufficiency YOU think it needed.

I mean, fine, own your baiting but then don't be a coward about it and try to pretend this was about 'sufficiency' or 'appropriateness;' or anything else.

You wanted to troll and you did. You wanted a reply and you got it. Nuff said.

Ah yes, I do remember now! You did have an entire hissy fit previously about my mocking tone in another thread! Which makes getting all upset and making up post after post after post of utter BS about it because I said one brief mocking post ITT even funnier.

I know, I know, you are utterly convinced that I only mocked you to induce this protracted and loltastic overreaction from you to derail the thread. But I really didn't. I didn't predict just how sensitive to this type of stuff you are. So Cuepee, let me apologize for mocking your international pipe dream and let's leave it at that. Good day sir!

Back on track, let's talk vaccines!

First up, Canada is now truly the world #1 in first dose: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canad...dose-1.6060834

It is actually still surprising just how good we are. The big earlier countries like Israel, UK, and US are now well behind us and the gap is looking to grow. Earlier on that was strategy (the one dose first strategy) but all those countries now have access to everybody and we are still pulling ahead.

The question is, where does it land? We are at 64% of all people (including kids) vaccinated. I'm hoping we can hit 75%. But I'm nervous. First dose rates are dropping really quickly, and some places in canada like Alberta and Saskatchewan are starting to fall behind. There is still the question of approval for 5-12 year olds that will help, but I think we are about two weeks out looking at the data from saturating on the over 18s for first doses.

Also, an unbelievable 9.5 million doses coming this week due to a huge dump of moderna who like last quarter seems to delay until the last possible moments. Regardless, this should be great for filling up our second doses as we are allowed to mix and match vaccines.

Finally, the big question is donations interationally. At the g7 we pledged 100m with only 13m being direct donations. That, to me, is quite substantially too small.

Right.

And so now I will go and find that prior exchange and post that in this thread so people can see what a liar you are. The exchange played out there just as this one did here. You beginning the trolling, and when I replied you called it tone policing.

Your entire M.O is the right 'trolling the Libz' play book. You start it and then say any reply by them proves they are 'sensitive', etc.

That is why I say you are a child and troll as any one can look at this thread and see exactly how things play out with you.


And I will make a prediction, and that is that when I do get all the prior exchange and post it you will stop defending it and instead switch to 'how triggered I must be to to go get that'. Again the 'trolling the lbz playbook'. Lie and when they prove you wrong suggested it is getting the 'truth' that is the issue.

But well done sir. You will get what you want and predictably so. And you will get the next and the next, as I engage in discussions with other people and you then feel the need to try and bait this type of reply.

If it is what you want 'I'm your huckleberry'. Lets derail this thread stat!

Holy **** dude, seriously?? Either let it go or post it somewhere else. Or maybe go for a walk.

wow.