He makes up or lies about stuff pretty much all the time, usually with a "that is what people on the left do" comment. Makes it easier once you accept his routine, because you will no longer place value on what he says. He speaks a huge amount without saying much. You asking him to quote you will be considered trolling. Just use him as a source of mild/weird entertainment, like when he posted that he was considering going to Ukraine to fight. He is Cliff Clavin.

Its funny how I get told how much I hate Justin. Though the fact is Uke hates Alberta, Jason Kenney and oil workers. My personal opinion is he rather import oil from dictatorships and see Alberta Oil workers in line at a food bank.

Reality is you can only ship so much oil by rail. A pipeline expands the amount you can export and the markets you can hit. Biden cancelling Keystone and than shortly approving Nordstrom 2 tells you how much Biden actually cares about Canada

I admit, I do sense you might not like Trudeau. You do like "whatabouts," and you did use a semi original one in that latest post so keep up the good work!

Well, I'm not here to assume what uke does or doesn't believe, or explain it. But I think there are some nuances worth discussing. For example:

Sure. But at what environmental cost? I have no expertise on this matter, but I'm pretty sure that these types of oil extraction come with a higher environmental impact. Is that impact greater than other oil out there? I don't know.

Here's what it looks like in my ideal, but hopefully also pragmatic, world:

The world comes off oil as a major fossil fuel in the coming years, by developing alternative energy sources as quickly as we can. However, this isn't going to happen as quickly in the developing world, and it doesn't seem particularly realistic, or fair, to tell the developing world that they have to severely stunt their economic growth like the developed world did not, to save us all. At least not without our assistance. As we make progress on this front in the coming decades, we would be severely slowing oil usage - I don't think it ever falls to zero, bit hopefully to a fraction of what it is now. If we pull that off successfully we'll be leaving oil in the ground for quite some time, and if we can mange it, that should be the oil that has the highest environmental cost, irrespective of where it is.

As for the price of oil and the resulting demand, it makes no sense to me that a higher price wouldn't have at least some impact. I think uke said it well here:

But like uke, this is my preference:

Sure, that's a thing. But it's a point you've already made a few times and I don't see anyone really arguing against.

How are you thinking this works? Gas hits $2.00 per litre, the next day everyone starts taking transit and buying less vehicles, and we have comprehensive figures released about it the day after that? If this lasts for a while it might have a noticeable impact, which we'll probably be able to properly measure in several months.

Yes, lots of people realize this. But it's a good point, and one that more people should be cognizant of.

OK. I think you're the first person I know of to even mention such a goal. How about we just try to get as many people there as we can?

Oh. Damn.

Why's it funny? You can't go more than a couple of posts without mentioning him, so I'm not surprised you get told that a lot.

Wow. That's...quite a take.

Sure you said this in defense of your argument for not allowing Cdn Pipelines in the making of an argument that if you reduce 'supply' (by blocking Cdn pipelines) that will force prices up, and that will drive demand down.


If you cannot see how that is a childlike simplified views of a CONCEPT that is misapplied here then you need help.

You understand part of the equation but miss the other part that Russia or other sources will simply fill the gap and thus we get no drop in consumption and thus only Canada loses.

What argument? Where? Quote it! Stop making up what you want my position to be, find the actual thing and quote it. I don't remember making any arguments for or against blocking canadian pipelines, so wtf are you talking about?

Similarly, I made no comment one way or the other related to this. You are doing a great job of just pretending I've articulated a stupid position and then telling me I'm a child because of the stupid position. But that would be a win entirely of your own creation.

This is perhaps the most outrageous case in recent memory of you just making up out of thin air that my position must magically be the poster child for this caricature of the left that you've created and are arguing against this caricature. All I did was correct some basic economic theory from your post that if you increase the price of a commodity then its consumption will be lowered. This is why I support carbon taxes.

Clarification: both the Liberals and the NDP have a target of 2035 for 100% of cars and light-duty trucks sold to be electric. The solar panel on every roof thing is a silly way to go about it, but for cars yes people have that goal. As do I.

Something weird is happening. I called you out for immediately doing a sick WHATABOUTISM on the Bernier tweet that called Trudeau a fascist and Freeland a nazi in the middle of a crisis where an actual fascist is invading a soverign country over fake claims they are nazis.

Since then your replies to me have consisted of that horrid take insinuating that I've not suffered from covid (reality: I lost a very close person to covid) and that somehow my profession relates to my posts here. And now this. You've hit three utter lows in three posts.

What is really going on lozen?

Damn, your utopia sounds like a wonderful place! Only poor people can't fly though right?

How are people adjusting to the current high energy prices, By going further in debt? Is that why there is a real estate boom, everyone is downsizing? Now that you mention it I have noticed a lot of soccer's mom's selling their mini vans and opting for the city bus.

I'm not sure what you are disputing. Are you a arguing that "we" shouldn't invest in anymore fossil fuels because 5 billion people live in energy poverty and some magical energy source that has no environment consequences is going provide that?


Awesome you read it! So what subsidies did the oil and gas industry receive? Listed in the article you posted.


What did the fossil fuel industry get subsidies for?

Yes presently and for decades, how's their market share doing compared to the reliables?

https://m.dw.com/en/germany-warns-ag...sia/a-61002737

Good thing Germany closed those coal and nuclear plants. Maybe they should just downsize their homes and drive less, like Canadians are doing

European countries tend to be much better than us in these metrics already. Per capita emissions is twice as high in Canada as in Germany.

This conflict has inspired rethinks of a whole host of issues. But one big lesson is that the risk of heavy dependence on oil and gas is not just bad for environment. It is also a major geopolitical risk. We need to massively cut consumption everywhere.

Per capita emissions? what about per capita carbon capture? Population in Canada is sparse and trees are abundant.

While I drive a V8, I can guarantee I'm a net negative.

Clarification to your clarification , here's what I was replying to:

All new cars sold in Canada being electric is not remotely close to all Canadians driving an electric car. That said, if in 13 years every car sold here is electric, the % of Canadians driving electric in 30 years should be very high. Of course my main issue with his post was the solar panels, as you have also acknowledged, so we're not really differing much to speak of.

Fwiw , Investing less in oil and be net negative in emissions , we could sell massive carbon credit in future which imo will be sky high …
It just starting and the demand should be very high .

Ignoring your ridiculous wording, I would suggest that our goal should be to reduce investment in fossil fuels and increase investment in alternative energy sources. That's not to say fossil fuels should be abandoned immediately, and there may be good arguments for short-term funding in specific cases, but this shift that I believe has been underway for some time now, should continue.

This would be a much simpler conversation if you could just come to your point. We both know the article I posted was discussing subsidies in general, and that there is some dispute as to what the amount is, but there was no suggestion that the amount was zero, nor was there in the article you linked. That was my point. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you can explain why, and if you had some other point, please share. My knowledge on the subject is limited, so I'd be happy to learn more.

According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, well over 60%.

But in an effort to move things forward rather than play word games (you should try it!), I assume you don't just mean renewables. Wind and solar are still below 10%. But I'm sure you already knew the answer to that question, so perhaps we could move on to whatever point you'd like to make.

When I see where we were 30 years ago , Internet was just starting with big slow computer and a modem that couldn’t even download a song ……

let’s not underestimated technology .
Solar pannel and other tech to bring energy into a home cheaply ( with batteries for storage ) could surprise many of you imho ….

I would take a bet like that .
30 years is a freakin long time in technology .

Just look at 1992 cars .
Chevrolet cavalier was the top seller in Canada o0 ……

https://bestsellingcarsblog.com/1992...ird-on-podium/

100% of Canadians driving electric cars and powering their homes with solar panels in 30 years would be a terrible bet for you. In the 80-95% range for electric cars and some form of renewable energy (I don't think solar will be ideal for all in our climate) would be much more realistic.

Not all Canadians would need solar panel because the electricity grid we have here with hydro is very strong .
But for example , lot of gaz generated energy for homes could be reduced vastly with solar panel imo .
And could be used as secondary value for cars recharge and stuff like that .
Being able to replace gaz for a car , to electric car u can recharge “free” with solar panel .

The effect economically and environmental seem to me to be pretty significant and desirable .
I was looking into and the price seem to massively fall down as years go by .

I think it’s true we live in an almost exponential age when we take the last 60 years and split into two 30 years range .
The differences are significant imo and the next 30 will be even more (AI, robotics , etc….) .
Wouldn’t surprise a solar panel could be like buying a tv or a lap top in 30 years .
(Replacing gaz generator for home when electricity gets cut off due to natural incident or w.e?) .

No like you do all the time misrepresent what I said in the argument as well you did with Covid. My point was that you have not suffered financially with Covid. Of your friends death of Covid is tragic as in any death from Covid I have never ever made an indication of otherwise. In my opinion that is Utterly low as well on your part

I ignored your post because it was a in fact a low blow on your part .

Do you see me saying How dare you imply that I do not know what is going on in the Ukraine. I have a friend whose mother and mother in law and father in law are living there and experiencing the bombs with no way to get out due to their age. He is an emotional wreck . Of course not as you have no idea about that just as I have no idea about your friend.

Oh I never said it would happen overnight but heck there was a point when we saw gas creeping over a $1.00 a litre and than a $1.25 and I thought it may shift what type of vehicles people bought but it hasn't at all .

Will see if $2.00 a litre gas does. Sadly I see it hitting $2.25 a litre in Vancouver in a few weeks.

Heck I can remember working at a truck stop and 52.9 litres for $10.00

Though it is easier for big city dwellers to use transit more as well as other means of transport but for rural folks they have no choice.

Lozen. Stop. Read your two posts again:

Wtf man? Do you not see how the first is a deeply personal (and profoundly ignorant) attack on me from my profession and the second is just so ****ing batshit insane I don't even know what to do with it. I've never said any "low blow" to you remotely like this, and don't even know which post you are trying to object to. But these are terrible.

Maybe you think the original post that seemed to launch these personal attacks where you WHATABOUTISMED Bernier calling Trudeau a facist and Freeland a nazi while an actual facist is attacking a country under false pretenses of them being nazis was actually a good post. Let's set that aside. Cut the personal **** out. Stop trying to hit new lows.

Wtf is this? You're just going to tally up the existence of forests as a positive in your own little personal column to bizarrely justify high emission vehicles? If you purchased some type of forest offset then sure, maybe, doubtful but maybe, but you don't just get a free pass because the world has forests in them.

It's been tried and failed, that line of thinking is what got us in the current mess we are in, I hope you're happy.

The shift you believe is underway has been attempted for decades and is failing, it's been destructive and unsustainable. The quicker zealots like you and Uke realize this the better.


You smugly posted an article about fossil fuel companies receiving subsidies. Since the question I asked was so erroneous I want you to explain to me what subsidies the industry received.



I just want to know why you think it is a good idea to stop investment in reliable energy and continue more investment in unrealiables when 5 billion people live in energy poverty?