The problem with refusing to ever provide quotes is it lets you perpetuate your nonsensical fabrications of what my position is. As I have told you repeatedly that what you are claiming I have said isn't what I've said, you should be able to score an easy W by quoting me saying those things. That you refuse to do so is telling. Its strawman on strawmen on strawmen.

This is a profoundly ignorant point. Demand isn't one thing. Consumers demand a certain quantity at a given price. You can't speak about "the demand" without talking about the price. If you flood the US market with a glut of Canadian oil, to believe that "the demand" remains constant you must either argue that the price will never change (something you've failed to do) or argue that "the demand" is entirely insensitive to price (something you've failed to do).




Again, just profound ignorance of how basic economics works. You have indeed, as I described earlier, identified ONE way the market can react to increased prices: producing more oil. But the market can react in other ways. It can lower the consumption as people consume less of the now more expensive energy. It can increase the production of alternative energies, which are now more price competitive. And a number of secondary and tertiary effects. Most likely some combination of all of the above, in some combination depending on exactly what the supply and demand curves actually are. So you are simply wrong to suggest that "all you do" is the former. Of these three factors, changing from high GHG/barrel Canadian oil to high GHG/Barrel US sources is largely a wash, but reduced consumption or increased green energies are both wins.

Now again, I never came out as anti-pipeline or even anti-increasing net exports. But we shouldn't stick our head in the sands and imagine a fantasy world where you can pump less by pumping more. If we pump way more, we put downward pressure on prices which puts upward pressures on consumption and downward pressures on green energies. The longer you spend trying to run from this basic economics, the further behind you are going to be.

No I have an issue with Uke saying Trudeau has a strong climate strategy. Oh I get he is never touching BC coal or Montreal's sewage dump as he cant afford to lose votes there. I think he thought he could buy votes in Alberta by buying a pipeline. Sadly he was wrong.

Sadly when you have increased emissions every year and Donald Trump has performed better on emissions you do not have a strong climate strategy. Yes I know the only reason the USA reduced emissions is shifting from coal to Natural gas as it was cheaper

Part of your confusion over the basic economics is that you are likely not the person on the margin. If you increase the cost of something by a few percent, most people don't make the big expensive choices to retrofit their house or upgrade their car. But for people right on the margin, those small increases in costs are the things that just push them over. Increase it again? A new wave is right on the margin.

There are many, many ways you can reduce your dependency today that aren't a big ticket item like a $50k EV. If you have gas, you can go to your thermostat right now, throw on a hoodie and turn it down a couple degrees. The next time you are at the grocery store, you can choose to buy some local produce (ok...maybe not mid march in alberta but you get my point) opposed to something shipped form South America. The next time you need to go to a local store to pick up something small, try hoping on your bike. These are all small decisions where the price sensitivity can help influence behaviours.

I don't think I've ever said that. I might have said Trudeau has a stronger climate strategy than the people you vote for O'Toole (a joke) or Poilievre (non-existent). I might have said that if you care about climate change, Trudeau is a better bet. But no, I don't think it is strong enough by a country mile.

Do you look at the outcome of a poker hand to determine who had the better strategy?

Fair enough but seriously u got to let go the sewage dump man .
It was a 1 time event due to major construction emergency and the « damage » was minimal ….

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mobile/e...imal-1.2763172

« studies show the impact on the environment was minimal ».

« Despite the plan being discussed for several months, it was only a few days before work began that city officials explained the rotting support beams were could cause so much damage that Montreal's wastewater treatment plant risked being shut down indefinitely.

In the end, the beams were replaced within 89 hours, or about half the time it was expected the job would take. »

Comparing the montreal sewage situation with climate changes do not make sense ….
I don’t see how a 1 time event about sewage event at sea increase CO2 in atmosphere for climate changes or have any bearing on it .
And a 1 time event in a emergency case ….

U just weaken your position of anti trudeau by sustaining a thing like that .
I know u can do better arguments

It's his favourite WHATABOUTISM. Any example of Trudeau not being 100% perfect on climate change - particularly if it involves BC or Quebec - and lozen will seize on it as the perfect WHATABOUTISM as he votes for the conservative no matter who it is.

You keep on forgetting I voted for Trudeau the first time sadly he broke pretty much every campaign promise he made and was a fraud and as crooked as many politicians out there

As well you forget the fact that I would consider a different liberal candidate other than Justin

When he cant make the easiest climate change policy banning US coal from being shipped through CDN ports I will always call him a climate phony

I didn't know you in 2015. I can only comment on your terrible WHATABOUTISMS you are doing now. Whatever circles you want to tie yourself into to vote for the worst (ignoring the PPC, of course) party on climate change while claiming to care about climate change are your own problem.

And great news for your WHATABOUTISM on coal! While the conservatives brought that in, the Liberals have banned it on the same 2030 timeline as all their other policies while the Conservatives are silent. Great job Trudeau!!! Since you care SO much about this issue, surely you will be very excited that the Liberals are better than the Conservatives on this issue.

Trudeau time is done in any normal circumstances and should leave for others to take the « baton ».
Freeland and carney would be great imo .

But in eyes of trudeau he sees polievre and Charest thinking (rightly so) he could beat them since they are so terrible .
Unfortunately trudeau perspective today is more about him than the interest of the Canadians and his party .

Power do that when you have it for long period of time and he proved it with action he took vs trucker convoy .
(the implication of freezing assets has cross the borders and change the perception of Canada about having « safe » assets untouchable by governments) .


Fwiw is best move should be to step down , let new bloods do its thing and comeback in a decade or 2 .
His pretty young and it would be dum to burn the rest of his « sympathy » some voters still have toward him .

Carney would have my vote I am on the fence for Freeland still

Trudeau never steps down to big an ego. Only way he goes in a leadership review. Sadly he can't beat Polivere or Charet just another minority

Then why mention the word Europeans, why not just say Germans? Zealots like yourself believe Germany is some great example of climate change activism because they went hard into renewables and shut down Nuclear, but are now in the midst of an energy crises and completely reliant on Russian fossil fuels.

If you were honest and it wasn't dogma you would have used France as an example. Since Germany produced 6x more emissions per unit of electricity and France costs are 60% lower.

It's weird Germany has some of the highest if not the highest energy costs in the world but is also one of the top countries for energy consumption.

I know you are REALLY struggling with the basic of conversations and all, but I used Germany - and not France - as the example since you used Germany - and not France - as the example.

Nice guess and all, but I'm quite supportive of nuclear. I think countries should be more like France which really embraced it. But because I'm a normal human who can follow a conversation, when you brought up Germany I pointed out they are twice as good as Canada in GHG/capita. This is the reason we are talking about Germany, and not France.

It's fine to admit you just ****ed up and forgot you were the one who brought it up.

I'm always amused by how you sort of console yourself that Trudeau keeps winning winning winning despite how much you hate him by really focusing in on how his WINS are minority WINS. Like You get that Trudeau "beat" the last trio of conservatives who lost, right?

I think there is a possibility that he may not like Trudeau.

If you consider winning a minority and losing the popular vote Yeah that Trudeau is a winner. A winner who has to suck up to Singh to get anything done.

I consider a win winning the majority seats and the popular vote. That is a clear mandate. IN the first election CDN's gave that to Justin based on everything he said. They saw him as a refreshing new type of politician. They realized quickly they had been conned

I have said many times the Conservatives pick a bad candidate that can beat Justin. The last two elections the second place person in the Conservative nomination would have done better.

This is again gaslighting by you.

You are far more a partisan person than lozen. You are far more likely to never vote conservative no matter who the leader is, than he is to stick to a partisan line.

I don't know why you persist with this attempt at gaslighting when there are plenty other things to criticize him on?

It is almost like you feel the need to project your failing (partisan considerations only) on to him and to try to demonize him with your limitation.

it is a very dishonest tactic uke. Do you not see it? Trudeau hate does not mean someone will not ever vote for any Liberal or NDP candidate.

Wait... what gif.

uke says he understands economics and laughs at those who do not understand that if Price goes up the demand will drop. He laughs as if that is ABC basics and simple and you do not have to step back and look at the broader factors driving this and how demand, may not in FACT go down and instead the result will be you (Germany) end up instead brining in more polluting and more expensive Russian oil.

Tell me uke's understanding would not create the same situation here as he would applaud slowing Cdn O&G and making it more expensive and polluting in the belief it will drive down US and world wide demand, but instead will just result in more shale and again, Russian product filling the gap, in a more expensive and more polluting way.

Tell me the left arguments that uke has bought wholesale cannot be this shortsighted as uke is laughing at the rest of us for not getting what he thinks are 'basic economic principles'.

Just give him a few minutes here as he types out a reply speaking to economic principles he thinks he has a tight understanding of while he ignores the broader more macro factors at play.

Sorry bud, but you don't get to redefine how our system works. The winner - the person who becomes the prime minister, who forms government, who runs the country - is Trudeau. The conservatives are the loser. Sure, a majority is stronger than a majority, but winning is winning and it is just silly to say things like "can't beat...." for the person who became the prime minister. Besides, it isn't clear what (if anything?) Trudeau would have done differently policy wise in the last mandate if he had a majority versus having to be supported by the NDP, he got at least the vast majority of the policies he would have liked. Huge win!

This isn't the criticism. Firstly, lozen is more "Trudeau hating" than partisan. But more importantly, I don't have the conflict between voting and values that lozen does. I don't have conservative values. I'm very unlikely to vote for a conservative politician (although am pretty non-partisan between the other three). But lozen does have liberal values, a lot of them actually. For instance, he often puts climate change as one of the first big issues he claims to support. Yet he will vote for the worst party on the issue he putatively cares about. And he will make relentless terrible talking points like the WHATABOUT Montreal didn't it dump raw sewage during that construction project over and over and over again to try and justify it when the reality is it is just his blind seething hatred of Trudeau not any of these talking points.

Correct, very simple and basic. If you believe it doesn't apply - if you want to magically hand wave it away - then you owe a significant explanation as to why this specific commodity ignores basic economics. That you haven't even tried is telling.



See the "will just result" part? Nobody doubts that one consequence will be other conventional energy sources coming online at the higher price point (whether that actually increases GHG/barrel is much more dubious given the tar sands high GHG/barrel anyways). However, the "just results" part is where you keep ****ing up. Higher prices are likely to also put downward pressure on consumption. Higher prices are likely to also put upward pressure on alternative energies that are now more price competitive. If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that the single and only consequence of higher energy prices is a complete one-to-one replacement by other conventional sources with absolutely zero demand destruction and absolutely zero replacement by alternative energies then that's on you.

Alberta records record overdose deaths in 2021 of 1758 That is close to Covid Death numbers . BC at 2200

https://www.mymcmurray.com/2022/03/1...rug-overdoses/

My guess these will only get worse and I have no clue what the solution is

Not interested in your gaslighting uke. I explain it constantly, then you ignore it and say I did not over and over again.

Quite simply you are looking solely at a micro effect while ignoring the macro.

If the WORLD demand exceeds the supply currently and there is MORE shale and Russian O&G ready to come on stream to fill any downtown you ARE NOT reducing demand Worldwide, by increasing the price of CDn product and making it more polluting. You just shift that supply to another, worse, party.


You are incapable of understanding that economic premise within the broader you see.

If my prior company drove up prices and supplied less for our products that DOES NOT mean demand for those products globally will drop. It means the product we don't sell will go to one of our competitors instead.

You, uke, would celebrate that thinking you got a win. You would be so sure you understand some economic concept that 'of course if you prices go up, demand will go down', but again that is because you are a creature of the naïve left. You don't know what you don't know and you are incapable of learning when it bumps into your ideology so you will continue to repeat your flawed economics while thinking they are clear.

No, Cuepee, supply and demand curves are macroeconomic phenomena. That rising prices results in a lower quantity demanded on the demand curve is just as macro economic reality.

This is just economic blabber. Neither demand nor supply are fixed things. They both depend on price. YOU posted the demand and supply curves, you should know this! Statements like "Demand exceeds supply" don't have meaning to them absent any discussion of price. Basic macro 101 here is that at any price point you get an equilibrium and as the price changes so too does the equilibrium. You have some vaguely correct ideas that ONE part of how a new equilibrium is reached at a new price point is that the higher prices pressures more quantities supplied, indeed!. But the other part of that is that higher prices pressures a demand destruction where lower quantities are demanded at the higher price. Throughout this entire conversation you have utterly ignored how central price is to basic macroeconomic theory and seem to only acknowledge one side of how those equilibriums are reached.

Even on this factor, you screw up. Yes, part of reaching a new equilibrium at a higher price might be other sources of energy coming online. But those can be alternative sources of energy too! Indeed, the higher the price of oil, the more competitive alternative energy products are. If we want lots of alternative energy coming from the market and not just government fiat, then we want a high price of oil!

Ultimately, you can't pump less oil by pumping more. Wish it were that easy.

Regarding gas prices, my company has found up to 40% of full time drivers would seriously consider purchasing electric before end of year if gas prices rose and stayed above 3$/litre. Over $4 and that rises to 53%. $5/litre and over 60% (64%) would seriously consider buying an electric vehicle before end of year. Over 70% would look to tesla as their first option. Those numbers drop off a cliff if gas prices are expected to drop below $3 and remain

All Greater Toronto Area respondents total 250 in retail sample setting. This will be public in May and larger groups are to follow

The issue remains can they buy one and that for optimal charging they need to add a 240 volt plug to their garage . I know with every new house I build I automatically wire in for that and it was nice to see a buyer of one had a tesla and was very happy when he saw the 240 volt plug .

I have no doubt that city dwellers will consider an electric vehicle especially with the new Ford Lighting coming out as well