My goodness, you answered your own question in your post and didn't realize it. One of the biggest factors for decline in emissions during the Harper years was because coal was being displaced in Canada as well (if you want to give any political credit it, give that primarily to the liberal government of ontario during that time). Now that very little thermal coal is used, that isn't a mechanism that can be repeated for easy emissions drops in the future.

I'm not quite sure why you fail to understand the basic concept of a difference between absolute changes and relative changes. Many factors in the economy affect emissions. The carbon tax makes a relative decrease. But a new politician getting elected doesn't magically make them entirely responsible for all absolute changes incorporating all effects. All I really ask is that you make your points in at least a somewhat intellectually honest way. If you are going to cite a time period of 2005-2020 then obviously you can't use this to dismiss the carbon tax that just barely got going at its lowest point in the last moment of that time period. If you are going to only look at 2016 onwards, you have to look at all the macro changes not just a single factor. Instead, the intellectually honest way to evaluate a politician is whether they are implementing policies that contribute to relative declines.

It's clear that Canada embraced natural gas before the USA . Natural gas replaced coal because it's cheaper bottom line .

The problem is all that natural gas that replaced coal did not effect the coal being mined . Yes many states restricted shipping coal through thier ports .
Sadly all that coal goes through BC ports so you still have all the emissions but in another country.

3 months ago I thought PP couldn't win. Starting to think he can if he softens a bit on abortion.

Wow any more straws you want to grasp? What mechanism is the USA currently using to lower emissions so much more than Canada?

Grasping at more straws eh, you claimed Trudeau has failed at lowering emissions because he was fixing Harpers failed policies. So Harper's economic recession had an affect on his emissions but a global pandemic where people stayed home everyday didn't?


This is just embarrassing, you really shouldn't be so pretentious about topics you have no idea about. It's amazing how other zealots ITT just lap up the nonsense you spew. Those dates weren't "cherry picked" it's the dates Canada/USA among other countries agreed to in the Copenhagen Accord.

It baffles me that Uke can not accept the fact that we have the worst record of lowering emissions in the G7 . It should be easy to do as Harper did nothing according to Uke. Trump came in after Obama a climate change president.
The reality is JT has had 7 years and done nothing because he is a climate phony .

You really do get lost easy. The criticism was that it was outrageous to be talking about the carbon tax - which came in 2019 - for a date range of 2005-2020. There are many factors at play in that period that affect Canada vs the US emissions, but the carbon tax is something that will make an increasing difference through the 2020s and beyond, it can't go backwards in time. Hold on, is that the confusion? You realize time goes forward.....right? Gotta check the basics with you!

I have no idea what you are rambling on about, but no I didn't make that claim. Harper spent a decade doing very little on limiting emissions. Canada broadly did poorly during this period. Trudeau has started to put in place meaningful policies that will make a difference, but of course there are many other economic factors involved too which is why we look at relative differences not absolute differences. Basic, basic stuff Shifty.

Odd how poorly you predict me, still. I'm very aware of Canada's poor record lowering emissions. This is why we must act. We should have had the carbon tax or equivalent policy a decade ago and be at the 2030 pricing levels today. But we didn't. And as a geographically large, cold, and resource-extraction based economy, we are going to have a lot of emissions and have a lot of work to do to bring them down. . Far from "not accepting the fact", the fact is crucial to my calls for action. You are exactly backwards.

Justin Trudeau has started that work. It is a good first step. A step the conservatives you voted for before should have done and a step the conservatives you plan to vote for will try to undo. But the claim that the nascent carbon tax currently at its lowest levels didn't magically bring the 2005-2020 emissions under control is just idiocy.

Yup. I know you love that example. You always forget to mention that this passthrough of coal (neither produced nor consumed in Canada, just shipped through it), was something created by the conservatives you supported, is still supported by the conservatives today, and that the person who has pledged to end that is Justin Trudeau. So yes, THANK YOU to Justin Trudeau for being willing to do that, and to do that on the exact same timeline as all the other climate policies despite the port having a vastly longer operational life.

Sadly you forget I only voted for Harper the first time. Every election after that I voted for NDP, Green or Liberal Party

Reality I use that example as it was the easiest thing to get rid of with a minimal impact on jobs. If that Coal was going through Alberta ports (yes I know we have none) it would have been eliminated immediately as no votes here


Slightly off the topic is Carbon Footprints. I look at your fair province they are going Net Zero by 2032 on all new homes. Which means all those homes that are un affordable now will cost even more to construct. Yet the Granite counter tops in that home carbon footprint is larger than all that power that home would consume in its lifetime. I think looking at carbon footprints has to be considered in any climate strategy

Nothing to soften as the Conservatives have stated its not a topic they want to further look at. Your just believing Trudeau's campaign lie

I'm not sure how this helps your rather selective story-telling where you pretend the pass through of coal neither mined nor consumed in Canada wasn't a failing of the conservatives. This is purely a story of conservatives doing the wrong thing - and pledging to continue doing the wrong thing with you supporting them - and liberals doing the right thing.

I feel like "but but but Trudeau could have closed the plant a few years earlier" is pretty weak sauce compared to the above. I'd be fine with it closing one day after Harper was booted from office. But I also get that it is pretty terrible for the investment climate to have that kind of whip-lash policy where a port is opened by one government and immediately closed by the next. It sets a bad tone for the entire investment climate, and I think closing it on the same timeframe as everything else to do with thermal coal made sense. It is still going to be closed well before its operational life, and that is a reasonable enough compromise.

I don't know if your stat is correct (transporting that granite is more CO2 than a lifetime of natural gas heating? really?) but sure, if this is true, then I'm happy to naively support adjusting building codes that reduce the carbon footprint of the materials in the homes.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/pro...ncial-hit.html


Doug Ford will cut development fees on affordable housing, but municipalities could take a financial hit

So we'll make concrete high rises, yet never question the amount of people we are on track to bring in. Granted our economy relies on continuous population growth, but do we just keep bringing in more and more immigrants as our larger and larger population retires and requires new blood to pay into the same pensions and society that they did?

What choice do you have ? We do not have enough doctors, nurses, and trades. Reality is if you go to fast food outlet or retail it seems to be immigrants. Kids do not want those jobs anymore.

Legal Immigration I am 100% for

Alberta will see a new leader and you may see the total collapse of the UCP party. Seems to be three favorites
Towes ( Kenney like)
Danielle Smith farther right
Brian Jean Farther right

My guess is Danielle Smith wins it

Reality is Alberta is looking at another NDP party being elected in 2024 .

Yes. YES.

That was the pervisity of the Trump model of immigration.

The way gov't operates and countries operate is the continuous addition of Debt which is based on increases in population and economy growth to pay it back and keep it manageable.

You cannot make moves to stop migration and to block and slow down most channels of legal migration while at the same time causing a contraction in population growth. Those are not tenable strategies to stack. And worse if while you are doing that, you are ballooning the debt. That is a recipe for future bankruptcy. I know this is the Canada thread but the best way to see the error is to look at what Trump was trying to do, and as the master of Bankruptcy, that was the course he was setting the US up for in the future.


It would be possible for a society/country to manage population decline, if they were so anti immigrant, and that would be by telling all current citizens we are going into a long period of austerity. Belt tightening, no deficits and debt paydowns over the next few decades. Then as population numbers shrunk the remaining economic activity would be enough to pay the obligations going forward.

But no citizen wants that. They want their cake and eat it too, via the Trump model. Let me feel rich today, while blocking all immigration and let citizens in the future deal with the debt wall and looming bankruptcy.

FYP

As to what choice do we have? Well if we're going to continue the fallacy that we've got a world-class health care system and that all that is required is further funding (and some more foreign workers), then we're ****ed eventually and any choice we make is pointless: demographics will be our undoing.

Are we complaining about immigrants again?

Oh I would agree with that. The health care system thanks to Opioids and Obesity and a aging population is screwed

Not me I am 100 % for legal immigration

Never. It is a given that more immigration = a good thing. Those who disagree are obviously racist.

This isn't about being racist, it's about ignorance. Those two just happen to go hand in hand. Next time you go to Tim Hortons, or Walmart, and complain about immigrants in your head, ask yourself why there are hardly any middle aged male immigrants working there. Do you know why that is? Do you know how many are here for economic reasons opposed to refugees? Do you know it's 2022 and not 1972. Do you know immigrants can't even leave the airport without a minimum balance in their account. I could go on but don't want to overwhelm you

Lozen, what's your opinion on Justin's stance with Hockey Canada

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-abuse-scandal

Why would going to Walmart or Tims make someone complain about immigration? Because of the lines?

Why does the break down of why people come to the country matter when the point I was making had nothing to do with the number of refugees vs. economic immigrants vs. sponsored immigrants?

But you do give an excellent example of why there is no immigration debate: you knee jerk to me being ignorant, if not racist, and claim that you could educate me on this, if only I wasn't so easily overwhelmed. All political parties will continue with the status quo, for it's temporarily good for the economy, along with the fear of being painted racist.

Anybody complaining about immigrants IS IGNORANT of what they bring to this country. I'm not assuming I know.

Temporarily good for the economy??? You're so lost here I can't continue. There is no future economy without immigrants. I bet that really grinds your gears. Poor soul doesn't even know what he's arguing

I have no issue with his opinion here. He probably knows more than we do.
The slush fund is disgusting and I am still baffled no criminal investigation or charges.

I think having a woman at the helm of Hockey Canada is a good thing and do you need to disband it I am not sure .