• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

diaspora

Member
SRG01 said:
I recognize some of those neighborhoods. Holy shit...



Despite differences in politics, I never wish ill-will on anyone's personal life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but still...

UJKmDAt.gif
 
K

Kifimbo

Member
Regarding Fort McMurray, it looks like a major part of the city will be gone. It's like the 5th biggest city in Alberta.

The only way out is North.
 
U

UristMcDwarf

Member
I used to live there, couple of friends in the Anzac area. They're safe, but my company has some workers there that are being evacuated. Stay safe Fort Mac Gaf!
 
B

Boogie

Member
I have two troopmates in Fort Mac. One's a GAF lurker, actually. They are....quite busy at the moment, as you can imagine.


Walpurgis said:
That's fine with me. I don't believe in that impractical nonsense.
Click to expand...

Oh friend, you're getting to be more entertaining than gutter trash.

"Voting is impractical nonsense. I'm going to keep making a real difference by posting a lot on GAF."
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
pr0cs said:
And how do you propose getting those hydrocarbons to market then? You can't say "we shouldn't even bother". There is still too much riding economically on the sale of these products.
The fact is that for the foreseeable future we still need to get the product to market and a pipeline is the safest, wisest choice.
Even if the market value is in the toilet I'm sure Canadian citizens would like cheap gas and the derivatives of oil that pipelines could provide... But of course that is overlooked
Click to expand...

pr0cs said:
And to fill in for the missing demand import oil huh?
Click to expand...

I hate how the debate is limited this way.

"I don't think we should have pipelines, because the entire oil extraction industry is terrible for our future."

"Well where's the oil going to come from then, huh? And how else are we going to make up that money?"

It doesn't come from anywhere, and we don't make up all that money. That's the point. It's a little bit of economic sacrifice to make everyone's lives better overall. The fact that most people -- from all parties, across the spectrum -- start from the same basic premise of "We need pipelines no matter what!" and refuse to budge from it means that we're not going to make any meaningful headway on climate change issues.

Another sure sign that we're not going to have any meaningful action on climate change any time soon: when the PM can't even acknowledge that climate change may one of the contributing factors to the fact Alberta is burning down. I'm not saying that he should've gone full-on "Ha ha, Fort Mac, you had this coming because of your politics", but the fact that no one prominent in this country
sorry Elizabeth May
is willing to tie the massive forest fires in recent years to climate change is pretty disheartening.
 
E

etta

my hard graphic balls
So what's this about the 2016 Census? Is it still 1/3 of the households, those who receive it in the mail that have to do it? I just read that you can get fined $500 or jailed up to 3 months if you refuse to do it lmao.
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
etta said:
So what's this about the 2016 Census? Is it still 1/3 of the households who receive it in mail that have to do it? I just read that you can get fined $500 or jailed up to 3 months if you refuse to do it lmao.
Click to expand...

Everyone has to do it. 1/4 households get the long form, which is 7 pages long. But if you get the one page version you still have to do it.

You know, a census. Where everyone answers. That's the point.

matthewwhatever said:
I hate how the debate is limited this way.

"I don't think we should have pipelines, because the entire oil extraction industry is terrible for our future."

"Well where's the oil going to come from then, huh? And how else are we going to make up that money?"

It doesn't come from anywhere, and we don't make up all that money. That's the point. It's a little bit of economic sacrifice to make everyone's lives better overall. The fact that most people -- from all parties, across the spectrum -- start from the same basic premise of "We need pipelines no matter what!" and refuse to budge from it means that we're not going to make any meaningful headway on climate change issues.

Another sure sign that we're not going to have any meaningful action on climate change any time soon: when the PM can't even acknowledge that climate change may one of the contributing factors to the fact Alberta is burning down. I'm not saying that he should've gone full-on "Ha ha, Fort Mac, you had this coming because of your politics", but the fact that no one prominent in this country
sorry Elizabeth May
is willing to tie the massive forest fires in recent years to climate change is pretty disheartening.
Click to expand...

Ehh. It's nice and all you want people to make an economic sacrifice for a good cause (that I agree with), but that's pretty easy to say when you're not the one making it directly. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's not at all a winning argument.

I'm curious how you think Alberta extracting less oil (short of extracting none at all, which would be an economic disaster) will make everyone's lives better overall, though. Do you think Alberta's portion of the supply of oil is enough to adjust price up or supply meaningfully down? Though obviously oil extraction has an environmental impact of its own, so do most kinds of industry. I'm very skeptical of a supply-side solution to climate change (though, obviously, there is perhaps some bias here. But note that my own income is not at all related to the oil industry).
 
E

etta

my hard graphic balls
maharg said:
Everyone has to do it. 1/4 households get the long form, which is 7 pages long. But if you get the one page version you still have to do it.

You know, a census. Where everyone answers. That's the point.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, and when is the due date? We haven't received anything in the mail. Does it start on May 10 or end?
 
P

Pedrito

Member
matthewwhatever said:
Another sure sign that we're not going to have any meaningful action on climate change any time soon: when the PM can't even acknowledge that climate change may one of the contributing factors to the fact Alberta is burning down. I'm not saying that he should've gone full-on "Ha ha, Fort Mac, you had this coming because of your politics", but the fact that no one prominent in this country
sorry Elizabeth May
is willing to tie the massive forest fires in recent years to climate change is pretty disheartening.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Using a tragedy for political gains is never okay, at least when it's currently happening. In a few weeks, we'll see. Trudeau would have been crucified if he had even implied that climate change was involded in this, especially in Alberta. You know the usual suspects were just waiting for a slip. It's also impossible to prove. Forest fires have been happening forever.

Still, It's quite ironic that a city that has been described as the poster child of the fossil fuel industry is being destroyed by a gigantic forest fire at the beginning of May. It's at least more ironic than rain on your wedding day.
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
It's also probably worth noting that this is an El Nino year, so it being unseasonably warm in Alberta is expected. It was almost this warm last time in 1997. That was a glorious winter.
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
maharg said:
Ehh. It's nice and all you want people to make an economic sacrifice for a good cause (that I agree with), but that's pretty easy to say when you're not the one making it directly. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's not at all a winning argument.

I'm curious how you think Alberta extracting less oil (short of extracting none at all, which would be an economic disaster) will make everyone's lives better overall, though. Do you think Alberta's portion of the supply of oil is enough to adjust price up or supply meaningfully down? Though obviously oil extraction has an environmental impact of its own, so do most kinds of industry. I'm very skeptical of a supply-side solution to climate change (though, obviously, there is perhaps some bias here. But note that my own income is not at all related to the oil industry).
Click to expand...

I know it's a difficult argument to make, since no one wants to be the one to say that we need to make do with less, but...well, it's the truth. I was working at an event with our Environment Minister and the US EPA Administrator a few weeks ago, and both of them kept emphasizing how we can combat climate change without sacrificing any economic growth. I feel like that's the environmental equivalent of Bush post-9/11, telling people that the only thing they had to do in the so-called War on Terror was keep shopping. It's a lazy way of dealing with a major problem, and like I said, unless some people other than Elizabeth May are willing to talk about what needs to be done to get to a low-carbon economy, it's not going to happen.

And I meant that Alberta extracting less oil would make people's lives better from an environmental perspective. Economically, obviously, it would require some major adjustments.

Pedrito said:
I disagree. Using a tragedy for political gains is never okay, at least when it's currently happening. In a few weeks, we'll see. Trudeau would have been crucified if he had even implied that climate change was involded in this, especially in Alberta. You know the usual suspects were just waiting for a slip. It's also impossible to prove. Forest fires have been happening forever.
Click to expand...

Let's see. Quick Google search...
Natural Resources Canada said:
Fire-prone conditions are predicted to increase across Canada. This could potentially result in a doubling of the amount of area burned by the end of this century, compared with amounts burned in recent decades. Boreal forests, which have been greatly influenced by fire through history, will likely be especially affected by this change.

Other climate change impacts that could add damaged or dead wood to the forest fuel load (for example, as a result of insect outbreaks, ice storms or high winds) may increase the risk of fire activity.
Click to expand...
Globe and Mail said:
There is no question, he says, that climate change is increasing the fire risk. Simply put, longer periods of warmer weather will quickly dry out the forests, making them more susceptible to lightning strikes or human-caused fires.
Click to expand...
University of Alberta Professor of Woodland Fire said:
Fire activity is strongly influenced by four factors: weather/climate, fuels, ignition agents and human activities. Recently, our climate has been warming as a result of increases of radiatively active gases (carbon dioxide, methane etc.) in the atmosphere caused by human activities (IPCC 2007). Such warming is likely to have a rapid and profound impact on fire activity in the boreal forests.
Click to expand...
Nature Communications said:
Climate strongly influences global wildfire activity, and recent wildfire surges may signal fire weather-induced pyrogeographic shifts.
Click to expand...
(Or, as Time puts it, "Increasingly hot and dry climates, the result of global climate change, have led to a worsening of wildfires around the world.")

I'm not saying Trudeau should've stood there and said that Alberta had it coming -- I full recognize that, as Vice put it, Climate Change Was a Factor in the Fort McMurray Wildfire but You Don’t Have to Be an Asshole About It -- but I don't see much difference between saying we shouldn't talk about climate change here and people saying that mass shootings aren't the time to talk about gun control. I'd think that this is exactly the time to be thinking about it, since odds are good it's going to be happening pretty regularly the warmer our planet gets.
 
Prax

Prax

Member
etta said:
Hmmm, and when is the due date? We haven't received anything in the mail. Does it start on May 10 or end?
Click to expand...

Seems like the due date was May 10 from what I read on the short form. Mine just looks like a beige envelope like this:
census-letter.jpg
Click to expand...
I got my census form/code on May 2, I think. It won't be directly addressed to you but just by unit/whoever lives there.

I think if you don't complete it by June or whatever, another person will come or call to give you one, I think. I'm sure they wont' fine or penalize you unless you're directly trying to escape multiple times. lol
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
matthewwhatever said:
And I meant that Alberta extracting less oil would make people's lives better from an environmental perspective. Economically, obviously, it would require some major adjustments.
Click to expand...

I know you did. I'm asking how you see that working. How does Alberta extracting less lead to reduced demand for oil?
 
S

Silexx

Member
maharg said:
I know you did. I'm asking how you see that working. How does Alberta extracting less lead to reduced demand for oil?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Canada is in no position to make any impact in global demand for oil. Reducing our output just means that someone else will pick up the slack, that 'someone else' most likely being OPEC. And if OPEC starts supplying more of its oil, that just means the Saudis become that much more influential on the world stage.

I don't see how that serves anyone's interests, especially climate change advocates.
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
We only contributed to 2% of the counter-ISIL/Daesh mission, so we pulled out of that. We only make up a small percentage of NATO's overall forces, so we don't even bother to try and meet our stated goal of 2% of our spending there. Is that the kind of thinking we really want to engage in? We're also only about 2% of the global GDP...maybe we should just sit out of trade agreements, since we're really not that important in the big scheme of things? I mean, if you want all our policies to be guided by "Canada only is only responsible for X amount of Y, therefore we shouldn't even bother", then you're totally welcome to that, but I'm not sure that having such a fatalistic foreign policy would help us much.

As for how to reduce the demand for oil...same way other countries are doing it: by taking steps to achieve that. We could invest in green technology, incentivize better behaviours, actively work to restrict pollution...there are lots of ways to move to a lower carbon economy. It's not easy, but collectively throwing up our hands and saying that Canada doesn't really matter on a global scale is just lazy.

EDIT: when Saudi Arabia is publicly committing to a green economy, while we're sitting around debating about whether we should maybe think about diversifying ours a little, someday, eventually...I don't know, that strikes me as kind of pathetic.
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
matthewwhatever said:
We only contributed to 2% of the counter-ISIL/Daesh mission, so we pulled out of that. We only make up a small percentage of NATO's overall forces, so we don't even bother to try and meet our stated goal of 2% of our spending there. Is that the kind of thinking we really want to engage in? We're also only about 2% of the global GDP...maybe we should just sit out of trade agreements, since we're really not that important in the big scheme of things? I mean, if you want all our policies to be guided by "Canada only is only responsible for X amount of Y, therefore we shouldn't even bother", then you're totally welcome to that, but I'm not sure that having such a fatalistic foreign policy would help us much.
Click to expand...

I am not, as Silexx is, implying only that our contribution is too small (though I do think that's a factor). I would ask the same of any oil producing country. I do not see how forcing a reduction in the supply can reduce demand, and without a concerted world effort I don't see how overall supply can be reduced without aiming square on at demand first. And that seems like something to strive for.

As for how to reduce the demand for oil...same way other countries are doing it: by taking steps to achieve that. We could invest in green technology, incentivize better behaviours, actively work to restrict pollution...there are lots of ways to move to a lower carbon economy. It's not easy, but collectively throwing up our hands and saying that Canada doesn't really matter on a global scale is just lazy.
Click to expand...

You're still disconnecting the questions: I am absolutely in favour of finding ways to reduce our own demand for oil and to encourage reduced demand elsewhere. Absolutely completely utterly in favour. I want to know how you see forcing the supply side working reducing demand in any realistic sense. You are dancing around that question like crazy.

Further, do you also feel this way about manufacturing? Ontario seems to always be wishing for the good old days of manufacturing cars. There's a pretty huge carbon footprint there, and it contributes directly to one of the most wasteful ways oil is used. Should all the auto manufacturers shut down?

I think you're still avoiding the fact that your perspective skews you to solving this problem in ways that seem easy for you because the economic impact of following through on your suggestion isn't your cross to bear, but they're a lot more complex than you're implying.
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
Point taken about Ontario, though a) I don't see why we couldn't incentivize a production shift to electric cars, and b) the auto industry here is going to be dead in a few years anyway, so I'm not sure the situation is totally analogous.

As for your point -- which I'm honestly not trying to dance around -- I don't see why it has to be all about one side or the other. Why can't we push to lessen demand, while at the same time taking steps on the supply side to do our part?
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
There's a big difference between incentivizing a particular kind of industry and taking steps to explicitly limit a particular kind of industry. One keeps money flowing in an economy and the other stops or limits its flow. There are significant economic consequences to stalling industry growth without providing something else to balance it out.

I don't think it's wrong to want Alberta to produce less oil in the end, but I think how you get there matters a lot, because it affects a lot of people who are just trying to do the best they can. For the most part we can manipulate our own demand in ways that create opportunities. Just punitively pushing the oil industry to shut down or shrink doesn't do that, it just puts a lot of people out of work.

I don't think it's an either-or thing. I think it's a "you'd better have a solid idea why you're doing this" thing. If I were convinced it would have a meaningful impact on world oil use, even symbolically, I'd be more keen on it and I wouldn't suddenly decide fixing the demand side wasn't important any more. But that case really needs to be made really really well before I'll be willing to agree that forcing any province to kill an industry it relies on right now is a good idea.
 
E

etta

my hard graphic balls
Prax said:
Seems like the due date was May 10 from what I read on the short form. Mine just looks like a beige envelope like this:

I got my census form/code on May 2, I think. It won't be directly addressed to you but just by unit/whoever lives there.

I think if you don't complete it by June or whatever, another person will come or call to give you one, I think. I'm sure they wont' fine or penalize you unless you're directly trying to escape multiple times. lol
Click to expand...

Oh I see, makes sense.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Weather in Fort Mac should cool by tomorrow and early next week but no rain in sight at all.

Temperature is forecasted to rise back up at the end of the week.


This disaster is horrible.
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
Electoral Reform Committee has been struck, and the Liberals have revealed the motion that will bring it into being. The Committee will have 12 members, but only 10 voting members -- the Greens and Bloc get ex-officio seats that allow them to participate in the hearings, but not have any votes.


maharg said:
I don't think it's an either-or thing. I think it's a "you'd better have a solid idea why you're doing this" thing. If I were convinced it would have a meaningful impact on world oil use, even symbolically, I'd be more keen on it and I wouldn't suddenly decide fixing the demand side wasn't important any more. But that case really needs to be made really really well before I'll be willing to agree that forcing any province to kill an industry it relies on right now is a good idea.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is the same argument that the Conservatives used for so long against coming up with climate change strategy or targets, and it was the argument the Republicans used against the Obama signing a climate treaty with China -- that one side acting does nothing since no one else will follow suit. Considering that the world in general seems to be moving towards greening their industries, I think it's less "we're forcing Alberta to kill their primary industry", more "these jobs are going away in the very near future, so it's better to get ahead of that than to be lagging behind, unless we want an entire province to go the way of Asbestos, Quebec."
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
matthewwhatever said:
Electoral Reform Committee has been struck, and the Liberals have revealed the motion that will bring it into being. The Committee will have 12 members, but only 10 voting members -- the Greens and Bloc get ex-officio seats that allow them to participate in the hearings, but not have any votes.
Click to expand...

Nothing there about the actual makeup of the 10 voting members? Or am I missing something?

I feel like this is the same argument that the Conservatives used for so long against coming up with climate change strategy or targets, and it was the argument the Republicans used against the Obama signing a climate treaty with China -- that one side acting does nothing since no one else will follow suit. Considering that the world in general seems to be moving towards greening their industries, I think it's less "we're forcing Alberta to kill their primary industry", more "these jobs are going away in the very near future, so it's better to get ahead of that than to be lagging behind, unless we want an entire province to go the way of Asbestos, Quebec."
Click to expand...

On the contrary, how it worked with asbestos is exactly how it needs to go, and doesn't even remotely resemble the situation today with oil. Asbestos was phased out on the *demand* side by making its more dangerous uses (in homes and offices) illegal, for entirely obvious and valid reasons. That eventually impacted the supply side in obvious ways, and the fate of asbestos mining had been on the wall for a very very long time.

If you can't tell me how Alberta stopping extraction of oil will change the amount of oil used in the world, you are not making a case for why it should be shut down above and beyond any other particular heavy industry. Get use down and extraction will become unprofitable and it will end on its own. Just like it eventually did with asbestos.

Also note that Alberta is doing an absolutely huge thing to drastically reduce it's carbon footprint: ending coal power generation (currently the main source of power generation in Alberta by far). This accounted for almost as much of our carbon footprint as the oilsands last time it was tallied and is a huge part of how Ontario reduced its footprint in the 2000s (afaik).
 
pr0cs

pr0cs

Member
The forests near Fort Mac are also very old meaning a lot of fuel sitting and waiting, couple that with El nino and you have a ticking firebomb.
Saying that the oilsands has had a direct impact on reason why the fire started is idiocy at its finest and par for the course for the climate change evangelists.

Forests have to burn, that's how they renew themselves... Trees do not live forever. Just that we never got to control burn them and when they did burn it turned into a beast
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
pr0cs said:
The forests near Fort Mac are also very old meaning a lot of fuel sitting and waiting, couple that with El nino and you have a ticking firebomb.
Saying that the oilsands has had a direct impact on reason why the fire started is idiocy at its finest and par for the course for the climate change evangelists.

Forests have to burn, that's how they renew themselves... Trees do not live forever. Just that we never got to control burn them and when they did burn it turned into a beast
Click to expand...

I mean, on the one hand, you have all that research from a wide variety of sources linking increased extreme weather events like forest fires to climate change. On the other hand, there's your reasoned argument of "Enh, it just happens, you idiot." I know you've convinced me!
 
D

diaspora

Member
matthewwhatever said:
I mean, on the one hand, you have all that research from a wide variety of sources linking increased extreme weather events like forest fires to climate change. On the other hand, there's your reasoned argument of "Enh, it just happens, you idiot." I know you've convinced me!
Click to expand...

Can't it be both? :p
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
SRG01 said:
I read earlier this morning: 6 Liberal members, 3 Conservative, 1 NDP.
Click to expand...

Ugh. All my hope just flew out the window. Gutter_trash almost certainly gets his wish.

edit to clarify: Determining membership of this committee based on house representation just guarantees that the problems endemic in non-proportional representation will also dog this committee. No matter who's chairing it and how much I believe they have people's best interests in mind, I expect the results of a non-proportional committee to be in favour of non-proportionality.
 
pr0cs

pr0cs

Member
matthewwhatever said:
I mean, on the one hand, you have all that research from a wide variety of sources linking increased extreme weather events like forest fires to climate change. On the other hand, there's your reasoned argument of "Enh, it just happens, you idiot." I know you've convinced me!
Click to expand...
You have proof or evidence that the suncor project is a direct result of the fires?
You really need to bring it to the authorities then because I would imagine that a large lawsuit would be incoming
 
S

SRG01

Member
matthewwhatever said:
I mean, on the one hand, you have all that research from a wide variety of sources linking increased extreme weather events like forest fires to climate change. On the other hand, there's your reasoned argument of "Enh, it just happens, you idiot." I know you've convinced me!
Click to expand...

Someone posted a link/evidence on another site -- which I can't find in my browser history anymore :( -- which mentioned that modern firefighting techniques are actually increasing the risk of large wildfires because of the lackluster effort to clear out old deadwood in existing areas.
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
I'll just point to the links on the last page that suggested a connection between the increase in the numbers of wildfires over the last few decades and climate change. I've seen several more stories that highlight the connection that rely on facts and sources in the last few days. The only pieces I've seen that stray from that point of view are either completely devoid of facts, or cherry-picking and misrepresenting random statements.

pr0cs said:
You have proof or evidence that the suncor project is a direct result of the fires?
You really need to bring it to the authorities then because I would imagine that a large lawsuit would be incoming
Click to expand...

I don't traffic in nonsense conspiracy theories, so I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.
 
P

Pedrito

Member
I'm surprised (not really) by the lack of political savy of the Liberals on electoral reform. A committee based on percentage of votes received would have been a great gesture to start things off. The NDP and Green want the end of FPTP the most and would vote with the Liberals anyway. And if they don't, you can blame them during the next election.

Instead, we'll get months/years of the CPC talking about a dictatorial move by the PLC to stay in power forever. I can't wait for the Justin Putin and Justin Erdogan image macros.
 
pr0cs

pr0cs

Member
matthewwhatever said:
I don't traffic in nonsense conspiracy theories, so I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.
Click to expand...
Your previous statements suggested that the oil sands were a direct cause of the fires.
If you believe that you have evidence of that you should come forward
 
M

matthewwhatever

Member
pr0cs said:
Your previous statements suggested that the oil sands were a direct cause of the fires.
If you believe that you have evidence of that you should come forward
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is truly atrocious.

EDIT: By which I mean, I've posted several links to studies and stories that show a connection between climate change and wildfires. If the entirety of your argument is "You're an idiot! Developing the tar sands has had no impact on the climate!", then it's on you to show that. I'm not going to waste my time doing your work for you.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Preferential ballot is nul if any candidate reaches over 50% in their riding on Rank 1 votes

so if Candidate X receives 50%+ votes for Rank 1 votes, then candidate X wins regardless of the number rank 2 votes for others.

Preferential ballot kicks in if Candidate X and other fall below 50%- of Rank 1 votes.
Then Rank 2 votes kick into gear
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Satya Nadella: Annual letter to stockholders. Content on new platforms will continue
4 5 6 7 8
352
19K
noob smokes replied
  • Locked
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
chromatic9 replied
Austrian Elections 2017 |OT| Voting right wing parties into parliament since 1949
4 5 6 7 8
377
43K
Red Arremer replied
German Federal Elections 2017 |OT| Electing the new leader of the free world
46 47 48 49 50
2K
288K
Green Yoshi replied
Scandal hits swedish government as info on citizens leak abroad
40
7K
hydrophilic attack replied
Top Bottom