Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Robert Greene

Don't Vote For Bernier

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Argus said:

No one is asking you to invest. The private sector will do that in order to profit off the oil, which will indeed be necessary for decades to come. Reducing reliance is fine, but let's not kid ourselves about how quickly that can happen. We need oil for all kinds of things quite aside from power - like plastic for a start, not to mention the asphalt on your bike path and the pollster in your bike pants. Only half of oil goes into gasoline., and world demand is rising, not falling, led by rapid industralization in places like China, India and Brazil.

Conservatives don't usually deny climate change is real. We instead do a cost benefit analyses of the proposed solution and don't like what we get. The cost is enormous, the benefit insignificant. Canada produces 1.6% of world emissions. Us cutting our emissions by 30%, as is the current goal, is a flea bite. China increased its emissions last year by effectively ALL Canada's emissions. So in a single year they increased their emissions by three times what we hope to reduce ours by over decades. India isn't far behind. The developing world is building hundreds of coal fired power stations.

Weighed against this, anything we do is meaningless.

We are NOT one of the highest polluters except in population terms. That's because we live in a very spread out and fully industrialized country with a very cold temperature. Comparing us on a per capita basis to someplace like Brazil or Taiwan is silly. 

1.6% of world emissions for 40 Million inhabitants is significant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Olijam said:

1.6% of world emissions for 40 Million inhabitants is significant. 

It's not significant on a world scale. And why measure it by inhabitants? How about by geographical area. By that measurement we're even lower on the scale.

In any event, nothing we do will have the slightest impact on global warming as long as China, Russia, India and the US largely ignore it except to pay lip service to the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, like pulling out of the UN.

Bernier has not said he would pull Canada out of the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

Which morals oh obtuse one.:rolleyes:

You asked who's moral standard not which moral standard.

4 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

Who''s moral standard? 

 I sure do hope the politicians having this discussion waste as much time avoiding direct questions as you - plays well into the strategy of forestalling the day Alberta ever gets its stupid pipelines built.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

There could be several instances when it is wrong. In the context of this thread, or Canadian political debate, when you are faking it.

Like someone who pretends to understand English? I can see what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

Do you have a quote for that, or is it acceptable to pull things from ones ass....who said they admired the Chinese again, does that make him a communist....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olijam said:

Argus, I hear you.. We are still reliant on oil, and we will be for some years. However, the idea is to reduce this reliance year after year until we only need renewable energy. Investing billions of dollars for pipeline is not something I want to keep as a legacy to my kids... And yes, the Canadian economy will suffer,  but I do not see any choice. You can deny that the climate change is real like conservatives do, but here in Montreal with the floods that are destroying our houses for the third year in a row, we have taken the decision that is the most ecological. 

Canada is one of the highest poluters in the world, and we are still arguing if we want to have a pipeline or not. I know made my choice. 

Do you guys know something that the rest of the country does not, How far out are we from finding a reliable, climate friendly, cheap energy source....is it 5 years out 10, 15, 20....who is funding this drive for this new tech, certainly not our carbon tax...and IF our government is funding it how much do we invest....you make it sound like it's right around the corner....It's not even close, unless your planning to let us in on the secret...Why should we make our economy suffer, when there is no solution even close ? why cry about the world ending when we are not really making an effort to curb our carbon foot print.....Sure we talk the talk, but we don't do squat, and if you think Justin climate plan is going to bring about a solution, then you might as well be a denier...there is NO benefit to any of his climate plan , shit even David Suzuki says Justin is full of shit....

I guess that the floods in Montreal are not due to poor planning by city planners, poor decisions by home owners to build flood proof yards or homes or move to another location..., poor decisions by governments to use tax dollars year after year to the same home owners that will spend our tax dollars rebuilding only to have to do it all again next spring....This flood in NB this year has finally got government talking  about relocation, and building infra structure to prevent flooding....it's only taken 50 years to get that far.... That sir is not climate change that is just bad decisions made year after year hoping for a different result....

Can you provide a source that states Canada is one of the highest polluters on the planet....or even one that places us in the top 10 or 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Do you guys know something that the rest of the country does not, How far out are we from finding a reliable, climate friendly, cheap energy source....is it 5 years out 10, 15, 20.

We probably would have found it 10 years ago but instead we acted as if you guys knew something that the vast VAST majority of scientists were ignorant of.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Do you guys know something that the rest of the country does not, How far out are we from finding a reliable, climate friendly, cheap energy source....is it 5 years out 10, 15, 20....who is funding this drive for this new tech, certainly not our carbon tax...and IF our government is funding it how much do we invest....you make it sound like it's right around the corner....It's not even close, unless your planning to let us in on the secret...Why should we make our economy suffer, when there is no solution even close ? why cry about the world ending when we are not really making an effort to curb our carbon foot print.....Sure we talk the talk, but we don't do squat, and if you think Justin climate plan is going to bring about a solution, then you might as well be a denier...there is NO benefit to any of his climate plan , shit even David Suzuki says Justin is full of shit....

I guess that the floods in Montreal are not due to poor planning by city planners, poor decisions by home owners to build flood proof yards or homes or move to another location..., poor decisions by governments to use tax dollars year after year to the same home owners that will spend our tax dollars rebuilding only to have to do it all again next spring....This flood in NB this year has finally got government talking  about relocation, and building infra structure to prevent flooding....it's only taken 50 years to get that far.... That sir is not climate change that is just bad decisions made year after year hoping for a different result....

Can you provide a source that states Canada is one of the highest polluters on the planet....or even one that places us in the top 10 or 20

It is no secret to anybody that Canada is one of the highest poluting countries in the world. 

In 2017 Canada was third most CO2 poluting country per capita (see link below) :

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

We like to play the ostrich, by closing our eyes and pretending things will go away. 

Yes because of our relatively small population it ends up being 1.6% of all emissions. 

We can go on saying that our preventive actions will not affect anything in the bigger scheme. That is such a egotistical logic. This planet is for everyone, and our actions should start by cleaning our own backyard and setting an example to the rest of the world. We control 30% of the fresh water of the world which make us even more responsible. 

The floods in Montréal are recent phenomena, and it is not the municipalities who are causing it. Yes they could have done better planning to alleviate the suffering of the citizen, but it will not solve the root cause of the problem. 

I care about the Canadian economy, but in the grander scheme of things I would rather suffer a strong recession for few years, and not see my home, city and country in ruin due to climate change. 

Why don't we use the money of the pipeline to invest more in renewable energy. I know that at first it will not bring a return on investment to the economy, but it will prepare us for a better future. Yes, you could call me utopian or idealistic, but the best way to go forward is at least to try reducing oil dependency.

We went from carbon mines as a source of energy to oil. It was a bumpy road, but we were able to do it. We could do the same by going from oil to 100% renewable energy. If it takes 50 years, so be it. 

As a Canadian first and a Montrealer second I say no to your pipeline. 

Let us open another forum topic about this and leave this one for  the `Not voting for Bernier` croud. 

Edited by Olijam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Like someone who pretends to understand English? I can see what you're saying.

Ok. Just remember, it's not necessarily what I'm saying that counts, but what I actually MEAN...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Ok. Just remember, it's not necessarily what I'm saying that counts, but what I actually MEAN...

You've been very clear so far and let there be no doubt I also mean what I'm saying - feel free to throw any dictionary you like at it.

Let's get back to where you said there could be several instances when being virtuous is wrong, in the context of this thread.  Care to list more than the one we're both apparently ok with listing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Bernier has not said he would pull Canada out of the UN.

He seems to be tweeting about the threat to Canada of a World Government - which seems like a good precursor to pulling out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

You asked who's moral standard not which moral standard.

 I sure do hope the politicians having this discussion waste as much time avoiding direct questions as you - plays well into the strategy of forestalling the day Alberta ever gets its stupid pipelines built.  

 

 

Yes. Which moral standards then I provided a list of groups with different standards. Pretty obvious what I meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Do you have a quote for that, or is it acceptable to pull things from ones ass....who said they admired the Chinese again, does that make him a communist....

Since Kenny has been filmed associating with white racists and has never condemned them and since Trump is a proven racist...well, there isn't anything being pulled out of anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

Yes. Which moral standards then I provided a list of groups with different standards. Pretty obvious what I meant.

It should have been obvious when I answered Canada's to your question who's morals. If I'd meant something on your list I would have said so.

In the meantime your putzing around with definitions and confusing words like which with who's has left my original question still hanging there, exactly what makes behaving to a high moral standard wrong?  BTW are you still perplexed about what virtuous means?

I'd say being disingenuous to avoid or even worse to make a point is morally questionable but hey, fill your boots, it's so very Canadian of you.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Let's get back to where you said there could be several instances when being virtuous is wrong, in the context of this thread.  Care to list more than the one we're both apparently ok with listing?

I meant can think of several instances where being virtuous is a mistake, but they are off topic. 

Even if PM Trudeau tries to be sincere, his proclamations of virtue can still potentially set him up for fall, because government corruption has a life of its own. That is why I said it's better to leave it out of the political conversation entirely. In fact, my view is it should not even be permitted by law. The government has too much power already. I'm for the creation of new laws that specifically limit the free speech - of Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I meant can think of several instances where being virtuous is a mistake, but they are off topic. 

I can't think of too many outside of a life over limb situation myself.

Quote

Even if PM Trudeau tries to be sincere, his proclamations of virtue can still potentially set him up for fall, because government corruption has a life of its own. That is why I said it's better to leave it out of the political conversation entirely. In fact, my view is it should not even be permitted by law. The government has too much power already. I'm for the creation of new laws that specifically limit the free speech - of Government.

Virtue shouldn't have to be part of the conversation because it should be taken as a given. I think a politician's campaign promise should be legally binding if that's what you mean by outlawing virtuous proclamations.  I'm as sickened as anyone at the mere signalling of virtue but the joke is on conservatives if they imagine virtue signalling is only something the left engages in or falls for.

Trudeau won't have very far to fall because he never rose very high to start with.

 

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I want a government that purposely avoids making ideological virtue signalling, because they understand the pitfalls when you go there. They must stick strictly to the business of government.

AFAIC a government's first order of business is to purposely and deliberately - without pity if need be - act virtuously, as it's defined in any common dictionary. 

Quote

Where most liberals are somewhat moderate, lets face it everyone's a bit of a mix, Mr. Trudeau represents the more extreme, polarized view as he seeks to intentionally veer us to the left, towards his personal vision of a Canadian utopia. That is why he is unfit to be our leader, because his ambitions in politics are personal in nature. He is not here to erve Canadians first. No person should be given that kind of power to influence our society.

Take away in-camera lobbying and I doubt any politician will ever have that kind of power again.

 

Quote

As for Bernier, well what more can you say. Here comes the equal and opposite reaction.

Signalling his virtues every step of the way.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

It should have been obvious when I answered Canada's to your question who's morals. If I'd meant something on your list I would have said so.

In the meantime your putzing around with definitions and confusing words like which with who's has left my original question still hanging there, exactly what makes behaving to a high moral standard wrong?  BTW are you still perplexed about what virtuous means?

I'd say being disingenuous to avoid or even worse to make a point is morally questionable but hey, fill your boots, it's so very Canadian of you.

It seems to me t'is you avoiding something. As I have several times provided examples of, there are many kinds of virtuosity even in the Canadian kaleidoscope. I have merely and patiently, been trying to get you to reveal which virtuosity you feel we should all adhere to. If it is yours, define yours. If is the xian version, say so. If it is the Islamic version, say so. if it is the Sikh variety, admit it. If it is the Hindu type fess up. If it is the Bhuddist sort, reveal that fact. If you have some other version, let's hear it. Virtuosity is like a grape cluster with every grape different. We can't discuss it until we know which variety were are considering.   

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eyeball said:

I can't think of too many outside of a life over limb situation myself.

Depends on the virtue we are breaking. Rather than give a specific example, I will refer to the saying "sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness, than permission." Now you can find places to plug that idea in.

Because if the virtue gets out of hand, it gets a little too gosh-darned virtuous and then nothing gets done. Then all you virtuous types would be afraid to make any false move. Then you people need to call in the Devil to do your dirty work... so your own hands remain clean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Olijam said:

We can go on saying that our preventive actions will not affect anything in the bigger scheme. That is such a egotistical logic.

What's ego got to do with it? It is the pure, simple, incontrovertible fact. 

13 hours ago, Olijam said:

This planet is for everyone, and our actions should start by cleaning our own backyard and setting an example to the rest of the world.

Sigh.  Now THIS is egotistical logic. It always seems to come down to this argument. Once people admit that we can't actually have any real impact on climate change then the fallback is "Well, we'll be a glorious example to the world! The bright, shining city on the hill all will admire and change to emulate!"

Except it's bullshit. No one gives a shit what we do and no one is going to change their own nation's policies because we do. As absolute proof of this I can point to the strenuous efforts of any number of western European countries. They're well ahead of us. So how come India and China and Nigeria and Malaysia and Indonesia aren't swooning with admiration and immediately deciding to cut their emissions?

13 hours ago, Olijam said:

The floods in Montréal are recent phenomena, and it is not the municipalities who are causing it. Yes they could have done better planning to alleviate the suffering of the citizen, but it will not solve the root cause of the problem. 

Gee, could the root of the problem be authorizing homes and entire subdivisions on the lake beds?

13 hours ago, Olijam said:

I care about the Canadian economy, but in the grander scheme of things I would rather suffer a strong recession for few years, and not see my home, city and country in ruin due to climate change. 

The problem with this idea is you're first assuming the recession will only last a few years, and second you're assuming that this sacrifice on our part will lead to a better world. There is NO evidence to support either of your suppositions.

13 hours ago, Olijam said:

Why don't we use the money of the pipeline to invest more in renewable energy.

Lots of money is being invested in renewable energy. But the truth is that until there's a technological breakthrough renewables are not going to be anywhere near as economically sustainable and reliable as fossil fuels.

 

13 hours ago, Olijam said:

We went from carbon mines as a source of energy to oil. It was a bumpy road, but we were able to do it. We could do the same by going from oil to 100% renewable energy. If it takes 50 years, so be it. 

We went from coal to oil because oil was cheaper and more efficient. When renewable is cheaper and more efficient we'll stop using fossil fuels for energy. And not until then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

He seems to be tweeting about the threat to Canada of a World Government - which seems like a good precursor to pulling out.

He seems to be bitching about how corrupt the UN is and how much money it wastes. Both of which are absolutely true.

Insinuating an intent not demonstrated by him is pure hubris on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

What's ego got to do with it? It is the pure, simple, incontrovertible fact. 

Sigh.  Now THIS is egotistical logic. It always seems to come down to this argument. Once people admit that we can't actually have any real impact on climate change then the fallback is "Well, we'll be a glorious example to the world! The bright, shining city on the hill all will admire and change to emulate!"

Except it's bullshit. No one gives a shit what we do and no one is going to change their own nation's policies because we do. As absolute proof of this I can point to the strenuous efforts of any number of western European countries. They're well ahead of us. So how come India and China and Nigeria and Malaysia and Indonesia aren't swooning with admiration and immediately deciding to cut their emissions?

Gee, could the root of the problem be authorizing homes and entire subdivisions on the lake beds?

The problem with this idea is you're first assuming the recession will only last a few years, and second you're assuming that this sacrifice on our part will lead to a better world. There is NO evidence to support either of your suppositions.

Lots of money is being invested in renewable energy. But the truth is that until there's a technological breakthrough renewables are not going to be anywhere near as economically sustainable and reliable as fossil fuels.

 

We went from coal to oil because oil was cheaper and more efficient. When renewable is cheaper and more efficient we'll stop using fossil fuels for energy. And not until then.

 

Argus, let us agree to disagree. :)

Climate change deserve a topic on its own. Maybe we could continue our discussion in another forum. 

 

Edited by Olijam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...