Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WestCanMan

How Serious Of An Election Issue Is The SNC Scandal For You?

How Serious Of An Election Issue Is The SNC Scandal For You?  

15 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 :lol: 

That's right, their dirty air is not from their CO2 emissions.  Both are from their autos.

And while some cities are dirtier than others climate change still affects them all.

Balls you need to climb down from your tree and up date your Atari computer system....Maybe read the link I sent you , yes it's from one of those hippy webs sites so you'll like it....read what it says about CO and CO2 along with all the other gases produced from the auto sector, cars and trucks, industry, coal fired plants etc etc....produces that smog or dirty air as you call it and it is largely from those activities....and while climate change does effect the whole planet....China is producing far more of the cause to climate change than Canada ever will....

Perhaps you can give us a source that counters that point....maybe you can add a few of those emojis to make it more real.

 

https://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/Other-greenhouse-gases.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sagacious said:

Yes. In the same way our often meager military contributions make a slight difference. I have found that many who argue that our emissions are relatively insignificant and thus we should shirk our responsibilities would be incensed if the same was suggested for our military duties.

Nobody is say we should not attempt to bring our emissions down, but not to the point where our economy suffers or needs a massive uplift until our nation finds a new sector to boost our economy...And we have been shirking our military duties from dozens of years now..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am concerned about the environment. I am concerned first and foremost about non recycleable garbage, i.e., plastics, then radioactive waste, heavy metal wastes including mercury. I am concerned about the on-going destruction of the remaining rain forests in Brazil not to mention Indonesia which have directly impacted on the environment. I am concerned with any pollution. I just do not think taxing people without giving thought to the tax is the way to address the issue. The assumption increased taxes will necessarily reduce use of fossil fuel is bullshit. Its an assumption that has no empirical proof of a  causal connection.If we are serious about the environment then we give tax incentives to industry and individuals creating direct solutions to pollution and focus our use away from fossil fuel to alternative fuels or energy sources. 

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


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

Now if you want to do something sensible, like build nuclear power plants, or take action to mitigate likely consequences of future warming, such as building flood walls and strengthening building codes, them I'm all for it. But this is just a waste of time without everyone on board, and almost no one is on board but a couple of dozen western countries.

I am on board with nuclear fission (for 40-50 years) and China is building green energy capacity faster than any nation. I am also on board with strengthening building codes, flood walls, creating funds to relocate communities that have built in flood plains, etc. However, we also have to continuously work towards the elimination of carbon pollution. I think even conservatives know that a carbon tax is the most efficient way to reduce our emissions. Let's put a price on carbon, let them market work to mitigate emissions and use the revenue to soften the blow of the costs of the painfully obvious need to shift away from fossils. Some of the same revenue will help offset some of the cost of relocating and protecting those living near the coasts. At the same time we can definitely stop subsidizing oil and probably revamp nuclear regulations to significantly reduce costs.

Edited by Sagacious

Share this post


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

I am concerned about the environment. I am concerned first and foremost about non recycleable garbage, i.e., plastics, then radioactive waste, heavy metal wastes including mercury. I am concerned about the on-going destruction of the remaining rain forests in Brazil not to mention Indonesia which have directly impacted on the environment. I am concerned with any pollution. I just do not think taxing people without giving thought to the tax is the way to address the issue. The assumption increased taxes will necessarily reduce use of fossil fuel is bullshit. Its an assumption that has no empirical proof of a  causal connection.If we are serious about the environment then we give tax incentives to industry and individuals creating direct solutions to pollution and focus our use away from fossil fuel to alternative fuels or energy sources.

Taxes are used as levers. For a long time is was free to dump carbon pollution into the air. Applying a price to that pollution is a lever that creates incentive to reduce that pollution. The revenue generated by that tax can be given back to consumers to offset the increased costs or used to green buildings, cars, relocate those who will be flooded etc.

Business will seek to reduce costs. If it is profitable to reduce carbon emissions, they will. Thus the emissions problem is solved in an efficient, predicable and economically sound fashion. That's why a carbon tax is the most efficient, predictable and conservative way to reduce carbon pollution with the lowest opportunity for waste and corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sagacious said:

I am on board with nuclear fission (for 40-50 years) and China is building green energy capacity faster than any nation.

It's also building coal plants.

12 hours ago, Sagacious said:

I am also on board with strengthening building codes, flood walls, creating funds to relocate communities that have built in flood plains, etc. However, we also have to continuously work towards the elimination of carbon pollution.

Why? As I have already pointed out it's not going to do any good. Not only are our contributions meager but the rest of the world is INCREASING theirs.

12 hours ago, Sagacious said:

. Let's put a price on carbon, let them market work to mitigate emissions and use the revenue to soften the blow of the costs of the painfully obvious need to shift away from fossils.

Increasing the price of gas is not going to cause anyone to shift away from fossils until there are efficient, effective and economically viable alternatives. Electric cars are getting there, but not there yet. If you want companies and individuals to use electric heat instead of oil and gas heat you need to make electric heat cheaper, not more make gas more expensive. You can't do that by adding wind and solar because they cost more. Ontario's efforts have already resulted in the most expensive electric power in Canada and cost the Liberal government their jobs. Build nuclear plants to the point your electrical source is 100% renewable, then you can focus on electrical heating and cars. By then electric cars should have greater distance and battery power and people will be more likely to embrace them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sagacious said:

Business will seek to reduce costs. If it is profitable to reduce carbon emissions, they will. Thus the emissions problem is solved in an efficient, predicable and economically sound fashion.

OR... they simply relocate to China or Mexico where there are no carbon taxes, few business rules, and low wages. The emissions continue unchecked, but now we have fewer jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rue said:

The assumption increased taxes will necessarily reduce use of fossil fuel is bullshit.

The tax alone is NOT what reduces fossil fuel abuses. The taxes should just map to the cost of implementing the changes related to the laws used to reduce the abuses. 

@ the OP's topic, 

I thought about this before and opted to see if you could infer what "SNC" even means through media coverage at that time. I found that our media here in Canada presumes the viewers are all loyal watchers from the start who know what this scandal is from the start. The viewer on such coverage needs to be treated as though they are potentially new viewers at all times. 

 

 

 

[note to Admin: I find that I CANNOT highlight anything in a post I'm editing that begins with a quote without starting anew. For instance, I wanted to replace the "@ the OP's topic" ahead of the quote from Rue. It is impossible to place a cursor before any initial quote. You also cannot highlight correctly to cut and repaste the beginning part at the end.]

Share this post


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

Maybe read the link I sent you

CO2 is plant food you're trying to tell me trees consume dirty air?

In other words, its the other stuff coming out the tailpipes that makes the air dirty, the CO2 simply warms it up

 

Share this post


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

CO2 is plant food you're trying to tell me trees consume dirty air?

In other words, its the other stuff coming out the tailpipes that makes the air dirty, the CO2 simply warms it up

 

Stick with fishing ,oh  sorry flipping burgers , because talking about the climate is not your thing....again read the link, it's short, talks in laymen terms, it's easy to understand...I thought you could get it ….guess not , maybe another topic..

Share this post


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

talking about the climate is not your thing....again read the link, 

Talking about what you're saying is the issue here; that CO2 causes dirty air.

Your link certainly doesn't say it does.  I don't even have to read it to know that.

Here's a clue, CO2 is invisible.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


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

Talking about what you're saying is the issue here; that CO2 causes dirty air.

Your link certainly doesn't say it does.  I don't even have to read it to know that.

Here's a clue, CO2 is invisible.

listen Linda, I'll go over it one more time because you live in a tree, and I almost feel sorry for you.... below is What causes smog or dirty air....i even high lighted in red so you could follow along.....

 

Quote

 

What Causes Smog?

Smog is produced by a set of complex photochemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides and sunlight, which form ground-level ozone.

 

Smog-forming pollutants come from many sources such as automobile exhaust, power plants, factories, and many consumer products, including paint, hairspray, charcoal starter fluid, chemical solvents, and even plastic popcorn packaging.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-smog-causes-and-effects-1204194

 

 

Now this source tells us what makes up vehicle exhaust....note I also highlight Carbon dioxide in red , as it is listed as an ingredient in SMOG or dirty air as you call it....not sure what else to tell you, perhaps there is a junior high school teacher here that could give you a class on it....if you also need to know a lot of the chemicals in smog are invisible…I know POOF, mind blowing.... Well that covers the science lesson today folks stay tune tommorrow , when I explain to eyeballs the birds and the bees...and where he came from mommies tummy and not some big bird....  

Quote

Car exhaust contains soot particles, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. All of these have dangerous effects on plants, animals and humans. The main dangerous hydrocarbons produced are benzene, which can cause cancer, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), which can appear in a variety of toxic forms.

https://itstillruns.com/car-affect-earths-plants-animals-6165678.html

 

Edited by Army Guy

Share this post


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

listen Linda, I'll go over it one more time because you live in a tree, and I almost feel sorry for you.... below is What causes smog or dirty air....i even high lighted in red so you could follow along.....

Yes I realize all that but what you still haven't highlighted Gomer, because you can't, is how comes from and contains are one and the same thing.

Smog contains CO2 it is not caused by it. It is caused by other things, read your own freaking highlight ffs.  You might as well be trying to say CO2 causes tailpipes your sense of cause and effect is that fucked up..

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really you still don't get it....SMOG is a leading contributor to climate change, it is what we are trying to control, via Carbon taxes,  ,  I've given you a list that contributes to making SMOG pollution...

I never said that smog is cause by co2, you added that to the conversation....not me...read my posts again...

 

 

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...