Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, turningrite said:

China's carbon emissions situation is certainly problematic but India's is perhaps more so. India, too, is addicted to coal-generated energy and has large coal reserves to burn, thus ensuring that its C02 emissions are likely to keep increasing for decades. And its population is set to surpass China's in the not too distant future. Despite being a major energy producer, Canada is responsible for less than 2 percent of global C02 emissions. Even if we reach our 30% reduction target, the global impact will be negligible and will likely be more than offset by increasing emissions in the developing world.

Likely? More like inevitable. China and India's combined emissions increase by more each 2 years than Canada's entire emissions. That is, Canada could instantly cut emissions to zero, and within 2 years global annual emissions would surpass what they were at before anyway, due to growth in China and India. 

Realistically, Western countries cannot ethically (or practically) deny China, India, and other developing countries from pursuing economic development, which means producing and using more energy. The growth is so rapid that even with the fastest possible deployment of renewables and nuclear, a big chunk of new energy will come from fossil fuels (mainly coal). 

The international hopes of keeping warming to under 2C by cutting emissions are pipe dreams. China and India will not forcefully hold over a billion people in abject poverty to achieve these targets. 

I think what we should be looking at now is developing technology for the large scale capture of CO2 from the atmosphere. If the world can deploy technology to capture 20 billion tons of CO2 from the air per year by 2030 the targets might be achieved. Current technologies cost about $100 per ton of CO2 captured, so we're talking about $2 trillion/year expenditure to get there, although the cost may fall with improved technology. World GDP is ~$90 trillion. So the question is, is it worth it to devote about 2.2% of the efforts of the human race to capturing CO2? Worst case climate models certainly suggest that it would be worth it, but not everyone is convinced that the worst case models are correct, plus those most able to contribute to such an effort are also those most able to shelter themselves from the worst effects, at a much lower cost. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Likely? More like inevitable. China and India's combined emissions increase by more each 2 years than Canada's entire emissions. That is, Canada could instantly cut emissions to zero, and within 2 years global annual emissions would surpass what they were at before anyway, due to growth in China and India. 

Realistically, Western countries cannot ethically (or practically) deny China, India, and other developing countries from pursuing economic development, which means producing and using more energy. The growth is so rapid that even with the fastest possible deployment of renewables and nuclear, a big chunk of new energy will come from fossil fuels (mainly coal). 

The international hopes of keeping warming to under 2C by cutting emissions are pipe dreams. China and India will not forcefully hold over a billion people in abject poverty to achieve these targets. 

I think what we should be looking at now is developing technology for the large scale capture of CO2 from the atmosphere. If the world can deploy technology to capture 20 billion tons of CO2 from the air per year by 2030 the targets might be achieved. Current technologies cost about $100 per ton of CO2 captured, so we're talking about $2 trillion/year expenditure to get there, although the cost may fall with improved technology. World GDP is ~$90 trillion. So the question is, is it worth it to devote about 2.2% of the efforts of the human race to capturing CO2? Worst case climate models certainly suggest that it would be worth it, but not everyone is convinced that the worst case models are correct, plus those most able to contribute to such an effort are also those most able to shelter themselves from the worst effects, at a much lower cost. 

Well that's the Republican position: Buy your own enclave away from the fray.  It's the worst form of Social Darwinism, because it allows the one percenters to buy their multi-million dollar Space X tickets to a Moon colony while everyone else fries.  I know that's a radical image.  My point is that most of us aren't willing to be sacrificed so the one percenters can endure.  We have to have emissions cutting policies.  No doubt China and India have to step up their efforts, but I don't see how avoiding responsibility serves anyone.  Pulling out of the Paris Agreement sends the wrong message to both developing and developed countries.  You're proposing a technological solution.  We'll try that too, but we should also find reasonable ways of cutting emissions in the present.  That technology may never be developed or it may come too late.  If we don't commit to goals, we probably won't do much to meet them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well that's the Republican position: Buy your own enclave away from the fray.  It's the worst form of Social Darwinism, because it allows the one percenters to buy their multi-million dollar Space X tickets to a Moon colony while everyone else fries. 

Even in the worst cases, the Earth will remain more hospitable than any off-Earth colony for the foreseeable future. Terraforming Mars, theoretically possible, would take a thousand years or so, and it's far from clear we'll ever embark on that effort. And living in pressurized habitats on the Moon or in space, breathing recycled air, always one mechanical failure away from disaster, doesn't sound like your typical "one percenter's" ideal scenario. 

Even if we get tens of meters of sea level rise and lose all coastal cities, 5-10 C of temperature rise, making much of the tropics uninhabitable, and extinction of 99% of species, the Earth will still have breathable air, and survivable surface temperature and pressure. I would guess that if disaster on this scale were to occur, most societies would quickly forget their dislike of things like nuclear energy, desalination, hydroponics, GMOs, etc, and find ways to support their populations with a smaller geographic footprint. Totally apocalyptic scenarios, such as the oceans boiling away to create a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect, are far outside of any realistic projections that I'm aware of.

Quote

No doubt China and India have to step up their efforts, but I don't see how avoiding responsibility serves anyone.  Pulling out of the Paris Agreement sends the wrong message to both developing and developed countries.  You're proposing a technological solution.  We'll try that too, but we should also find reasonable ways of cutting emissions in the present.  That technology may never be developed or it may come too late.

I guess I would argue that if emissions cuts in places like Canada add up to be nothing more than symbolic ("sending a message") given increases elsewhere, perhaps the better approach might be to encourage economic growth that's as quick as possible so that we can devote more funding to research and development of the needed technologies. Given the reality that cuts aren't going to get us where we need to, we should pursue the solution that gives a chance of success, rather than pouring resources into symbolic gestures. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

  Pulling out of the Paris Agreement sends the wrong message to both developing and developed countries. 

 

Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol treaty and failing to reduce growth in GHG emissions sends and even clearer message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 9:14 PM, Argus said:

We painstakingly and at great cost close a coal plant and Asia opens fifty more than next day. That's how this CO2 reduction business is working so far.

1600 Coal-fired plants are planned across 62 countries. And WE should turn ourselves inside out to satisfy Trudeau's insane virtue signalling? That alone should tell you something - they rightly don't believe the UN spiel that an Armageddon is coming by 2030. We're being played for suckers in the elitist march to Globalism/Socialism.

Link: https://www.thegwpf.com/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-to-be-built-around-the-world/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

1600 Coal-fired plants are planned across 62 countries. And WE should turn ourselves inside out to satisfy Trudeau's insane virtue signalling? That alone should tell you something - they rightly don't believe the UN spiel that an Armageddon is coming by 2030. We're being played for suckers in the elitist march to Globalism/Socialism.

Link: https://www.thegwpf.com/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-to-be-built-around-the-world/

I'll say this: Ontario is benefitting from the removal of its coal generating stations.  Air quality has improved.  There is less smog and fewer nitrous oxides, at least from power stations.  Nanticoke was the biggest in North America.  I used to see the yellow stream from afar.  Same goes for Lakeview.  Yes we get air blowing across from U.S. states, but I think we should keep a green mindset, and no, I don't think that doing so means we have to raise taxes substantially.  It may feel like pissing in the wind, but cutting emissions in Canada matters.  Don't forget that we're one of the largest emitters per capita.  The US should also be doing this.  Maybe a Dem prez in 2020 can keep the US in the Paris Agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I'll say this: Ontario is benefitting from the removal of its coal generating stations.  Air quality has improved.  There is less smog and fewer nitrous oxides, at least from power stations.  Nanticoke was the biggest in North America.  I used to see the yellow stream from afar.  Same goes for Lakeview.  Yes we get air blowing across from U.S. states, but I think we should keep a green mindset, and no, I don't think that doing so means we have to raise taxes substantially.  It may feel like pissing in the wind, but cutting emissions in Canada matters.  Don't forget that we're one of the largest emitters per capita.  The US should also be doing this.  Maybe a Dem prez in 2020 can keep the US in the Paris Agreement.

Yes indeed - it helps air quality - no argument there. Spare me the crap about per capita emissions - I think you're clever enough to know why that is a disingenuous comment.....and how will a Dem president help with those 1600 coal generated plants planned in those 62 countries? Or will they pick up from Obama who bragged that under his administration he had "built enough pipelines to circle the globe - and then some!".

Edited by Centerpiece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 4:27 PM, Bonam said:

Yes, Ontario is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that embraces a large % of nuclear energy in its energy mix, making eliminating dirty fossil fuels quite easy. France is another great example. Unfortunately, very few other places on Earth use nuclear to that degree. Nuclear had finally been gaining ground in the 2000s, but worldwide overreaction to the Fukushima incident has caused many areas to cease construction of new nuclear plants or shut down existing plants, reverting to more fossil fuel use. A single incident, which killed not a single person, has caused idiotic world leaders to condemn tens of millions to early deaths through additional fossil fuel burning (3 million people die prematurely each year as a result of air pollution caused by fossil fuel - mainly coal - power plants). 

There is also another reason why many nations are not embracing nuclear, and that is that solar and wind are now much cheaper sources of energy to install and there are fewer regulatory hoops to jump through in those two technologies.  In addition, nuclear plants seem to take a long time to build compared to wind and solar and often seem to run into cost overruns. 

Share this post


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

There is also another reason why many nations are not embracing nuclear, and that is that solar and wind are now much cheaper sources of energy to install and there are fewer regulatory hoops to jump through in those two technologies.  In addition, nuclear plants seem to take a long time to build compared to wind and solar and often seem to run into cost overruns. 

Yes, solar and wind are cheaper. But the variability still means they can't be used for more than a fraction of power needs (a growing fraction using smart grids and load management, but still a fraction). The long time it takes to build nukes and the cost overruns are mostly a result of regulatory burden and uncertainty, as well as the reality that so few new nukes have been built in Western countries in a long time, that each one is effectively a unique one off megaproject, as opposed to a routine construction job. On the other hand, China has no problem building dozens of new nukes quickly and on budget. Of course, despite China's rapid construction of nuclear plants, they still only provide a small % of its total energy needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 11:08 PM, eyeball said:

And that's how easy it is.

Do you think our grandparents would care? What about our grand-kids? 

You could concentrate on things that will work, not fantasies about how Canada can bend the world to its will. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China also may also not care too much about the strict guidelines followed by the West regarding nuclear.  Regarding solar and wind I suspect that they are going to become continually more viable especially as energy storage problems seem close to being solved.  If you google "New Batteries" you get a host of possible solutions.  It is very likely that one or more of them are going to solve the storage problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing, all this discussion about saving the planet and non of what's being proposed or agreed to is going to make any difference... It's probably going to make it worse. Trump has done more to reduce CO2 then every other leader combined and he doesn't even believe it's real, or even know it for that matter. 

Reducing carbon output by doubling our heat absorption and output into the lower atmosphere is not going to change global warming.

We have the technology, I bet holding a virtual climate summit over the internet would have reduced carbon output by 10%. It's a case of "monkey see, monkey do" suddenly the masses see leaders taking climate change seriously by reducing their own carbon footprint they will follow suit.

We have the technology, instead of shipping raw materials and goods around the planet several times in the process of manufacturing we can do the whole process locally. I learned a couple years back that even a simple $4 ball bearing assembly has components made in four different countries all over the world. Although there might be a slight economic advantage to this it's an environmental disaster (not to mention there is around two ships lost at sea every week). Same goes for producing food, diversify and bring locally grown back home. 

They should really stop crying "the sky is falling" and quit forecasting the weather is going to get worse, they have no freaking clue what the weather is going to do tomorrow let alone ten, twenty, thirty years from now. For all they know the climate may just become more stable. It's possible windmills may contribute more to climate change as they remove energy from the air currents it slows air movement resulting allowing more time for the air to stay in areas that cause it to become more unstable. Computer models for climate still only work with the data we give it, our atmosphere is very complex and fluid there is no way they are even close yet, there are millions of factors still not being considered.

Yes the sea levels may be rising but it is gradual, as they do mankind will just build farther back, most infrastructure has a lifespan of 50 years anyway so it'll just be reclaimed and given to the sea. Yes, islands will eventually be made smaller, some may become uninhabitable but that's the price you pay, erosion is completely natural, it's been happening since the planet was formed.

As far as hurricanes are concerned looking here https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp the hurricane season hasn't changed that much, you need to remember reliable storm tracking wasn't even invented till the late sixties, how many were missed completely before then? What has changed is the population along the coasts, I bet the east coast of the US has exploded almost a hundredfold since the 50s and that's what makes it so noteworthy and expensive now. Storms that used to bypass populated areas were not even noted whereas now the population is almost continuous so of course there is going to be more damage to man made areas.  

AND STOP CALLING IT "MAN MADE" CLIMATE CHANGE!!! Climate change happens every second and it's happened since the climate was formed on this planet, it's mans contribution to climate change that's the issue.

 

Share this post


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

We have the technology, instead of shipping raw materials and goods around the planet several times in the process of manufacturing we can do the whole process locally. I learned a couple years back that even a simple $4 ball bearing assembly has components made in four different countries all over the world. Although there might be a slight economic advantage to this it's an environmental disaster (not to mention there is around two ships lost at sea every week). Same goes for producing food, diversify and bring locally grown back home. 

 

Too many of our preening globalists seem utterly unwilling to admit the role economic globalization is playing in exacerbating climate change. I think we need to move toward carbon input taxation, whereby tariffs would be applied on the basis of the amount of carbon emitted in manufacturing and transporting various products. Countries could also be assigned a rating on the basis of the percentage of input energy they obtain from carbon-based sources and those with cleaner and more efficient systems more reliant on renewables would be treated preferentially. The current globalization system is based on wage arbitrage, with lower wage jurisdictions winning out. Imagine if it were to be based on carbon arbitrage, with carbon efficient jurisdictions winning? Places like Brazil and Quebec, with vast renewable resources, would become the new economic superpowers. Coal dependent economies would become dinosaurs unless willing to adapt.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:01 AM, Wilber said:

Solar has limited value in a northern country with short winter days that are often cloudy.

Solar can store in one hour of sun what can be used for 12 hours depending on the kind of panel it is. Also do you talk of the North. They do get sun, in fact so much sun it can

lead to blindness if you don't wear slit glasses. Solar is used now in the Antarctic, Siberia. In fact it may be a possible alternative for isolated rural native communities off the main power lines. You can install a combo wind and sun type device on rooves that is not expensive, made of biodegradeable material or plastic that can be installed relatively easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 8:44 PM, Iznogoud said:

China also may also not care too much about the strict guidelines followed by the West regarding nuclear.  Regarding solar and wind I suspect that they are going to become continually more viable especially as energy storage problems seem close to being solved.  If you google "New Batteries" you get a host of possible solutions.  It is very likely that one or more of them are going to solve the storage problem. 

It will yes. We provided valuable advice on how to do it and why in Holland, the Dutch never built their wind technology over a certain height. They knew if you made the structure too tall, it could become  counter-productive changing natural electro-magnetic currents causing havoc with not just birds and animals  but the neurology of humans. The studies on seizures, headaches, migraines, triggered by the large wind towers in Ontario and the death of thousands of birds as well as animals becoming confused and ill is there for all to read now. In the case of wind small is beautiful. The self contained igloos I saw invented by the University of David Ben Gurion for the Negev Desert were like a mix of teepee and igloo and used solar, wind and captured rain. They were not very expensive and basically just an updated  version of what the Beduins already did and do in the desert.

When you talk to certain  native peoples of any country and Amish and you tell them you need electricity they look at you like an idiot and why not. They lived in connection with the earth's natural energy and thermal sources for thousands of years before we idiots who thought we were mightier than the earth and its rules, came onto it.

It is idiotic how we build. In hot climates natives to the land build using the ground and digging down to stay cool-they use rocks that collect heat and act as a coolant. I have also seen people build homes out of nothing but what the environment discarded as dead.

Go tell a beaver you can't make a house without electricity to get you through the winter or a bear or a wolf. For apes we seem to have gone backwards. No wonder Sasquatch stay away from us well except for some  Russian women they mate with in Siberia apparently,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 8:04 AM, Wilber said:

You could concentrate on things that will work, not fantasies about how Canada can bend the world to its will. 

Someone will have to start the bending why not Canada?

As is often noted there's not much point to making a global effort when there are deadbeats who insist on refusing to get with the program. So they will have to be forced, kicking and screaming all the way if they insist but dragged nonetheless into compliance.  Sanctions in other words.

Now that said Canada has a long long way to go to expect to be taken seriously given its worse record on environmental protection. So more importantly and to achieve that goal we need to run a much much tighter ship as far as controlling our government. You know me, that means fantasies of monitoring the uppermost echelons of government to an extent that would make Orwell blush.

Quote

 

Pollution from Canadian refineries an ‘embarrassment’ compared with U.S.

“It’s almost mind-boggling when you look at these numbers,” said Elaine MacDonald, an environmental engineer with the non-profit EcoJustice. “It would be quite an embarrassment to Canada for this data to be made public because it does show how far behind we are compared to the U.S.”

The key culprit behind the Canada/U.S. emissions gap, say experts, is less rigorous industry regulation and enforcement in Canada.

 

The technology and even established protocols to monitor is on the shelf now and has been for years so don't tell me its impossible to omit virtue when it comes to our economic interests - fishermen, the biggest liars on the planet, use cameras, black boxes, validators, auditors, and human observers when necessary to keep them on the straight and narrow after all. If we can be thwarted from lying and cheating our way around the rules so can anyone.

Don't try to say it can't be done to someone who's done it.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


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

Someone will have to start the bending why not Canada?

As is often noted there's not much point to making a global effort when there are deadbeats who insist on refusing to get with the program. So they will have to be forced, kicking and screaming all the way if they insist but dragged nonetheless into compliance.  Sanctions in other words.

Now that said Canada has a long long way to go to expect to be taken seriously given its worse record on environmental protection. So more importantly and to achieve that goal we need to run a much much tighter ship as far as controlling our government. You know me, that means fantasies of monitoring the uppermost echelons of government to an extent that would make Orwell blush.

The technology and even established protocols to monitor is on the shelf now and has been for years so don't tell me its impossible to omit virtue when it comes to our economic interests - fishermen, the biggest liars on the planet, use cameras, black boxes, validators, auditors, and human observers when necessary to keep them on the straight and narrow after all. If we can be thwarted from lying and cheating our way around the rules so can anyone.

Don't try to say it can't be done to someone who's done it.

I think you need to look at the issue from a broader perspective. We and other globalist regimes are pursuing a policy, economic globalization, that directly conflicts with the globalist agenda for curbing C02 emissions. Unless we change course on the former, pursuing the latter is mainly a pipe dream. Obviously, Canada has a long way to go to be taken seriously on environmental protection, as is the case for almost all major industrial economies both in the developed and, particularly, the developing world. But should we bend first? Well, to some extent we and some other Western countries have done so, even if only tentatively. Ontario, with Canada's largest population, eliminated coal-generated electricity and Canada is set to become one of the first advanced economies to eliminate coal-generated electricity. But the consequences of so doing will entail enormous repercussions for jurisdictions that are brave enough to take the leap, as illustrated by the dramatic and arguably uncompetitive electricity price increases Ontario has faced. And at this point it appears that every little bit of progress is being offset by increasing emissions elsewhere. There is no possibility, then, that individual countries, and particularly less important ones like Canada, can act alone in this endeavor to achieve meaningful change. Wishful thinking and isolated gestures won't reduce C02 emissions. I think the only solution is to put a hefty price on carbon inputs, which would entail a massive rethink of globalization ideology.

Share this post


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

There is no possibility, then, that individual countries, and particularly less important ones like Canada, can act alone in this endeavor to achieve meaningful change. Wishful thinking and isolated gestures won't reduce C02 emissions. I think the only solution is to put a hefty price on carbon inputs, which would entail a massive rethink of globalization ideology.

If that's the case I think we should put the pedal to the metal and party like its 1999.

There's probably a fortune to be made cleaning up a spill.

Quote

 

We and other globalist regimes are pursuing a policy, economic globalization, that directly conflicts with the globalist agenda for curbing C02 emissions

 

So....just to be clear we're in a struggle between globalist forces versus the forces of globalization?  What side are we against again?

   

 

Share this post


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

So....just to be clear we're in a struggle between globalist forces versus the forces of globalization?  What side are we against again?

 

 

That's a question you should be raising with "progressive" globalists, like those who seem to dominate in Lib party ranks these days, who don't seem to understand the inherent conflict between the economic globalization, which is heavily premised on a policy of wage arbitrage, and combating climate change.

Share this post


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

That's a question you should be raising with "progressive" globalists, like those who seem to dominate in Lib party ranks these days, who don't seem to understand the inherent conflict between the economic globalization, which is heavily premised on a policy of wage arbitrage, and combating climate change.

Right, as always your issue is with "progressives" notwithstanding whatever else it is that anyone is trying to deal with.

Would you say a conservative understanding of what racing to the bottom implies has imparted an appreciation for doing so?  I mean, in the past you guys just laughed out loud and rolled your eyes and whatnot whenever any "progressive" suggested we ease off the gas pedal a little.  

BTW is there some important difference between progressive and "progressive" I'm missing here? You also seem to think there's no meaningful difference between being wary of globalization and being a globalist.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


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

Would you say a conservative understanding of what racing to the bottom implies has imparted an appreciation for doing so?  I mean, in the past you guys just laughed out loud and rolled your eyes and whatnot whenever any "progressive" suggested we ease off the gas pedal a little.  

 

I'm not a conservative. I'm a rationalist and am critical of support for economic globalization on both the left and right. At least the right is more philosophically consistent in not denying that the main objective of economic globalization is above all else to promote and serve the the interests of capital. The left, on the other hand - at least as exemplified by self-styled "progressives" like Trudeau - seems utterly oblivious to the dire consequences of combining the strategies of wage arbitrage and large-scale migration. That this agenda is presented as being progressive in any demonstrably credible context is risible. Trudeau says governments just haven't done a good enough job in rounding out the rough edges of globalization, while I think it's accomplishing precisely what those who most benefit from it wanted it to do in the first place. Most likely, Trudeau is a useful idiot in the service of the globalist cause as he's clearly not its intellectual champion.

And yes, I do intend to imply that there's a distinction between progressive and "progressive." In the former case it serves to enhance the broad economic and social interests of ordinary citizens, while in the latter it promotes and bolsters a set of often moralistic causes that end up dividing society according to identity-focused interests and too often ignores, undermines and even demonizes the interests of ordinary citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2012 at 4:08 PM, socialist said:

a majority of canadians are pigs who care little about the precious environment. gasoline should be no cheaper than $3 a liter. then maybe the pigs would think twice about driving their gas guzzling suv 5 blocks to pick up a newspaper that was made from killing carbon eating trees. that's how screwed up this country is becoming. look at the deadly storm and heat waves we are now getting. thse things are caused by humans and their pig consumption habits.

Nah, I'll pay, I can afford $3 a liter, bring it on, side benefit; runaway socialist intervention to drive the prices of everything through the roof in the name of Cultural Marxist Malthusian Doomsday is an excellent way of bringing Confederation down to break up the country. Then you would be free of me, and I would be free of you. 

You could move to the  Peoples Republic of British Columbia and I would be free to take a giant dump on the environment back here in the east.

Compromise!

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...