All of Alberta is significantly north of Southern Ontario and even the NCR, and yet Solar is our fastest growing energy market. The Calgary metropolitan area alone is set to add another 175 megawatts of solar over the next year or two. I believe the province itself is to add around a gigawatt of solar by 2022. All while being colder on average than most of Southern Ontario, a bit warmer than the NCR, and Calgary (in the relatively far south) being over 750 km further north than Ottawa. So, being "too far north" isn't really a problem.

How is that working out?

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd...g02-lg-eng.png

It's working out really well, hence the entirety of my post. Also, it would of course be helpful if your graphic pointed at all to which year/decade it's citing, as obviously energy production is not static. The NDP government shut down several coal fired power plants during their mandate and began the process of phasing it out entirely (which even your source says), and oversaw the largest 4-year expansion of solar ever in Canada.

Edit: Ah I found your source, two years old. Not too out of date, but still out of date.

There's a massive difference between choosing to do something out of free will and being forced to do so because of cost.

Because it's not the role of government to address the issue. It's the job of the individuals that care.

And by elegant you mean needlessly complicated and entirely likely to hurt people with less money than more.


Personal freedom, I don't live 100 kilometers way from the nearest employer, I don't own a factory, I'm not a small sized contractor, a farm owner etc.

I don't believe attacking people who work outside of the service economy is fair.

I don't believe in authoritarian government laws that take from the average person blindly without having any understanding of their life circumstances.

Especially when we know dam well that money is going to green start ups subsidies in wealthy places like Waterloo and Silicon valley.

You also make the outlandish assumption that because I consume little that I am not concerned by how carbon taxes might effect my employer or the community around me.

The fact that you expect my own selfishness to surpass my concern for others is revealing.

A whole lot of this green thinking is directed at people who are looking out for themselves.


Because manipulating pricing is manipulating people.

If you believe that its a problem take care of your own dam house.

If you don't consume much already attack people on your side before you attack people who aren't so concerned.

I think the biggest issue is that they consume foods that must be farmed.

And yes burping creates a lot of carbon.


There is literally a billion cows on this planet, all of which are substantially larger than humans.

If we got rid of them tomorrow food prices would crash.

I think the practical solution would be to end subsidies that support cattle and to make passive regulations against their sale.


Something like a cattle quota that would only effect large scale cattle owners.


I don't know enough about it, but my understanding is that half the worlds land is used on cattle, in comparison something like 1/6th is needed for the equivalent mass of chickens as they grow to maturity much much faster. Not to mention the fact that white meat is far superior to red.

Obviously some of that land is useless and I don't think we should get rid of cattle altogether.

It just seems like shrinking cattle consumption is the most logical solution.

Especially if its something like a quota where small farmers( using worthless land) will make more money per cow instead of trying to tax the hell out of it, which will likely benefit those large scale operations.

I'm pro tapping in the low hanging fruit before we "invest" other peoples money into things that might never pay off.

The lowest level of intervention is to get your own consumption down. Driving an electric car is not helping the environment. It's migrating to a superior technology but it is not an example of how to live one's life.

If you believe in this global warming nonsense act as if you do instead of using this as a power game against others.

When it is obvious that the people that care actually act as if they care then maybe and i mean maybe we might start using government powers to coerce and manipulate people.

Until that time this carbon tax, green incentive nonsense is addressing 5 percent of the problem and responsible for 100 percent of the unnecessary tyranny.


I support banning fracking(if it does not hurt previously established industries and it doesn't limit the economic activity of an era, I think coal should be banned full stop, and we should do some modest restrictions on cattle). Otherwise keep government out of it until something makes sense.

And yet you support a cow tax. So you are onboard with manipulating behavior, something that government does all the time, just not by one particularly efficient mechanism.

If you truly are against government using its power, then you should start with the myriad other ways they do so.

Coercion is a necessary evil.

Just because I accept that it must be done occasionally does not mean I support it openly.

I am pro reducing cattle, because it produces a massive proportion of the waste and there is an easy viable solution for nutrition which isn't any less nutritious nor more expensive.

Reducing cattle will hurt the smallest number of people and will decrease the cost of goods for the poor and not increase it.

It will free up land for affordable housing.

It will make food cheaper.

And if we tie it into reasonable resource management we can also support existing industries.(i.e. create massive hunting grounds, farming of buffalo meat etc).

It's a very low hanging fruit both in cost and in terms of goverment oppression.

I am not directly for a tax, I'd prefer a quota system that will help cattle owners to recapture their losses.

Cow tax or quota, call it what you like the end result is the same. Prices will rise, and it's the government manipulating behaviors. In a very innefficient, authoritarian way.

Instead, let the market decide with a slight tweak - put a price on something that is currently free. If you can't stomach a set price, put a cap on emissions instead.

A quota doesn't give the government money and doesn't introduce a severe conflict of interest.

It doesn't introduce new costs to the average consumer and it will only effect farmers that can't be part of the quota.

If the quota is set up correctly it will put more money in the pockets of farmers.

This has been done in hunting already and has created a whole new industry supporting sport hunters.

This is just fundamentally dishonest.

Your trying to alter behavior, it will only work if people have to change their lifestyles.

And energy happens to be connect to virtually every aspect of ones lifestyle.

People living in urban areas working in service economies will be marginally effect as they aren't reliant on carbon and can pay off the difference. This difference will be absorbed by a reduced cost of living.

People that are well off generally rely on traditional industries, don't live in urban areas, and have relatively fixed costs of living.


Your being completely dishonest.

What am I being dishonest about?

Of course we are trying to change behavior, that's the entire point. And there is nothing wrong with that, if the government couldn't do that there would be no point of a government and we would live in anarchy.

I'm 100% with milomilo - specifically taxing cows would be stupid, if we can instead have a general tax that would treat the bad aspect of cows the exact same way it would treat everything else.

???
There's nothing dishonest there. Of course we're trying to alter "traditional" polluting, planet-destroying behavior that dates back to a time when we collectively didn't realize how important it was in the long run to behave sustainably towards the planet.

No one is trying to hide that fact.

You may as well say that laws are fundamentally dishonest - people's natural behavior (as animals) would be to want to kill the neighbor in order to steal their nice stuff, but we're "altering" that with laws making it illegal, etc.

That is beyond ridiculous! As Eau Claire pointed out, ranchland is generally the least desirable land; if we want more housing, the smart thing to do is to densify our cities, not to sprawl grossly on what was previously open prairie/ranchland.

It will work out fine
https://energyhub.org/solar-energy-maps-canada/

(Also: This conversation is truly a blast from the past - Allan83 and Stryker discussing cows on SSP Canada in 2019! :))

Bumped to thispage....Sorry, i was hoping for a response.

Your map makes no sense. Here's a better one:

https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/...America-en.png

I mean, Jaws, you might as well post this, and conclude that Bavaria's solar potential is amazing! I mean, it's orange!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Germany-en.png

Nope, don't think so, as far as I know. (Still high, but not anywhere near what it was a few weeks ago.)

How would you combat astronomical condo fees?

Housing in cities will always be more expensive because the value of the land is inflated.