Federal Government & Politics II

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So now violence is ok because of what somebody said to you on the internet?

Keep moving those goalposts.

Holy shit that guy has an insane position.

"Don't blame the Nazis for being hateful, blame the Jews for creating the anger towards them!"

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by acottawa

These statements are completely false. Any gains have to do with accounting changes. When measured by third parties there has been zero or negligible improvement on both counts.

Emissions in 2016 were 557 MMT, in 2022 were 547. That is 1.8% decrease in almost a decade in office, and the decrease is probably exclusively due to post-COVID effects (given the drop in 2020 and the increase since then).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...co2-emissions/

For a bunch of people who are obsessed with Canadian immigration numbers, I would have thought you'd be smart enough to calculate emissions per capita... Don't we have 20% as many people now as 2016 according to you all? So emissions per capita are down approximately 20% if total emissions are the same (in fact they went down)?

Emissions per capita are dropping, so even though the population is "exploding" as you people so gleefully proclaim, emissions will continue to fall.

[ssiguy]

It seems like our dictatorial PM has decided to give the good people of Montreal-La Salle the one-finger salute.

There were 3 Liberal candidates looking to lead the riding into the by-election on Sept 16th. They had all spent a great deal of money, time, and energy in their quest to become the Liberal riding candidate but then comes along Trudeau who by-passed all of them and handpicked another candidate strictly due to her being of Italian decent in an Italian dominated riding.
The 3 screwed candidates did not hold back in criticizing their "dear leader" in this shockingly undemocratic move. The Tories don't have a chance at the riding but the Bloc & NDP do and I hope the Bloc takes it. I think a lot of potential Liberal voters {including most Italians} will be very put off by this sleazy maneuver and show their disgust at the ballot box.

Trudeau is willing to do anything, regardless of how offensive and undemocratic it is, to win Montreal-La Salle as it is as safe a Liberal seat as Toronto St.Paul was. Losing another safe seat could be the death of him especially having a loss in Canada's 2 largest cities.

[Build.It]

This is how Canada has fared against peer countries on an emissions per capita basis.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by chowhou

For a bunch of people who are obsessed with Canadian immigration numbers, I would have thought you'd be smart enough to calculate emissions per capita... Don't we have 20% as many people now as 2016 according to you all? So emissions per capita are down approximately 20% if total emissions are the same (in fact they went down)?

Emissions per capita are dropping, so even though the population is "exploding" as you people so gleefully proclaim, emissions will continue to fall.

Emissions per capita are completely meaningless if you are talking about climate change.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

For a bunch of people who are obsessed with Canadian immigration numbers, I would have thought you'd be smart enough to calculate emissions per capita... Don't we have 20% as many people now as 2016 according to you all? So emissions per capita are down approximately 20% if total emissions are the same (in fact they went down)?

Emissions per capita are dropping, so even though the population is "exploding" as you people so gleefully proclaim, emissions will continue to fall.

Yep. Emissions per capita are dropping, coal plants are disappearing. We are moving in the right direction. Reasonable people can argue how much of an impact the carbon tax is having, but it's certainly pushing things in the right direction.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

This is how Canada has fared against peer countries on an emissions per capita basis.

Remove the explosion in oil sands growth and we'd look amazing on that graph.

Just look at the outlier on this graph. Everybody else is improving since 2005:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...a-by-province/

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Emissions per capita are completely meaningless if you are talking about climate change.

It matters when you're trying to reduce emissions in a country with a rising population.

Basic math intuition would tell you that even if population continues to increase, if the multiplying emissions per capita term continues to trend downwards, that will drag emissions downwards.

---

Emissions = emissions per capita * population

d/dt emissions = d/dt (emissions per capita * population)

d/dt emissions = (d/dt emissions per capita) * population + emissions per capita *(d/dt population)

[theman23]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Remove the explosion in oil sands growth and we'd look amazing on that graph.

Just look at the outlier on this graph. Everybody else is improving since 2005:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...a-by-province/

Nearly all of the reduction thus far (51/62 mt) has been achieved in Ontario and is a legacy of both Mcguinty era policy of switching to renewables (mostly) and the hollowing out of manufacturing that occurred at around the same time (distant second). JT was a backbencher in opposition at the time.

Most of the data we have is from 2021, which has barely given carbon pricing enough time to have an effect. It's too early to judge how effective it'll be, but that goes both ways and its hardly a notch under the LPC's belt at the moment. Most likely most of their policies will be quickly scrapped, and since we're not close to achieving our 2030 targets their legacy will be of failure.

Originally Posted by chowhou

It matters when you're trying to reduce emissions in a country with a rising population.

Emissions = emissions per capita * population

Basic math intuition would tell you that even if population continues to increase, if the multiplying emissions per capita term continues to trend downwards, that will drag emissions downwards, especially if the rate of emissions per capita drop is greater than the rate of population growth (it is!)

Except our commitment (which is what casper referred to and acottawa was responding to) was to reduce GHG emissions by 40-45% by 2030. There was nothing in that about it being "per capita". It also ignores that per capita numbers are distorted when we're bringing in people from parts of the world where CO 2 emissions are generally lower per capita. Regardless, this was the mode of economic growth that the Liberals chose and it's effects on the climate can't be handwaved away because the environment doesn't decide to warm a little bit less when a few more people share a megaton of CO2.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jonny24

They've been in power 9 years, moved it basically none, and you believe that they'll get there in just 8 more years? If only you reelect them?

You must buy a lot of bridges and ocean-front property in Saskatchewan.


Your response to basically any Liberal criticism is "No, no, you see, they've announced that it's going to be fine! Problem solved!"

I've seen speculation in the media that Trump may push for a 3% goal if he becomes U.S. President.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Remove the explosion in oil sands growth and we'd look amazing on that graph.

Just look at the outlier on this graph. Everybody else is improving since 2005:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...a-by-province/

Remove the Oil Sands and see what our 2000-2022 median income chart looks like. More like Italy probably than our G7 leading performance.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Remove the Oil Sands and see what our 2000-2022 median income chart looks like. More like Italy probably than our G7 leading performance.

We are leading the G7 in median income growth? Somebody tell the chicken littles around here.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It matters when you're trying to reduce emissions in a country with a rising population.

Basic math intuition would tell you that even if population continues to increase, if the multiplying emissions per capita term continues to trend downwards, that will drag emissions downwards.

---

Emissions = emissions per capita * population

d/dt emissions = d/dt (emissions per capita * population)

d/dt emissions = (d/dt emissions per capita) * population + emissions per capita *(d/dt population)

Not true. If the population doubles and total emissions only go up 50%, then the per capita emissions decrease yet we're emitting more pollutants than before. You can keep on going like that and total emissions will never reach zero, but the emissions per capita will.

There's a reason why the government's page about net zero emissions by 2050 doesn't contain the phrase "per capita". Total emissions matter, per capita emissions very much less so.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We are leading the G7 in median income growth? Somebody tell the chicken littles around here.

Fat lot of good that does most Canadians when home prices and rents have increased by an astronomical amount.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Not true. If the population doubles and total emissions only go up 50%, then the per capita emissions decrease yet we're emitting more pollutants than before. You can keep on going like that and total emissions will never reach zero, but the emissions per capita will.

There's a reason why the government's page about net zero emissions by 2050 doesn't contain the phrase "per capita". Total emissions matter, per capita emissions very much less so.

If emissions per capita reach zero, then yes. Emissions would reach zero. That's fairly simple math.

I don't expect that to happen mind you, but it's fairly ridiculous to look at a clear downward trend and say that we're not making any progress.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Trump repeats conspiracy theory that PM Trudeau 'could be' son of Fidel Castro
Comments came during an interview former president gave to an online streamer
Darren Major · CBC News · Posted: Aug 07, 2024 11:42 AM ADT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...racy-1.7287329

What a shit disturber.

These rumours are patently untrue. I may not like JT, but, he should not be subjected to crap like this, especially from a former US president..............

Crap is all I ever expect from Tronald Dump, who has always been utterly full of shit. To think that this assclown could become President again, after everything that has happened, after all he has said...

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Hecate

How long until this is Canada? Lol

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/05/u...ainer-gbr-intl

lol?

is there something funny about this? Or about the possibility of racist rioting coming to Canada?


what do you mean by "Lol"?

[Build.It]

As I have proven time and time again on here with plenty of supporting data (check my post history), we have zero evidence that the revenue-neutral carbon tax does result in a faster reduction of emissions, however we do have some pretty solid indicators that show it probably doesn't have any effect on the rate of emissions reduction.

There's a reason that no other country has a revenue-neutral carbon tax - there isn't a single example of it having ever worked.

The hilarious thing about this is that we actually do know what works, with plenty of successful examples - don't make it revenue-neutral and just spend the tax revenue on green technology instead. But that's not what these half-baked environmentalists want - they would rather have the experimental system that literally no other country is willing to adopt. Sheer utter stupidity.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Crap is all I ever expect from Tronald Dump, who has always been utterly full of shit. To think that this assclown could become President again, after everything that has happened, after all he has said...

He's still pissy that Ivanka swooned over JT and stopped swooning over daddy.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If emissions per capita reach zero, then yes. Emissions would reach zero. That's fairly simple math.

I don't expect that to happen mind you, but it's fairly ridiculous to look at a clear downward trend and say that we're not making any progress.

The climate depends on actual carbon emissions. Per capita emissions are completely irrelevant to anything.

Also, obviously adding millions of low productivity, low skill workers is going to reduce per capita emissions. It is diluting the pollution from major industrial emitters to more people and Tim Hortons doesn’t add much GHG emissions.