Federal Government & Politics II

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not wrong but doesn't prove much. NDP #1 with communists. Most of whom claim NDP is right of Center and there are no true leftist parties in Canada and Trudeau is a neo-Con.



Along the same lines as above being against more immigration or even calling for a complete freeze on immigration which I would agree with doesn't mean you are racist but the racists are also calling for the above so politically it's risky. I wouldn't say having a relationship with your dad or marrying a Venezuelan is proof of much. Certainly not to the woke mob who define the words differently.

Yes, in a world where black people are often called white supremacists and gay people are homophobic simply for having a slightly "wrong" view, it's sometimes hard to keep track of things.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

A good chunk of Dartmouth still use Oil Fired Forced hot air furnaces for primary heat.Dartmouth of course is across the Harbour from Halifax.

When I built my house (with electric heat) 25 years ago, oil was being touted as being the heating choice that made the most sense, and almost all homes around here were built with an oil furnace. I imagine that most people didn’t just ditch their oil furnaces just because they had heat pumps installed. Given the number of oil trucks I still see circulating in Halifax, I’d suggest quite a few are still heating with it.

Many still supplement with wood, which always seems to fly under the radar when we’re talking about carbon emissions…

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by Loco101

And talking about electricity prices for 2023:



Source: https://www.energyhub.org/electricity-prices/

Anyone else being subjected to a barrage of Tell the Feds propaganda from Alberta recently? I think the ads are targeting Alberta, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada.

Mostly keep seeing how electricity will become unreliable and quadruple in cost. Seems more like Alberta feels stuck due to decades of under-investment in renewables/clean electricity, and now they're trying the fear-mongering tactic.

Also funny that they keep harping on the "unreliable" angle, when Ottawa has clearly stated that backup natural gas is permitted for spikes in demand or when renewables are offline.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

..FWIW I'd love to see PP comment on immigration. It isn't sustainable. He's too much of a chicken though.

Oh absolutely. And though Singh could probably get away with it, he won't try. Come to think of it, the Greens could probably question immigration levels with some credibility. There's nothing "green" about dumping millions of new people in an carbon intensive northern country.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not wrong but doesn't prove much. NDP #1 with communists. Most of whom claim NDP is right of Center and there are no true leftist parties in Canada and Trudeau is a neo-Con.

I reckon bona fide communists would just vote for the Communists. The NDP is popular with democratic socialists. I don't think anyone would regard Trudeau as a neocon, or even a neoliberal.

Here is how the Political Compass views party positioning for Canada's 2021 election. The placements seem to me faintly preposterous.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh absolutely. And though Singh could probably get away with it, he won't try. Come to think of it, the Greens could probably question immigration levels with some credibility. There's nothing "green" about dumping millions of new people in an carbon intensive northern country.

Why would PP do it? It's impossible to have any nuanced discussion about immigration in this country, particularly from the right where its an open invitation to get labelled as "being number 1 with the racists". You can bet the Liberal party already has the attack ads set up if the Cons were to start questioning immigration levels. PP already has the vote of anyone concerned about immigration and is currently polling at levels that would win him the most seats of any federal leader in nearly three decades. Warren's disingenuous concern aside, voters like that were never going to vote for anyone but team red anyways. There's no need to rock the boat.

[ssiguy]

I'm not surprised PP hasn't brought up much in terms of high immigration. Why would he? He is cruising into a huge majority gov't by saying as little about the issue as possible and instead focusing on what concerns people the most.........housing. Most Canadians don't really have a problem with high immigration rates, the problem is that we have no where to house them and the fact they are causing housing prices to soar due to demand displacing Canadians themselves. It's not so much high immigration but rather the ramifications of it.

Once PP comes to power, he will definitely stop the immigration flow and start with the students. He could chop half a million from coming into the country and have no effect on actually getting skilled immigrants.

PP isn't under any pressure to talk about immigration and in fact he is under little pressure to talk about anything that would be even marginally controversial. Trudeau is doing all the work for him. Trudeau and the Liberals are suffering from a death by a thousand cuts which are completely self inflicted and all PP has to do is sit back, have a coffee, and watch them bleed to death.

[thurmas]

I ve said it on here many times PP and the Tories will target the Universities and students as their rivalry needs no rehashing. PP is big into boosting the trades and blue collar workers as its his natural voting block so taking the ax to Universities is no surprise. As mentioned on here today cpc cannot articulate out loud their preferred numbers for immigration due to the fear mongering advertising and false labeling of being called racist so the party has to be vague until after winning an election.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by theman23

Why would PP do it? It's impossible to have any nuanced discussion about immigration in this country, particularly from the right where its an open invitation to get labelled as "being number 1 with the racists". You can bet the Liberal party already has the attack ads set up if the Cons were to start questioning immigration levels. PP already has the vote of anyone concerned about immigration and is currently polling at levels that would win him the most seats of any federal leader in nearly three decades. Warren's disingenuous concern aside, voters like that were never going to vote for anyone but team red anyways. There's no need to rock the boat.

For sure. Part of me wonders if the Liberals are increasing immigration beyond anything that makes sense in order to goad the Cons into touching the third rail. It's way too 3D chess for this crew but there are people who know politics at the top.

[Hackslack]

The latest from 338Canada.com

Seat Projection

Cons: 207
Libs: 81

Odds of Winning the Most Seats

Cons: >99%
Libs: <1%


Odds of Outcome

Cons majority: 95%
Cons minority: 5%

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by bolognium

Anyone else being subjected to a barrage of Tell the Feds propaganda from Alberta recently? I think the ads are targeting Alberta, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada.

Mostly keep seeing how electricity will become unreliable and quadruple in cost. Seems more like Alberta feels stuck due to decades of under-investment in renewables/clean electricity, and now they're trying the fear-mongering tactic.

Also funny that they keep harping on the "unreliable" angle, when Ottawa has clearly stated that backup natural gas is permitted for spikes in demand or when renewables are offline.

Alberta actually leads the country in wind & solar investment.

[bolognium]

I know that, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of their electricity comes from non-renewable/carbon-generating sources.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Many still supplement with wood, which always seems to fly under the radar when we’re talking about carbon emissions…

The carbon footprint of wood, like all other biofuels, varies massively depending on how exactly it's sourced, processed, transported, and used. Burning with wood can be anywhere from actually having net negative emissions in the best case to being just as bad as coal in the worst case.

When firewood is harvested with sustainable forest practices it actually increases the sequestration value of the forests which leads to net negative emissions. The carbon footprint of firewood in this case comes from the processing of it - sawing, bucking, and splitting the lumber into burnable pieces - and the transportation to consumers.

All of the machinery used for processing firewood - chainsaws and woodsplitters and such - all come in battery electric variants now. And transportation of course is being decarbonized. So wood absolutely can be a climate friendly heating fuel. Here in Ontario most of the people who burn with wood are rural residents sourcing it from their own properties by harvesting trees that naturally die in windstorms and such, so the transportation aspect is minimal anyway.

However - and this is a huge "however" - there is a limit to the amount of wood that can sustainably be harvested so wood can only ever really be an "edge cases" solution for rural/remote communities. As well, there are a lot of negative air quality impacts from burning wood, so if a lot of buildings close together are all being heated by wood, the affect on local air quality can be horrendous. In rural areas it's fine but if wood heating is widespread in urban or suburban areas it can be a big problem.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by bolognium

I know that, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of their electricity comes from non-renewable/carbon-generating sources.

That's an older chart. Alberta hasn't been 36% coal for a long time.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The carbon footprint of wood, like all other biofuels, varies massively depending on how exactly it's sourced, processed, transported, and used. Burning with wood can be anywhere from actually having net negative emissions in the best case to being just as bad as coal in the worst case.

When firewood is harvested with sustainable forest practices it actually increases the sequestration value of the forests which leads to net negative emissions. The carbon footprint of firewood in this case comes from the processing of it - sawing, bucking, and splitting the lumber into burnable pieces - and the transportation to consumers.

All of the machinery used for processing firewood - chainsaws and woodsplitters and such - all come in battery electric variants now. And transportation of course is being decarbonized. So wood absolutely can be a climate friendly heating fuel. Here in Ontario most of the people who burn with wood are rural residents sourcing it from their own properties by harvesting trees that naturally die in windstorms and such, so the transportation aspect is minimal anyway.

However - and this is a huge "however" - there is a limit to the amount of wood that can sustainably be harvested so wood can only ever really be an "edge cases" solution for rural/remote communities. As well, there are a lot of negative air quality impacts from burning wood, so if a lot of buildings close together are all being heated by wood, the affect on local air quality can be horrendous. In rural areas it's fine but if wood heating is widespread in urban or suburban areas it can be a big problem.

Quebec has so many air quality advisories in many regions during cold spells due to wood burning. I've been there when it's really bad and there is no wind so the stale smoke just hovers in the air and my breathing gets really bad.

I remember one time driving from Montreal to Timmins overnight and I had a terrible time breathing going through the Laurentians. Then once in La Vérendrye wildlife reserve I could breathe again for 2.5 hours or so as it is not developed. But once in Abitibi close to Val-d'Or I had trouble breathing again all the way to the Ontario border. Once in Ontario, there is a remote stretch but from Matheson to Timmins there were some houses burning wood but nothing like you experience in Quebec.

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

That's an older chart. Alberta hasn't been 36% coal for a long time.

That chart is from 2019, so fair enough, you're right that there has been a major shift from coal to natural gas. And a major uptick in wind.

Regardless, my initial post was criticizing the campaign for leaning into the "unreliability" angle when fossil-fuel generation is not entirely excluded, and is still permitted for supplementing intermittent generation when demand spikes. Again, the ads basically come across at propaganda.

Lines in the Tell the Feds campaign such as "the things Canadians count on won’t work when needed" and "no one wants blackouts in -30º" and "no one wants to freeze in dark" are all designed to stoke fear and uncertainty. If the campaign was just straight up saying "Hey, guys, electricity is going to cost you way more because Ottawa is making us switch to clean sources earlier than we planned" I wouldn't really have a problem with it. At least it's honest.

It's the fact that they seem to be pushing this "unreliability" angle with claims of widespread outages that makes the ad campaign feel like it has ulterior motives.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The carbon footprint of wood, like all other biofuels, varies massively depending on how exactly it's sourced, processed, transported, and used. Burning with wood can be anywhere from actually having net negative emissions in the best case to being just as bad as coal in the worst case.

When firewood is harvested with sustainable forest practices it actually increases the sequestration value of the forests which leads to net negative emissions. The carbon footprint of firewood in this case comes from the processing of it - sawing, bucking, and splitting the lumber into burnable pieces - and the transportation to consumers.

All of the machinery used for processing firewood - chainsaws and woodsplitters and such - all come in battery electric variants now. And transportation of course is being decarbonized. So wood absolutely can be a climate friendly heating fuel. Here in Ontario most of the people who burn with wood are rural residents sourcing it from their own properties by harvesting trees that naturally die in windstorms and such, so the transportation aspect is minimal anyway.

However - and this is a huge "however" - there is a limit to the amount of wood that can sustainably be harvested so wood can only ever really be an "edge cases" solution for rural/remote communities. As well, there are a lot of negative air quality impacts from burning wood, so if a lot of buildings close together are all being heated by wood, the affect on local air quality can be horrendous. In rural areas it's fine but if wood heating is widespread in urban or suburban areas it can be a big problem.

I was speaking from the much more simplistic point of view of somebody choking on the particulate spewed out when people burn wood. Perhaps I should have said "air pollution" as opposed to "carbon". Either way it's not good for us humans.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I was speaking from the much more simplistic point of view of somebody choking on the particulate spewed out when people burn wood. Perhaps I should have said "air pollution" as opposed to "carbon". Either way it's not good for us humans.

It's going to be illegal to burn wood in Vancouver fireplaces as of 2025. I am not sure about the efficacy of, or genuine motivation for this. We are just a tiny drop of humanity in a vast area of wilderness where forest fires occur routinely.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thurmas

I ve said it on here many times PP and the Tories will target the Universities and students as their rivalry needs no rehashing. PP is big into boosting the trades and blue collar workers as its his natural voting block so taking the ax to Universities is no surprise. As mentioned on here today cpc cannot articulate out loud their preferred numbers for immigration due to the fear mongering advertising and false labeling of being called racist so the party has to be vague until after winning an election.

We'll just have to wait to see what they do. But I'm not sure cutting those students is as easy as people think. The biggest beneficiaries of foreign students are often in CPC ridings. Rural colleges and universities that might have to close, have been saved by foreign students. They provide lots of decent jobs in these communities. Those students are also working at a lot of places in these communities. Take away all the foreign students and easily a quarter of the fast food joints in this country would close, with the hardest hit being smaller, rural communities. And then there's housing. A lot of homeowners in small towns have seen massive gains in value thanks to the student influx.

Personally, I have no issues seeing lots of fast food places in the country close and a lot of crappy colleges and universities shut down. But I think governments are going to find that people in many smaller communities aren't so happy with the idea of giving up the only gains from immigration that many of these places have ever seen.

Nobody is going to be upset about some strip mall college in Brampton getting shut down. I'm guessing the people in Cape Breton might react differently if Cape Breton University gets shut down.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by thurmas

I ve said it on here many times PP and the Tories will target the Universities and students as their rivalry needs no rehashing. PP is big into boosting the trades and blue collar workers as its his natural voting block so taking the ax to Universities is no surprise. As mentioned on here today cpc cannot articulate out loud their preferred numbers for immigration due to the fear mongering advertising and false labeling of being called racist so the party has to be vague until after winning an election.

I know that a lot of polling has the CPC ahead in the 18-30 demographic, but I would imagine that within this grouping there's quite a bit of variation. They're probably winning non-college educated, and they're likely up with folks who have long graduated and entered the work force. But I would think that it would be a very difficult task for Pierre to walk onto a university campus and have a room full of undergraduates cheering for him.