New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The NDP raised the most money under new fundraising rules which forbade large donations from individuals, corporations and unions. It certainly illustrates how people feel they are governing in their interest, whereas the BC Liberals governed on behalf of the corporate interests who paid their bills.

The B.C. NDP is leading the way when it comes to political donations under the new rules the government brought in to ban union and corporate political donations.

The governing party raised $2.05 million between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2018, according to figures released by Elections BC on Monday. The B.C. Liberals raised the second most with $1.69 million and the B.C. Green Party raised just shy of $439,000.

“The B.C. NDP has always been a party that relies on individual contributors and that hasn’t changed,” NDP strategist Glen Sanford said. “It does mean that campaigns need to be more grassroots. And it certainty doesn’t give the advantage to any one party.”...

https://globalnews.ca/news/4924875/b-c-ndp-fundraising-rules/

Or people are more willing to donate to a ruling government? I think ruling governments have always gotten more funding.


Anyone else notice the big anti Trudeau vote Singh ads on this site?

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by misher

Anyone else notice the big anti Trudeau vote Singh ads on this site?

That's Google Adsense, it's individually shown to you based on YOUR cookies/history lol

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

That's Google Adsense, it's individually shown to you based on YOUR cookies/history lol

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

That's Google Adsense, it's individually shown to you based on YOUR cookies/history lol

Bwahahahahaha. Classic internet Win.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Or people are more willing to donate to a ruling government? I think ruling governments have always gotten more funding.


Anyone else notice the big anti Trudeau vote Singh ads on this site?

Tetsuo beat me to it. You're also confusing the provincial NDP and Libs with the federal ones; these ones want to go to Ottawa (not Victoria), and they are by no means the ruling party there.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Well the idea is that the pipeline is a hell load more profitable than the skytrain!

TransMountain is set to make $126M a year; it'll be about 2085 by the time it breaks even, at which point we'll either have a post-oil society or scuba diving tours of Gastown.

As opposed to the Canada Line, which is set to break even in a year or two.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TransMountain is set to make $126M a year; it'll be about 2085 by the time it breaks even, at which point we'll either have a post-oil society or scuba diving tours of Gastown.

As opposed to the Canada Line, which is set to break even in a year or two.

Where did you get that number?

The existing Trans Mountain pipeline made $300 million in revenue last year, with a 9.5% return on equity, according to University of Calgary economics Prof. Trevor Tombe.

Maybe you meant if it’s not at capacity? I assume oil production would ramp up over the next decade to maximize the capacity.

[Migrant_Coconut]

$300M in revenue. Profit is $126M.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

$300M in revenue. Profit is $126M.

Ouch that was embarrassing, dope my apologies.

[WarrenC12]

Interesting that article references TM2 completing by the end of 2021. Not likely now, though they could be on track for end of 2022.

LNG Canada operational in 2023.

Site C operational in 2024.

But all after the next election in late 2021, assuming this government holds together.

Interesting times for energy in BC. Though personally I think we could do without TM2. Every year that stretches on, the more problematic it is, Alberta be damned.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interesting times for energy in BC. Though personally I think we could do without TM2. Every year that stretches on, the more problematic it is, Alberta be damned.

No kidding. This is slowly becoming Trudeau's Fast Ferry.

[Ben Dover]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Or gets arrested for drunk driving in Maui.

Where is the "LIKE" button?

[Ben Dover]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interesting that article references TM2 completing by the end of 2021. Not likely now, though they could be on track for end of 2022.

LNG Canada operational in 2023.

Site C operational in 2024.

But all after the next election in late 2021, assuming this government holds together.

Interesting times for energy in BC. Though personally I think we could do without TM2. Every year that stretches on, the more problematic it is, Alberta be damned.

It's a hellish thing though, to switch from an economy based on oil, to another based on what, exactly....?
Tourism...How are they getting here without oil?
Forestry...Nobody is using a hand-saw or axe these days, or horse-drawn wagons.
LNG...still needs to be driven by fossil fuels.

The "solution" to the GHG issue, as I see it, is carbon-scrubbers and reclaimers.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-capture-squamish-1.3263855
"The operation has been capturing CO2 since May, but its primary purpose is to prove that the technology can work on a much larger scale, taking in up to one-million tonnes per day."

Imagine, reclaiming ONE MILLION tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, every day....plants like this in the US, India, China...our air could be cleaner than when we first got here!

[misher]

Originally Posted by Ben Dover

It's a hellish thing though, to switch from an economy based on oil, to another based on what, exactly....?
Tourism...How are they getting here without oil?
Forestry...Nobody is using a hand-saw or axe these days, or horse-drawn wagons.
LNG...still needs to be driven by fossil fuels.

The "solution" to the GHG issue, as I see it, is carbon-scrubbers and reclaimers.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-capture-squamish-1.3263855
"The operation has been capturing CO2 since May, but its primary purpose is to prove that the technology can work on a much larger scale, taking in up to one-million tonnes per day."

Imagine, reclaiming ONE MILLION tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, every day....plants like this in the US, India, China...our air could be cleaner than when we first got here!

I posted the discussion thread for this on the Canada part of the forum. Definitely huge potential for Canada to become the place the world pays for clean air.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Ben Dover

It's a hellish thing though, to switch from an economy based on oil, to another based on what, exactly....?
Tourism...How are they getting here without oil?
Forestry...Nobody is using a hand-saw or axe these days, or horse-drawn wagons.
LNG...still needs to be driven by fossil fuels.

The "solution" to the GHG issue, as I see it, is carbon-scrubbers and reclaimers.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-capture-squamish-1.3263855
"The operation has been capturing CO2 since May, but its primary purpose is to prove that the technology can work on a much larger scale, taking in up to one-million tonnes per day."

Imagine, reclaiming ONE MILLION tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, every day....plants like this in the US, India, China...our air could be cleaner than when we first got here!

The scrubber plant is great news, but humanity's still putting out 40 BILLION tonnes (and climbing) every year. We'd need over a hundred (nuclear-sized?) plants worldwide to capture 2017-level emissions, then more and more and more as the global population grows and consumption increases. That's not sustainable long-term, so we gotta do our best to reduce emissions as well.

Ships and planes can run on biofuel with little to no loss in performance - the first diesel engine burned peanut oil! It's just that nobody's given the aviation or maritime industries a big enough kick in the ass to make the switch. Ditto LNG trains and trucks.

Chainsaws... yeah, that's a problem. But a million power tools, in the grand scheme of things, are just a drop in the bucket.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The scrubber plant is great news, but humanity's still putting out 40 BILLION tonnes (and climbing) every year. We'd need over a hundred (nuclear-sized?) plants worldwide to capture 2017-level emissions, then more and more and more as the global population grows and consumption increases. That's not sustainable long-term, so we gotta do our best to reduce emissions as well.

Ships and planes can run on biofuel with little to no loss in performance - the first diesel engine burned peanut oil! It's just that nobody's given the aviation or maritime industries a big enough kick in the ass to make the switch. Ditto LNG trains and trucks.

Chainsaws... yeah, that's a problem. But a million power tools, in the grand scheme of things, are just a drop in the bucket.

The thing is we need to grow food so biofuel crops compete with food crops.

[Ben Dover]

365,000,000 tonnes reclaimed per year (one plant) is no laughing matter...definitely better than what we're doing now!

https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm

"A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old."

No small feat in itself...and that's just ONE tree.

http://www.arborenvironmentalalliance.com/carbon-tree-facts.asp

"100 metric tons of CO2 can accumulate in one acre of forest over time."

Canada has over 850 million acres of forest, meaning that they alone can capture 85 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.
Then there's the corn fields:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/corn_fields_help_clean_up_and_protect_the_environment

"Our calculations show that number to be in excess of 36,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per acre!"

When you consider all of this, it's easy to see that reclamation is the way of the future...curtailing emissions helps.

[Migrant_Coconut]

One small problem.

The study was published in the new scientific journal Joule on June 7. In the study, Keith and his team propose the design of a large industrial plant that is capable of capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a cost of $94 to $232 per ton.

Using the lowball $94/ton figure, 365M tons annually is $34 billion. This is already a step down from the $600/ton figure pitched back in 2011. We really need to reduce GHG to a point where all Canada needs is one plant to scrub $10B of carbon from the air.

Originally Posted by misher

The thing is we need to grow food so biofuel crops compete with food crops.

Not if you use organic waste products (animal/vegetable leftovers) or algae. There isn't much consumer demand for those.

[WarrenC12]

Carbon capture is too expensive, as noted above. It can definitely be part of the solution, but it's scale will be small and only for the very last fossil fuels left in the system that are hard to remove.

As for "what do we move to?" the answer is obviously electricity. It can literally do almost anything. Transport, heat, industrial power applications, etc.

Shipping and flight are problematic for electricity right now, but battery tech is improving, and of course there are renewable combustible fuels.

We have the technology (and it's getting better every day), we have the resources, despite what some politicians will tell you. All we lack is the willpower.

Planting trees is great too, they are easily the cheapest way to get carbon out of the air.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Planting trees is great too, they are easily the cheapest way to get carbon out of the air.

Actually, a study* said that trees can only suck up so much CO2. In fact, CO2 has made environments very dry and hard for them. That said, we should get the electricity technology up and running before it’s way too late.

* I read it somewhere just recently. You may have to look it up.