Federal Government & Politics II

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I love how short-term the memory of voters are in this country. Thinking that the fool PP is going to somehow improve their lives. I suppose if you are big oil or big business that's true. I also love how most Canadians claim to care about the environment but don't want to feel any sort of slight financial price to cut back on pollution or to clean up the ecosystems of this country.

Trudeau should let another Liberal MP take over but that won't happen and we will be stuck with a clown that adores MAGA-style politics. Again the CONS would never win if the NDP and Liberals didn't split votes. Canada has way more left-leaning voters than those on the right.

Meet our new PM.
Default_Transform_this_man_into_a_wooden_ventriloquist_dummy_w_1 by Andrew Moore, on Flickr

So funny considering the liberals have more in common with the trump and maga crowd than the conservatives. From the nepotism, to the groping allegations, to the overlooked racism, the lying, corruption, slandering of opponents, and receiving presents from hostile foreign countries.

Then you have the audacity to mention the evil oil industry that has literally kept this country afloat for the past 50 years… lol. who is it, by the way, that’s spent most of the last decade suppressing wages while overseeing runaway levels of immigration that’s led to a housing crisis. But tell me more about how the conservative are the only ones thinking about big business… lol

Liberalism is a cult in this country.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

So basically we are relying on US protectionist policies and our free trade agreement to be their main EV supplier.

Also not very smart. Whenever the US decides to open the floodgates (whether 5, 10 or 30 years from now) we are toast.

It's great when I get flack on both sides of the debate. Helps my confirmation bias.

I don't buy the arguments that EVs are going away of Trump gets elected. There technological risks is now too great for any major automaker to ignore. At worst, they shift their timelines 5 years.

On the flip side, the argument that we should simply look at EVs from China like every other consumer product is naive. They are rolling smartphones. They ramp up every problem we had with Huawei exponentially. And aside from security concerns, there's the jobs. We talk about a just transition a lot. Well this is epitome of a just transition. Ceding auto manufacturing jobs to China is a surefire way to undermine support for climate policy. And it's especially bad given how much state backing China provides for their auto sector.

Does it suck that our auto sector have been lazy Luddites? Absolutely. It's unfortunate that Obama got so much shit for trying to increase electrification in his auto bailout. Hopefully we don't make that mistake again when they end up in trouble again (virtually guaranteed at this point). But such is politics and we gotta take care of our workers and consumers if we want to have enduring climate policy.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's great when I get flack on both sides of the debate. Helps my confirmation bias.

I don't buy the arguments that EVs are going away of Trump gets elected. There technological risks is now too great for any major automaker to ignore. At worst, they shift their timelines 5 years.

On the flip side, the argument that we should simply look at EVs from China like every other consumer product is naive. They are rolling smartphones. They ramp up every problem we had with Huawei exponentially. And aside from security concerns, there's the jobs. We talk about a just transition a lot. Well this is epitome of a just transition. Ceding auto manufacturing jobs to China is a surefire way to undermine support for climate policy. And it's especially bad given how much state backing China provides for their auto sector.

Does it suck that our auto sector have been lazy Luddites? Absolutely. It's unfortunate that Obama got so much shit for trying to increase electrification in his auto bailout. Hopefully we don't make that mistake again when they end up in trouble again (virtually guaranteed at this point). But such is politics and we gotta take care of our workers and consumers if we want to have enduring climate policy.

These are all credible arguments. Of course if anyone really believed there was a climate criss we would gladly have China making the world's EVs. There was no insisting we maintain our vaccine manufacturing capacity at peak Covid. We simply paid whatever it cost to get what we needed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

These are all credible arguments. Of course if anyone really believed there was a climate criss we would gladly have China making the world's EVs. There was no insisting we maintain our vaccine manufacturing capacity at peak Covid. We simply paid whatever it cost to get what we needed.

There is a climate crisis. It's just not as acute as Covid. That's why we struggle with the response. If we got a few degrees of global warming next year and the amount of floods and wildfires starting looking like the end times in the Book of Revelations, you can bet that we'd be going all out to solve it, like the early days of Covid. But just like how vaccine diplomacy and information warfare became a thing as Covid lost its acuteness, we have the same kind of going on with cleantech.

China's excess capacity in cleantech is not just a threat to domestic industry, it has the potential to remake geopolitics. Helping a bunch of the global south get off the oil price cycle with PV panels and EVs doesn't just reduce their dependence on oil, it increases their dependency on China. American politicians are finally beginning to understand what is at stake.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Hecate

So funny considering the liberals have more in common with the trump and maga crowd than the conservatives. From the nepotism, to the groping allegations, to the overlooked racism, the lying, corruption, slandering of opponents, and receiving presents from hostile foreign countries.

Then you have the audacity to mention the evil oil industry that has literally kept this country afloat for the past 50 years… lol. who is it, by the way, that’s spent most of the last decade suppressing wages while overseeing runaway levels of immigration that’s led to a housing crisis. But tell me more about how the conservative are the only ones thinking about big business… lol

Liberalism is a cult in this country.

You sound a bit like a red baseball cap Q-none MAGA rally attendee spewing talking points you've heard in your echo chamber. LOL

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There is a climate crisis. It's just not as acute as Covid. That's why we struggle with the response. If we got a few degrees of global warming next year and the amount of floods and wildfires starting looking like the end times in the Book of Revelations, you can bet that we'd be going all out to solve it, like the early days of Covid. But just like how vaccine diplomacy and information warfare became a thing as Covid lost its acuteness, we have the same kind of going on with cleantech.

China's excess capacity in cleantech is not just a threat to domestic industry, it has the potential to remake geopolitics. Helping a bunch of the global south get off the oil price cycle with PV panels and EVs doesn't just reduce their dependence on oil, it increases their dependency on China. American politicians are finally beginning to understand what is at stake.

There is no credible forecasts that call of any such thing. It's not a crisis and not by a long shot. Fires are a transitory issue and flooding is overblown massively. Somewhere like Bangladesh and low lying islands a possible exception. Certainly a complete not issue even to 2100 in Canada.

You make a good point about China and that's a consideration but one of many US policy makers have to consider. And frankly even senior Pentagon officials aren't going to be shaping Trump's policy on such things. After Trump who knows what direction the next election goes (if there are elections)

[ssiguy]

Personally, I think the Liberals will win the seat but by a lot less than what they are used to in this Liberal bastion.

Looking beyond the Tory public bravado of hoping to get the seat however, I think the backroom party brass are hoping they don't. If the Liberal lose or just squeak thru by the skin of their teeth, it will put massive pressure on Trudeau by his backbenchers and the Liberal war machine to step aside lest he get unceremoniously kicked out. This would result in a new leader which is the last thing the Tories want because if Trudeau is still at the helm when the writ is dropped, they are going to get pulverized.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There is no credible forecasts that call of any such thing. It's not a crisis and not by a long shot. Fires are a transitory issue and flooding is overblown massively. Somewhere like Bangladesh and low lying islands a possible exception. Certainly a complete not issue even to 2100 in Canada.

Well, coastal flooding is a bit of a worry along portions of coastal Canada, and, in particular, the Isthmus of Chignecto is at risk of serious inundation during any major storm event that coincides with an astronomic high tide.

A few years back (2015), we had such an event and, the photo below shows how near of a thing it was.



This is the VIA Ocean crossing the isthmus during the event. The train track sits on a substantial embankment which also serves as a dyke protecting the expansive Tantramar Marsh. The ocean water here is within about a foot of overtopping the dyke. If the dyke catastrophically failed, the subsequent flood would take out the adjacent Trans Canada Highway as well, since the highway is lower than the railway embankment.

A critical failure here would take out the only rail line serving the port of Halifax, and, effectively the only road serving both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (you don't have the cross this section to get to PEI).

Maritimers (at least) are concerned about sea level rise, Unfortunately JT and the Liberal Gang in Ottawa seem to feel that rectifying the situation is more of a provincial responsibility than a federal one, and are dragging their collective feet over if and how much federal money should go into this billion dollar remediation program. The Libbies on the other hand have no trouble throwing multiple billions of other taxpayer dollars at a panoply of questionable social programs.

I guess Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders can just go pound sand. The Liberal axis rotates around central Toronto and west end Montreal.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There is no credible forecasts that call of any such thing.

Nowhere did I say there were. I said "If we had a few degrees of warming". If we had that happen in just one year, then yes, there's a decent chance the world would actually look like that.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It's not a crisis and not by a long shot. Fires are a transitory issue and flooding is overblown massively. Somewhere like Bangladesh and low lying islands a possible exception. Certainly a complete not issue even to 2100 in Canada.

First it depends on what your definition of a crisis is. I will agree that conventionally most people don't think of a situation as a crisis until it is acute. Doesn't mean that others (notably professionals) can't have a different view. If you live in South Florida and insurers are abandoning you, it probably feels like more of a crisis than if you live in Ottawa. If you're a biologist looking at mass extinction due to climate change this probably looks more like a crisis to you than some old retired dude with a large portfolio in oil and gas. Perspective.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You make a good point about China and that's a consideration but one of many US policy makers have to consider. And frankly even senior Pentagon officials aren't going to be shaping Trump's policy on such things. After Trump who knows what direction the next election goes (if there are elections)

Given all the recent legislative efforts in the US (from the Chips Act to IRA), I'm going to suggest this is now well beyond Trump. We aren't going back to a world of trading with China normally. And whatever the politics and culture wars on EVs at home, the US and EU aren't simply going to cede energy and automotive markets in the Global South to China without a fight. The hundreds of billions being mobilized to build cleantech in the West is in no small part motivated by a desire not to simply cede the industrial competition to China. And you'll notice that whatever the rhetoric Republicans and Conservatives have no problems when it comes to manufacturing cleantech, especially in their jurisdictions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, coastal flooding is a bit of a worry along portions of coastal Canada, and, in particular, the Isthmus of Chignecto is at risk of serious inundation during any major storm event that coincides with an astronomic high tide.

A few years back (2015), we had such an event and, the photo below shows how near of a thing it was.



This is the VIA Ocean crossing the isthmus during the event. The train track sits on a substantial embankment which also serves as a dyke protecting the expansive Tantramar Marsh. The ocean water here is within about a foot of overtopping the dyke. If the dyke catastrophically failed, the subsequent flood would take out the adjacent Trans Canada Highway as well, since the highway is lower than the railway embankment.

A critical failure here would take out the only rail line serving the port of Halifax, and, effectively the only road serving both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (you don't have the cross this section to get to PEI).

Maritimers (at least) are concerned about sea level rise, Unfortunately JT and the Liberal Gang in Ottawa seem to feel that rectifying the situation is more of a provincial responsibility than a federal one, and are dragging their collective feet over if and how much federal money should go into this billion dollar remediation program. The Libbies on the other hand have no trouble throwing multiple billions of other taxpayer dollars at a panoply of questionable social programs.

I guess Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders can just go pound sand. The Liberal axis rotates around central Toronto and west end Montreal.

As per YOWetal, it's not a crisis and you're fine.

One of the LPC's many failings was actually targeting funding towards climate vulnerable infrastructure. It was actually one of the many things they talked about. So many correct words. So few correct actions.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, coastal flooding is a bit of a worry along portions of coastal Canada, and, in particular, the Isthmus of Chignecto is at risk of serious inundation during any major storm event that coincides with an astronomic high tide.

A few years back (2015), we had such an event and, the photo below shows how near of a thing it was.



This is the VIA Ocean crossing the isthmus during the event. The train track sits on a substantial embankment which also serves as a dyke protecting the expansive Tantramar Marsh. The ocean water here is within about a foot of overtopping the dyke. If the dyke catastrophically failed, the subsequent flood would take out the adjacent Trans Canada Highway as well, since the highway is lower than the railway embankment.

A critical failure here would take out the only rail line serving the port of Halifax, and, effectively the only road serving both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (you don't have the cross this section to get to PEI).

Maritimers (at least) are concerned about sea level rise, Unfortunately JT and the Liberal Gang in Ottawa seem to feel that rectifying the situation is more of a provincial responsibility than a federal one, and are dragging their collective feet over if and how much federal money should go into this billion dollar remediation program. The Libbies on the other hand have no trouble throwing multiple billions of other taxpayer dollars at a panoply of questionable social programs.

I guess Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders can just go pound sand. The Liberal axis rotates around central Toronto and west end Montreal.

Sure or instead of spending $50 billion lowering our emisions by less than India adds in emissions per month we could build a protective wall in 2050 when that becomes an issue and hire students to do forestry management. Cutting trees not suitable for dryer conditions and replace with those that are. Meanwhile we will be raking in money from the overall economic boom that climate change will be for Canada.

[Truenorth00]

^ Where did we spend $50B lowering our emissions?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^ Where did we spend $50B lowering our emissions?

I think we've probably spent a lot more than that if you count all the power conversion. Even assuming lots of the subsidies are industrial policy not about reducing emissions. There is a reason nobody else is matching US subsidies as it's basically a alternative to EU and others who are making painful policy changes that are much more effective at actually lowering emissions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think we've probably spent a lot more than that if you count all the power conversion. Even assuming lots of the subsidies are industrial policy not about reducing emissions. There is a reason nobody else is matching US subsidies as it's basically a alternative to EU and others who are making painful policy changes that are much more effective at actually lowering emissions.

You have a bad habit of pulling numbers out of your six and presenting them as fact. Stop that.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You have a bad habit of pulling numbers out of your six and presenting them as fact. Stop that.

Battery plants alone are $45 Billion. $50 Billion is a round number as in a crazy amount of not counted money. Is there any argument we haven't spent $5 Billion more on climate change mitigation? And yes I meant direct governmetn expenditures not all the lost economic output from carbon taxes, emissions ceilings etc. $5.3 in climate finance alone. Done. $50 billion and nothing on EV rebate, home refit, heat pump, power transition, Carbon capture, Energy audits, $350 Million alone to Ottawa for battery powered busses. I will double down it might be closer to $100 Billion over past 30 years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Battery plants alone are $45 Billion.

We've been over this several times now. We have not spent $45B on battery plants. We've not even spent 5% of that yet on supporting construction. We may spend 10-15% of that over the coming 2-4 years for construction. And we will spend $50B+ on production subsidies booked against revenue from those plants. This is very different than arguing that we have already spent $50B on cutting emissions. Do you need the difference between past tense and future tense explained to you?

Even the government itself that loves to brag about what they are doing for climate change would not argue that they have spent $50B on emissions reduction. They actually got picked up by the AG for not actually spending according to their own plan.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We've been over this several times now. We have not spent $45B on battery plants. We've not even spent 5% of that yet on supporting construction. We may spend 10-15% of that over the coming 2-4 years for construction. And we will spend $50B+ on production subsidies booked against revenue from those plants. This is very different than arguing that we have already spent $50B on cutting emissions. Do you need the difference between past tense and future tense explained to you?

Even the government itself that loves to brag about what they are doing for climate change would not argue that they have spent $50B on emissions reduction. They actually got picked up by the AG for not actually spending according to their own plan.

Sure it's committed though minus a Trump cancellation. We haven't spent $XX Billion on F35s either but the principle is the same. Buy a Porsche on credit and only an iresspobsile spender thnks they've only spent $1500 on the first month's payment.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sure it's committed though minus a Trump cancellation. We haven't spent $XX Billion on F35s either but the principle is the same.

Except that it's not. That is why we can't use our commitment to buy F-35s to bolster our current defence spending reporting.

And for the Nth time, since you and ssiguy keep repeating the same false talking point: Trump isn't king. He can't reverse what Congress has legislated in the IRA. And that's where all the subsidies come from, with the majority of those plants located in red or swing states. They aren't going away anytime soon.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Buy a Porsche on credit and only an irresponsible spender thnks they've only spent $1500 on the first month's payment.

Weren't you in business? Do you not know what a schedule of payments is?

Getting back on topic. Future commitments are not equal to past spending. And building battery plants have nothing to do with reducing our emissions. Especially given that 90% of our auto production is exported to the US. So no, we haven't spent $50B reducing our emissions. I'm not even sure the government is budgeting $50B exclusively for emissions reductions through the rest of this decade.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Except that it's not. That is why we can't use our commitment to buy F-35s to bolster our current defence spending reporting.

And for the Nth time, since you and ssiguy keep repeating the same false talking point: Trump isn't king. He can't reverse what Congress has legislated in the IRA. And that's where all the subsidies come from, with the majority of those plants located in red or swing states. They aren't going away anytime soon.



Weren't you in business? Do you not know what a schedule of payments is?

Getting back on topic. Future commitments are not equal to past spending. And building battery plants have nothing to do with reducing our emissions. Especially given that 90% of our auto production is exported to the US. So no, we haven't spent $50B reducing our emissions. I'm not even sure the government is budgeting $50B exclusively for emissions reductions through the rest of this decade.

That is not the narrative in the US. A almost certain (should Trump win) full sweep of power is likely to bring in a new budget. Canada wouldn't have had the very smart clause to let us out should the US cancel if we didn't think it was possible/probable. But you are reinforcing my point that we are committed to this spending. I guess if you are arguing we aren't spending anywhere close to $50 Billion so it's cheaper to reduce emissions than spend money on mitigation. Well I don't know where to start with that obviously false assertion. If your point is not much of our deficit is because of climate change I certainly agree.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That is not the narrative in the US.

Cause politicians never lie or mislead to win votes? Go have a look at how much cleantech is both made and installed in Texas. Despite all their rhetoric about how bad cleantech is. At the end of the day money talks.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A almost certain (should Trump win) full sweep of power is likely to bring in a new budget.

So you think a bunch of Republican Congressman and Senators whose states are massive beneficiaries will vote to undermine the investment in their states because Orange Julius says so? That is literally the only way these subsidies get rolled back. I'm going to bet on those guys wanting to get re-elected.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Canada wouldn't have had the very smart clause to let us out should the US cancel if we didn't think it was possible/probable.

It's a standard out clause because we were forced to offer those subsidies in response to the IRA. We do that for all kinds of other industrial subsidies too. For example on aerospace aid where we match Washington State or France or Germany.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

But you are reinforcing my point that we are committed to this spending. I guess if you are arguing we aren't spending anywhere close to $50 Billion so it's cheaper to reduce emissions than spend money on mitigation. Well I don't know where to start with that obviously false assertion. If your point is not much of our deficit is because of climate change I certainly agree.

I am only arguing that we haven't spent $50B on cutting emissions. Simple as that.