#IStandWithMax
In 2016, I voted for our local candidate of the People's Party of Canada. They proposed a massive change in the way federal government works in Canada, focusing on following the constitution, balancing the budget, letting provinces do their job and getting out of the way.
Yesterday, Maxime Bernier was arrested before he could start a rally for freedom, and after being threatened by the Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba.
Today I became a member of the PPC, and I'll be making some donations to the party.
If you're Canadian and you believe in Freedom, how could you stand for any other party? The Conservative platform talks about "new normals" and wearing masks until the heat death of the universe, The Liberals and NDP would love to keep their fascistic powers forever, while Maxime Bernier is standing up for our constitutionally protected freedoms, and being arrested by our fascist government for doing so.
"Do you have any weapons, anything dangerous on you?" "Only my words, only my philosophy."
In 2016, I voted for our local candidate of the People's Party of Canada. They proposed a massive change in the way federal government works in Canada, focusing on following the constitution, balancing the budget, letting provinces do their job and getting out of the way.
Yesterday, Maxime Bernier was arrested before he could start a rally for freedom, and after being threatened by the Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba.
Today I became a member of the PPC, and I'll be making some donations to the party.
If you're Canadian and you believe in Freedom, how could you stand for any other party? The Conservative platform talks about "new normals" and wearing masks until the heat death of the universe, The Liberals and NDP would love to keep their fascistic powers forever, while Maxime Bernier is standing up for our constitutionally protected freedoms, and being arrested by our fascist government for doing so.
"Do you have any weapons, anything dangerous on you?" "Only my words, only my philosophy."
@jeffcliff The government reaction to climate change seems to be similar to the government reaction to covid.
I don't believe them any more. They just want more excuses to control your life.
Besides, if you really want something, provinces can and have done big things. Wynne in Ontario successfully destroyed Ontario in the name of climate change and made life immeasurably harder for the poor, proving that you can harm poor people without giving the federal government unlimited power in the meantime.
I don't believe them any more. They just want more excuses to control your life.
Besides, if you really want something, provinces can and have done big things. Wynne in Ontario successfully destroyed Ontario in the name of climate change and made life immeasurably harder for the poor, proving that you can harm poor people without giving the federal government unlimited power in the meantime.
@jeffcliff The problem isn't "big", the problem is "correct", and politicians don't do "correct".
My little sister's power bill is higher than my rent was at her age, and a large part of it is the massive cost of solar panels that don't fucking do anything 9 months a year. Meanwhile. The same politicians have spent decades crippling hydroelectric power which is proven to provide massive amounts of clean power forever because a bunch of "green" advocates refuse to allow for practical ideas. There are many other examples of how "green" policies are having a direct damaging effect on the environment.
Don't be fooled, the environmental industrial complex is a massive lobby, but they aren't here to help anyone but themselves. When you let politicians be the ones to decide how to help the environment on climate change, you're accelerating damage to the planet so a few people can get super rich selling snakeoil to idiots who want to look like they're "doing something" so they can get re-elected.
My little sister's power bill is higher than my rent was at her age, and a large part of it is the massive cost of solar panels that don't fucking do anything 9 months a year. Meanwhile. The same politicians have spent decades crippling hydroelectric power which is proven to provide massive amounts of clean power forever because a bunch of "green" advocates refuse to allow for practical ideas. There are many other examples of how "green" policies are having a direct damaging effect on the environment.
Don't be fooled, the environmental industrial complex is a massive lobby, but they aren't here to help anyone but themselves. When you let politicians be the ones to decide how to help the environment on climate change, you're accelerating damage to the planet so a few people can get super rich selling snakeoil to idiots who want to look like they're "doing something" so they can get re-elected.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
@jeffcliff
You're being disingenous in one way: Most provinces don't have to move away from coal/oil because they don't use it in the first place. Of the provinces and territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Northwest territories, Nunavut, and Nova Scotia use a lot of oil and gas. Every other province is dominated (and I do mean dominated -- like 90%) by nuclear and hydro.
Those provinces that have high amounts of hydro actually tend to sell their power to neighboring jurisdictions. In the case of the US, that means we're replacing oil and gas with hydroelectric. The reason is simple, that hydro is not just clean (over time), but it's cheap. Unlike fossil fuels or even nuclear, you don't need to constantly be shipping in fuel, so it can sit for decades just making power.
I'm relatively affluent, so the problem with heating my home isn't a problem. I bought a well insulated house, and if I need to I can invest in alternative high efficiency heating and cooling. Someone I worked with had the same problem with high electricity costs, and he just installed a gas furnace, moving from hydro energy to fossil fuels as a direct result of those stupid policies. Even if they doubled his fuel costs with carbon pricing, he still would have come out ridiculously far ahead thanks to dumb government policies.
Poor people can't afford to just leave their home or install a new furnace. They have to put up with the place they can afford to pay rent in.
I once had that, I lived up north in a house with paper thin walls because that's what I could afford, and my hydro bill was ridiculous -- and it would have been so much worse had I been in Ontario. It's easy to say "Just get a more energy efficient place" when you're not already choosing between food and heat.
You know what would immediately change the trajectory of Canada's carbon use? Stop shipping people in from the lowest carbon use areas of the world to the single highest area of carbon use on the planet. The population of Canada is naturally going to drop if that happens (even a stable population will use less energy because technologies are getting much more efficient over time such as the move from incandescent light bulbs to LED light bulbs), and a dropping population will use less energy meaning there's less carbon use.
This constant need to save the world has many effects. how many millions of people in Toronto and Vancouver drive hours and hours every single day to get to work because they have to live somewhere cities away far from their jobs because there are so many people who don't need to be here shipped in from all over the world.
The PPC will reduce the number of people shipped in from low carbon areas to the highest carbon area in the world, and that alone would be massive.
You're being disingenous in one way: Most provinces don't have to move away from coal/oil because they don't use it in the first place. Of the provinces and territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Northwest territories, Nunavut, and Nova Scotia use a lot of oil and gas. Every other province is dominated (and I do mean dominated -- like 90%) by nuclear and hydro.
Those provinces that have high amounts of hydro actually tend to sell their power to neighboring jurisdictions. In the case of the US, that means we're replacing oil and gas with hydroelectric. The reason is simple, that hydro is not just clean (over time), but it's cheap. Unlike fossil fuels or even nuclear, you don't need to constantly be shipping in fuel, so it can sit for decades just making power.
I'm relatively affluent, so the problem with heating my home isn't a problem. I bought a well insulated house, and if I need to I can invest in alternative high efficiency heating and cooling. Someone I worked with had the same problem with high electricity costs, and he just installed a gas furnace, moving from hydro energy to fossil fuels as a direct result of those stupid policies. Even if they doubled his fuel costs with carbon pricing, he still would have come out ridiculously far ahead thanks to dumb government policies.
Poor people can't afford to just leave their home or install a new furnace. They have to put up with the place they can afford to pay rent in.
I once had that, I lived up north in a house with paper thin walls because that's what I could afford, and my hydro bill was ridiculous -- and it would have been so much worse had I been in Ontario. It's easy to say "Just get a more energy efficient place" when you're not already choosing between food and heat.
You know what would immediately change the trajectory of Canada's carbon use? Stop shipping people in from the lowest carbon use areas of the world to the single highest area of carbon use on the planet. The population of Canada is naturally going to drop if that happens (even a stable population will use less energy because technologies are getting much more efficient over time such as the move from incandescent light bulbs to LED light bulbs), and a dropping population will use less energy meaning there's less carbon use.
This constant need to save the world has many effects. how many millions of people in Toronto and Vancouver drive hours and hours every single day to get to work because they have to live somewhere cities away far from their jobs because there are so many people who don't need to be here shipped in from all over the world.
The PPC will reduce the number of people shipped in from low carbon areas to the highest carbon area in the world, and that alone would be massive.
@jeffcliff
Whether we like it or not, oil and gas are economic engines of this country. If that's a problem, then maybe instead of giving the cash from all those taxes to the poor during the good times they should instead spend it on directly implementing technologies for carbon sequestration? Or alternatively, just let them separate like they want to. Lose an economic engine, gain righteous moral indignation. Then it'll just be another country we can ignore like we ignore the #1 emitter of carbon in the world so we can balance our own books by shutting down everything we do and have them do it for us instead.
"If there isn't enough bread to eat, let them eat cake"...
Personally, I'm for allowing the population to drop naturally in general. About 10 years ago I did a study where I tried to figure out how much of the economy we could run on the current (at the time) level of hydroelectric, nuclear, and renewables, and I found that you could simply not even begin migrating to renewables and sustain our current population.
Besides the green standpoint, historically speaking workers rights improve when the number of workers drop. It's simple economics, the price of a scarce resource rises. Although the aggregate economy would shrink, individual wages would rise because businesses would have to compete for a scarce resource.
You say that the government can be convinced to do the right thing, but megacorps are smart -- smart enough to rig the system if it lets them, and big governments do let them. In the meantime, regular people are crushed under the weight of the fascistic government/megacorp chimera.
Megacorps want deregulation when they're normal companies, then they want regulation once they get there, because only they can afford to deal with the specific regulations they lobby for. The rich stay rich, the poor get poorer, and the politicians get to pretend they're working for the people when they're really working for someone else.
Whether we like it or not, oil and gas are economic engines of this country. If that's a problem, then maybe instead of giving the cash from all those taxes to the poor during the good times they should instead spend it on directly implementing technologies for carbon sequestration? Or alternatively, just let them separate like they want to. Lose an economic engine, gain righteous moral indignation. Then it'll just be another country we can ignore like we ignore the #1 emitter of carbon in the world so we can balance our own books by shutting down everything we do and have them do it for us instead.
"If there isn't enough bread to eat, let them eat cake"...
Personally, I'm for allowing the population to drop naturally in general. About 10 years ago I did a study where I tried to figure out how much of the economy we could run on the current (at the time) level of hydroelectric, nuclear, and renewables, and I found that you could simply not even begin migrating to renewables and sustain our current population.
Besides the green standpoint, historically speaking workers rights improve when the number of workers drop. It's simple economics, the price of a scarce resource rises. Although the aggregate economy would shrink, individual wages would rise because businesses would have to compete for a scarce resource.
You say that the government can be convinced to do the right thing, but megacorps are smart -- smart enough to rig the system if it lets them, and big governments do let them. In the meantime, regular people are crushed under the weight of the fascistic government/megacorp chimera.
Megacorps want deregulation when they're normal companies, then they want regulation once they get there, because only they can afford to deal with the specific regulations they lobby for. The rich stay rich, the poor get poorer, and the politicians get to pretend they're working for the people when they're really working for someone else.