You're definitely missing key facts, and you're wrong on others.
One of the core tenets of the Maguinty liberals green energy plan was massively overpaying for electrical power from Green energy. In 2011, the guaranteed amount provided for a certain set period of time was 80 cents, and in 2012 they changed that to 50.4 cents. They ended up signing contracts that were 20 years at the agreed upon rate.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-to-cut-rates-paid-for-wind-solar-power-1.1157717
What you said about the prices of electricity in Canada is simply wrong. If you are paying attention to Saskatchewan and alberta, then Ontario is competitive. But at no point have I been referring to Alberta or saskatchewan which are mostly fossil fuels. I've been referring to all the different provinces that utilize hydroelectric power. Quebec, Manitoba, British columbia, and Newfoundland are all almost entirely renewables, those renewables are primarily hydroelectricity, and almost all of them have significantly lower electricity prices than Ontario (Newfoundland is an outlier I believe is caused by the fact that Labrador has all the hydro and Newfoundland is isolated)
https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/comparison-electricity-prices.pdf
Here's some data on electric heat. It shows that two thirds of homes the province with the most hydroelectricity in the lowest electricity prices are heated with electric.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-402-x/2007/1741/ceb1741_003-eng.htm
About 45% of Canada's carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels to release energy, and that includes for building heating.
The real-world data speaks for itself. Several provinces are at 90%+ renewable electricity generation and have lower electricity prices than the other provinces. That's achievable using hydroelectric today, without magical thinking or praying for new technological innovations.
One of the core tenets of the Maguinty liberals green energy plan was massively overpaying for electrical power from Green energy. In 2011, the guaranteed amount provided for a certain set period of time was 80 cents, and in 2012 they changed that to 50.4 cents. They ended up signing contracts that were 20 years at the agreed upon rate.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-to-cut-rates-paid-for-wind-solar-power-1.1157717
What you said about the prices of electricity in Canada is simply wrong. If you are paying attention to Saskatchewan and alberta, then Ontario is competitive. But at no point have I been referring to Alberta or saskatchewan which are mostly fossil fuels. I've been referring to all the different provinces that utilize hydroelectric power. Quebec, Manitoba, British columbia, and Newfoundland are all almost entirely renewables, those renewables are primarily hydroelectricity, and almost all of them have significantly lower electricity prices than Ontario (Newfoundland is an outlier I believe is caused by the fact that Labrador has all the hydro and Newfoundland is isolated)
https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/comparison-electricity-prices.pdf
Here's some data on electric heat. It shows that two thirds of homes the province with the most hydroelectricity in the lowest electricity prices are heated with electric.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-402-x/2007/1741/ceb1741_003-eng.htm
About 45% of Canada's carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels to release energy, and that includes for building heating.
The real-world data speaks for itself. Several provinces are at 90%+ renewable electricity generation and have lower electricity prices than the other provinces. That's achievable using hydroelectric today, without magical thinking or praying for new technological innovations.
Were you at all aware of all the sweetheart deals the green energy guys got? They were getting like 50 cents a kilowatt hour at one point (sold for 4 cents a kilowatt hour wholesale), and those particular contracts were locked in for like 25 years. It's obvious that doing that is going to have to get paid for somehow, and guess how it got paid for? The ratepayers. Hydro rates shot up.
That harmed people. You can keep on pretending that the last 20 years didn't happen, but they did. In Ontario isn't the only place that happened. I used to heat my home with electric in a very far North community where I didn't have much of a choice. Electricity rates climbed up a very quickly over the past 20 years, and now a lot of people are looking at replacing their electric heaters with fossil fuels because the cost of electric has gone up so much compared to general inflation.
This is only difficult if you're trying making it hard intentionally. Otherwise it's really easy: to get people to stop using fossil fuels, you need abundant inexpensive green energy, people will use that energy because it makes the most sense. The sort of inexpensive abundant green energy that has been powering Quebec and Manitoba for a century. The sort of inexpensive abundant green energy that until the 1970s was the workhorse of Ontario electrical production. The inexpensive green energy used abundantly in British Columbia and Newfoundland. It's something that Canada has in Mass abundance, we just need to use it. And then, Canada can become one of the world leaders in green energy, the per capita carbon footprint drops, and with enough energy we can gain a competitive advantage producing normally carbon intensive things using green energy, helping us punch above our weight and take some of the dirtiest energy production in the world in Chinas coal power plants offline.
That harmed people. You can keep on pretending that the last 20 years didn't happen, but they did. In Ontario isn't the only place that happened. I used to heat my home with electric in a very far North community where I didn't have much of a choice. Electricity rates climbed up a very quickly over the past 20 years, and now a lot of people are looking at replacing their electric heaters with fossil fuels because the cost of electric has gone up so much compared to general inflation.
This is only difficult if you're trying making it hard intentionally. Otherwise it's really easy: to get people to stop using fossil fuels, you need abundant inexpensive green energy, people will use that energy because it makes the most sense. The sort of inexpensive abundant green energy that has been powering Quebec and Manitoba for a century. The sort of inexpensive abundant green energy that until the 1970s was the workhorse of Ontario electrical production. The inexpensive green energy used abundantly in British Columbia and Newfoundland. It's something that Canada has in Mass abundance, we just need to use it. And then, Canada can become one of the world leaders in green energy, the per capita carbon footprint drops, and with enough energy we can gain a competitive advantage producing normally carbon intensive things using green energy, helping us punch above our weight and take some of the dirtiest energy production in the world in Chinas coal power plants offline.
A party voted in to end green policies that were harming common people ending green policies that were harming common people isn't incompetence. And when the party that created those policies are so badly pantsed that they aren't even a real political party anymore that isn't some fringe group of radicals who voted against them.
I've warned before that there are political consequences for ignoring the reality of the common man. Keep on pretending reality doesn't exist and denying reality people experience, a guy like Ford will be PM and do exactly what he's elected to do.
I've warned before that there are political consequences for ignoring the reality of the common man. Keep on pretending reality doesn't exist and denying reality people experience, a guy like Ford will be PM and do exactly what he's elected to do.
It doesn't matter whether most homes are heated with fossil fuels or not. A lot of houses (entire cities In some cases) in Quebec and Manitoba and in Ontario where heated with electricity, and that was practical up until recently. The last couple decades of seen electricity prices skyrocket so stuff that was perfectly reasonable in the past is no longer reasonable.
Things have been so utterly mismanaged that we're moving backwards. A typical family used to be able to live a reasonably carbon neutral existence with respect to home heating and lighting and so on. Now people are having to switch to Fossil fuels. That's a change, and it's a change for the worse. All you can really call it is incompetence considering these people keep on screaming from the rooftops about how much they care about this topic.
With respect to battery powered EVs as buses or mains power busses, when you're dealing with something that doesn't have this giant set of batteries that are going to be destroyed relatively quickly, I would say that that's definitely the best. We don't need to go digging up strange stuff out of child labor mines, we can dig up the materials here, we can manufacture them here, we can use them here, and when they're done we can recycle them here. Winning all around.
Things have been so utterly mismanaged that we're moving backwards. A typical family used to be able to live a reasonably carbon neutral existence with respect to home heating and lighting and so on. Now people are having to switch to Fossil fuels. That's a change, and it's a change for the worse. All you can really call it is incompetence considering these people keep on screaming from the rooftops about how much they care about this topic.
With respect to battery powered EVs as buses or mains power busses, when you're dealing with something that doesn't have this giant set of batteries that are going to be destroyed relatively quickly, I would say that that's definitely the best. We don't need to go digging up strange stuff out of child labor mines, we can dig up the materials here, we can manufacture them here, we can use them here, and when they're done we can recycle them here. Winning all around.
The point is not to do nothing. The point is to do things that are effective instead of things that are going to end up making someone a lot of money.
Virtually every province in Canada somewhere has the geography required for hydroelectricity. Hydroelectricity that we know in the past and for decades produced enough electricity to heat people's homes in winter. Instead, we're chasing after solar powered heaters which is absurd and stupid. 100 years ago we had electric trolleys, for 40 to 50 years the city that I'm in right now had electric buses. They ran off of power lines above the streets. Instead, we're chasing battery powered electric vehicles that are much higher maintenance, require fantasy technologies that don't exist yet, that are much higher cost.
I've been pretty consistent about this for a long time. You can find posts going back years talking about it. In my view, the technologies that we need to dramatically improve everyone's lives and reduce reliance on fossil fuels already exists. We should be looking at them, in particular in Canada hydroelectricity. If we ended up having the common good of large-scale hydroelectric everywhere, it would have nothing but positive effects. People would be able to heat their homes in winter without having to choose between and food. Those homes that are heated with electricity today, they were built when electricity was an economical way to heat your home. Instead we are chasing magic environmentalism boxes, and literally tilting at windmills.
So why are we focusing on all of these high technology moonshots? Because it makes people a whole lot of money. It is relatively trivial to use all of these existing technologies which is by the way advance a lot from the days that they were widespread. But no one is going to be lining the pockets of politicians.
Virtually every province in Canada somewhere has the geography required for hydroelectricity. Hydroelectricity that we know in the past and for decades produced enough electricity to heat people's homes in winter. Instead, we're chasing after solar powered heaters which is absurd and stupid. 100 years ago we had electric trolleys, for 40 to 50 years the city that I'm in right now had electric buses. They ran off of power lines above the streets. Instead, we're chasing battery powered electric vehicles that are much higher maintenance, require fantasy technologies that don't exist yet, that are much higher cost.
I've been pretty consistent about this for a long time. You can find posts going back years talking about it. In my view, the technologies that we need to dramatically improve everyone's lives and reduce reliance on fossil fuels already exists. We should be looking at them, in particular in Canada hydroelectricity. If we ended up having the common good of large-scale hydroelectric everywhere, it would have nothing but positive effects. People would be able to heat their homes in winter without having to choose between and food. Those homes that are heated with electricity today, they were built when electricity was an economical way to heat your home. Instead we are chasing magic environmentalism boxes, and literally tilting at windmills.
So why are we focusing on all of these high technology moonshots? Because it makes people a whole lot of money. It is relatively trivial to use all of these existing technologies which is by the way advance a lot from the days that they were widespread. But no one is going to be lining the pockets of politicians.
Climate Change caused him to commit suicide by shooting himself 10 times in the back. Seen it a million times.
I think Tim Pool's right, the civil war is already on. All of this is just the tactics.
Full on fighting in the streets civil wars are a young man's game, and the population is quickly aging. There is no mass of young men ready to die for their cause. Gen z can't even tell a girl that they like them without getting anxiety attacks.
Whatifalthist had a video on this recently, and pointing out that wokeness is a religion, and that we are coming to the end of a secular cycle that's going to result in a mass population collapse, we're not in the sort of situation where you end up with that kind of war. You end up in this sort of situation with little skirmishes, in this case legal ones, or situations like 150 days of rioting in the streets and burning apartment buildings and restaurants to the ground.
The new right is like the protestants, when the Catholics had all the institutional power (and the woke are Catholics). In my view, I would say expect the worst scenario. Another 4 years of Biden, Trump goes to jail, and if they're Republicans end up in power at any point in the next 16 years, expect a neutered uniparty candidate.
Now you can take this as a black pill, but I think that part of the problems with the new right is that they are a very new movement, and acting on a limited historical context. This situation didn't come about in 4 years, it isn't going to get reversed in 4 years. And no one man is going to be able to do a damn thing about it. The key has to be playing the long game, because from where I'm standing right now, the long-term victory is inevitable, just as in the 1900s the long-term victory of the left was inevitable. Most of the 1900s was a secular cycle that meant an unprecedented Golden age so there was plenty for everyone, and there was no moral or practical reason to exclude anyone. What's coming is an unprecedented dark age. That's not a good thing. It's going to be very hard and it's going to be terrible. Everyone should wish that such a thing wasn't going to come. But it is going to come, and the current rise of a new right is in direct response to this truth, which is why it's capturing a lot of young men who don't have the privilege of playing their violin as Rome burns.
Ultimately it was The barbarians who took over Europe in after the fall of the western Roman empire. They weren't living in the capital in the lap of luxury, they were dealing with the reality of the world around them. They couldn't rely on taxes from distant lands to supply them, they needed to be able to grow their own food, and manage their own people, and without the help of the people in the Capitol build something of their own.
Full on fighting in the streets civil wars are a young man's game, and the population is quickly aging. There is no mass of young men ready to die for their cause. Gen z can't even tell a girl that they like them without getting anxiety attacks.
Whatifalthist had a video on this recently, and pointing out that wokeness is a religion, and that we are coming to the end of a secular cycle that's going to result in a mass population collapse, we're not in the sort of situation where you end up with that kind of war. You end up in this sort of situation with little skirmishes, in this case legal ones, or situations like 150 days of rioting in the streets and burning apartment buildings and restaurants to the ground.
The new right is like the protestants, when the Catholics had all the institutional power (and the woke are Catholics). In my view, I would say expect the worst scenario. Another 4 years of Biden, Trump goes to jail, and if they're Republicans end up in power at any point in the next 16 years, expect a neutered uniparty candidate.
Now you can take this as a black pill, but I think that part of the problems with the new right is that they are a very new movement, and acting on a limited historical context. This situation didn't come about in 4 years, it isn't going to get reversed in 4 years. And no one man is going to be able to do a damn thing about it. The key has to be playing the long game, because from where I'm standing right now, the long-term victory is inevitable, just as in the 1900s the long-term victory of the left was inevitable. Most of the 1900s was a secular cycle that meant an unprecedented Golden age so there was plenty for everyone, and there was no moral or practical reason to exclude anyone. What's coming is an unprecedented dark age. That's not a good thing. It's going to be very hard and it's going to be terrible. Everyone should wish that such a thing wasn't going to come. But it is going to come, and the current rise of a new right is in direct response to this truth, which is why it's capturing a lot of young men who don't have the privilege of playing their violin as Rome burns.
Ultimately it was The barbarians who took over Europe in after the fall of the western Roman empire. They weren't living in the capital in the lap of luxury, they were dealing with the reality of the world around them. They couldn't rely on taxes from distant lands to supply them, they needed to be able to grow their own food, and manage their own people, and without the help of the people in the Capitol build something of their own.
Doesn't really matter for the purposes of what we're talking about if everyone is switching to natural gas or propane or diesel.
A friend of mine heated his house with electricity, electricity generated by hydroelectric. Eventually, his hydro bill was $700 a month. He ended up switching to fossil fuels to heat his home, and with the massively reduced power bills and the tiny fuel bills comparatively speaking, his entire setup paid for itself in the first year alone and then some.
There are a lot of people right now who are living in homes where a relatively reasonable power bill for heating turned into a mortgage payment. And as a result they are switching to Fossil fuels. You tell me if that's a big win for green energy. And even with the carbon taxes that are dragging everyone into the dirt, they're still coming out ahead. And they will continue to come out ahead unless fossil fuels become so expensive that we're all dead.
A friend of mine heated his house with electricity, electricity generated by hydroelectric. Eventually, his hydro bill was $700 a month. He ended up switching to fossil fuels to heat his home, and with the massively reduced power bills and the tiny fuel bills comparatively speaking, his entire setup paid for itself in the first year alone and then some.
There are a lot of people right now who are living in homes where a relatively reasonable power bill for heating turned into a mortgage payment. And as a result they are switching to Fossil fuels. You tell me if that's a big win for green energy. And even with the carbon taxes that are dragging everyone into the dirt, they're still coming out ahead. And they will continue to come out ahead unless fossil fuels become so expensive that we're all dead.
They're so used to websites wanting to specifically cater to them that they'll silence all opposing viewpoints with extreme prejudice that it seems strange to them when that doesn't happen.
I don't defederate from anyone, but I did add some woodchipper instances to the strip image MRF.
I don't defederate from anyone, but I did add some woodchipper instances to the strip image MRF.
I've been watching as many people in Ontario switch away from electricity to fossil fuels to heat their homes because the cost of electricity has skyrocketed, and a massive increase in in situ diesel generation so companies can switch off of carbon neutral sources of energy during peak times.
It does something....something bad. More fossil fuels are being burned because of the mass mismanagement than if they'd done nothing.
It does something....something bad. More fossil fuels are being burned because of the mass mismanagement than if they'd done nothing.
All we need to do in order to prevent forest fires is give all of our money to multinational corporations so they can spend it on useless bullshit that doesn't do anything besides increase electricity rates.
Sfo is good. Sometimes says dumb things but other times says incredibly smart things and on the balance I'm happy to watch his produced videos.
Something with the whole thing really doesn't smell right.
Does anyone else find it really weird going with lines of code as a metric? There's some pretty small activitypub enabled projects out there.
Does anyone else find it really weird going with lines of code as a metric? There's some pretty small activitypub enabled projects out there.
If you really want to get into the weeds, sometimes what is considered good is not sustainable, and what is considered evil is sustainable. Purely environmentally, slavery is more sustainable than using fossil fuels, but in our current age we'd consider fossil fuels morally slightly negative and slavery morally extremely negative.
I've experienced it that you can't use a standard like that as objective. You could treat two people exactly the same, and one would be so thankful they'd be loyal to you for life, and the other would spit on your name and resent you for life. People choose whether to be thankful to the universe or not for the good things that happen to them, or to be angry that a universe that has given them a good thing didn't give them a better thing.
If you're being a realist though, there are definitely basics that one can rely on as a basic scaffold from which to base your actions. That's one reason why one of the early chapters of The Graysonian Ethic is called Basics, and talks about some foundational principles that one should consider before they worry about the broader complexities of life.
I've experienced it that you can't use a standard like that as objective. You could treat two people exactly the same, and one would be so thankful they'd be loyal to you for life, and the other would spit on your name and resent you for life. People choose whether to be thankful to the universe or not for the good things that happen to them, or to be angry that a universe that has given them a good thing didn't give them a better thing.
If you're being a realist though, there are definitely basics that one can rely on as a basic scaffold from which to base your actions. That's one reason why one of the early chapters of The Graysonian Ethic is called Basics, and talks about some foundational principles that one should consider before they worry about the broader complexities of life.
Forever ago, I took an ethics course where they talked about deontological and teleological ethics. These forms of ethics look at the ethical implications of an action, and in one case they are looking at whether the action itself is moral or immoral, and in the other case it is looking at the consequences of the action as being moral or immoral (morals and ethics aren't really the same thing but I'm using the interchangeably here)
So in doing a thorough analysis of the graysonian ethic, one of the things that came out was that it isn't really either. It doesn't really talk about specifics of how to come to a certain decision about whether an action is good or evil, instead it talks about becoming the sort of person who is virtuous enough to make the decision for himself.
This actually makes a whole lot of sense. The world is complicated, and yesterday is not today and today is not tomorrow, the circumstances that we live under can change in a heartbeat. Any equation that you build trying to be able to determine if an action itself is good or evil will come up short. Is confluence of things that talk about what is ethical, there is one part biology and the fact that we are human, there is one part environment in the culture we live in and the world we live in, and there's one part choice and how we choose to live our lives and what we choose to value. Those three things are each infinitely complicated. Points of view that appeared to be correct can turn out to be incorrect, or they can turn out to have been correct at the time but then the world changed. Or your personal circumstances changed.
So in this sense, that's where virtue ethics seem to make more sense. Instead of trying to come up with an overreaching equation to find the answer to all life, you just focus on becoming a virtuous person and then follow your conscience. Then you can be confident that rather than being stuck in a dogmatic math equation that is wrong because the circumstances that the math equation was developed under changed, you can walk through life experiencing it and making value judgments on the fly based on your inherent virtue as a person who has cultivated that virtue.
So in doing a thorough analysis of the graysonian ethic, one of the things that came out was that it isn't really either. It doesn't really talk about specifics of how to come to a certain decision about whether an action is good or evil, instead it talks about becoming the sort of person who is virtuous enough to make the decision for himself.
This actually makes a whole lot of sense. The world is complicated, and yesterday is not today and today is not tomorrow, the circumstances that we live under can change in a heartbeat. Any equation that you build trying to be able to determine if an action itself is good or evil will come up short. Is confluence of things that talk about what is ethical, there is one part biology and the fact that we are human, there is one part environment in the culture we live in and the world we live in, and there's one part choice and how we choose to live our lives and what we choose to value. Those three things are each infinitely complicated. Points of view that appeared to be correct can turn out to be incorrect, or they can turn out to have been correct at the time but then the world changed. Or your personal circumstances changed.
So in this sense, that's where virtue ethics seem to make more sense. Instead of trying to come up with an overreaching equation to find the answer to all life, you just focus on becoming a virtuous person and then follow your conscience. Then you can be confident that rather than being stuck in a dogmatic math equation that is wrong because the circumstances that the math equation was developed under changed, you can walk through life experiencing it and making value judgments on the fly based on your inherent virtue as a person who has cultivated that virtue.
Looks like cope from people who had to go back to work.
I, for one, am glad to not have a bunch of work from home losers sitting there asking me to do their jobs that they can't do from their deck while drinking mai tais.
"Oh we're so productive!" No, I'm so productive. Get back to work, slacker.
I, for one, am glad to not have a bunch of work from home losers sitting there asking me to do their jobs that they can't do from their deck while drinking mai tais.
"Oh we're so productive!" No, I'm so productive. Get back to work, slacker.