Leaderboard

I'm surprised there isn't a discussion on this or maybe I missed it. Either way even though most western countries are not signing on, Canada is and IMO, we should not. What is very alarming is the intent to define criticism of migration as 'hate speech' so would become a criminal offense. “Media outlets that give room for criticism of migration,can be shut down.“ https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-war-of-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR3CYLDBEhqxZ_cghgQX_WA_KR3jKvNNdtPJnC8lcqpQHofxHFv9lvO2Ooc To properly understand the trend of world political events in recent years, it is essential to appreciate that a titanic struggle for supremacy between two implacably opposed ideologies is raging right across the Western world. It is an undeclared war waged largely behind the scenes. The attackers are powerful globalist and multi-national interests such as the EU and the UN, supported by many leftist groups funded, paradoxically, by mega-rich financiers. Their ultimate aim is the abolition of borders, migration between countries at will, the dismantling of national identity, the transfer of power to supra-national bodies, and eventually the imposition of a post-democratic unitary world government. The defenders are those who believe that Western-style democracy based on the nation-state remains the least-worst way yet devised of safe-guarding the life, liberty and prosperity of its citizens. Public awareness of the struggle is almost non-existent because, with very few exceptions, the free world’s mainstream media long ago aligned themselves with the globalists and have shamefully failed to Dutch politician and European Parliament member Marcel de Graaff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORLGL2no_U

Conservatives have spoken up, and quite eloquently. They elected Doug Ford.

I find the title of this thread odd, considering that it refers to the PM who was voted the greatest in Canadian history. In that case if Justin does close to as well as his father his legacy is probably pretty safe. BTW, I am not a Liberal supporter.

So far as I have been able to determine clean coal technology is a myth. In order to be truly clean coal would have to burn without producing any greenhouse gas emissions, and I doubt that is possible. My reference to technological inertia agrees with your stand that massive investment in existing technology creates a technological mass that is hard to change. As a result fossil fuels are not going to go away anytime soon. But that was also true of many other technologies in the 20th Century. An example is that horses were used as a major form of transport even in the so-called mechanized armies of World war II. However, in the long term superior technology always wins out. There will be resistance to this trend, of course, from established industry, particularly in countries like the US and Canada which have huge oil industries. But there will also be much less resistance in nations like China and India which are major importers of oil.

Hydrocarbon based energy is going to be around for quite a while not because we are afraid of change (although we are), but because the infrastructure to produce, refine, deliver and use them is in the tens if not hundreds of TRILLIONS of $$$. I have heavy equipment, for instance, that has been in service for over 40 years. Why would I replace perfectly useful and long, LONG ago paid out equipment with something costs many orders of magnitude more to do the same job? The answer of course is when I could make better money with the new equipment - but since fuel is an almost negligible part of the operating costs, I can not. Also, solar and wind are only cheaper than coal under some conditions. If you compare at matching scale (at the utility level) they are not. BUT: if you were to regulate coal properly to cover full life cycle costs and have appropriate emissions, it is even more capital intensive than nuclear. (intersing sidebar: the ONLY full scale CCT = Clean Coal Technology plant on the planet is the Sask Power Boundary Dam CCT project, conceived by a Saskatoon engineer while working for SNC Lavalin.

I certainly agree that fossil fuels are not going away for several decades. Technological inertia tends to keep established systems in place simply because it is easier to leave things the way that they are rather than change. However, as it was in the case of the internal combustion engine versus other forms of technology at the beginning of the 20th Century superior tech eventually wins out, especially if it is easier to use and less costly than its competition. Currently wind and solar are cheaper than coal so I expect that will give them the edge in the long term, especially if governments begin to drop fossil fuel subsidies.