Boges

Increased methane is the only risk of Fracking that I can't reconcile with what I've read, it's a legit concern associated with fracking. The other issues you've discussed are addressed in this article. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1 When one discusses the lowered emissions in Ontario it was and continues to be achieved by phasing out coal and replacing it with Natural Gas. It's not because of the power produced (massively subsidized BTW) by wind and solar. And this article argues that Wind and Solar are simply replacing power produced by water (ei. Niagara Falls) http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/04/20130411-173018.html And that still begs the rhetorical question: How much land will it take to power the province using wind?

Yes but if there's a demand for Natural Gas, surely increased regulations to ensure that wells don't leak lots of methane is better than advocating for having the practice banned? Ontario has discovered that Solar and Wind can't provide a "base-load" and the single-digit percentage of power it does provide is extraordinarily expensive. Also those solutions have their environmental problems as well. How much land would it required to power an entire province like Ontario? How energy intensive is it to produce a solar panel? We're certainly going to need Natural Gas until an alternative energy is found.

That would be reasonable considering York is a public institution, receiving lots of government funds. Which is part of the reason why people are outraged. A university like this shouldn't be making accommodations for people that are exhibiting clearly misogynistic traits. I said in an earlier post that the request in itself isn't terribly troubling but the precedent is set.

Fair enough. Do you you surmise that the increased demand for Natural Gas from the likes of Ontario will be easily met using traditional Natural Gas drilling methods? If so, Huzzah Huzzah! I don't care where the Natural Gas comes from but it would appear the supply in the future most certainly could, and many would argue, should come from Shale gas.

To what? That's what this thread is about. "Should we be shocked about what York did here?" Clearly you're fine with it. Many from both sides of the political spectrum are not.

http://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/Natural-Gas-Q-and-A http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/naturalGas/ShaleGas/Pages/default.aspxThis map shows that the Shale Basin in Saskatchewan and Alberta appear larger than that of Marcellus (NY, OH, PA) http://www.capp.ca/PublishingImages/425W/NorthAmerica-Shale-Gas-Basins.jpg It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that Western Ontario Gas will soon include Shale gas.

Because it can be repeatedly determined that the treatment of women in Islam is completely cultural. Also the reasons given by this student as heard by the professor on the radio last week was that he didn't want to deal with women to "avoid temptation".

Does it have to be a certain religion? I think it has been demonstrated that misogynistic characteristics are far more cultural than religious. Anti-semitism seems to be a common cultural characteristic across the world.

But it was accomplished with all that evil fracked natural gas from out west! Unless of course when they plan to build a plant then cancel it to save seats.

Also a reason why only the "well-heeled" purchase electric cars. You pay a premium for a car to have hybrid or electric capabilities that won't equal the potential savings in gas through the life of the car. Plus the cost of replacing the battery when it's no longer viable is way more than maintaining a car.

No but if you needed new insulation, it's a nice "frill". Same with new HVAC appliances. A new furnace is a big ticket purchase I know is coming, and I'm dreading. But when I'll have to replace my current furnace, I'll certainly opt for an energy efficient model.

The neccesity will be the price of oil, we saw it in 2008 when oil prices reached a record high. Auto companies quickly moved towards fuel efficiency as a selling point. We're moving towards Natural Gas as a main source of energy, which is cheaper, cleaner and still quite plentiful. It's beyond me why cars aren't available that run on it. But people vigorously and sometimes violently protest that too? I wonder how these protesters heat their homes at night? When we have a major ice storm and power is lost; the energy we use is seen as a civil right yet people still feel the need to vigorously protest how the energy is extracted. I'm sure at some point R&D will develop a form of solar or wind power that can provide a base load of electricity, but until that day happens we need fossil fuels to maintain civilization.

The request really isn't the story. It's the fact that the administration of a publicly-funded university instructed a professor to accommodate a sexist request that bothers people. In Ontario, where there's a Catholic school board, the government told the board that they weren't allowed to ban "Gay-Straight" Alliances. Yet in the Public school board in Toronto where Prayer rooms were made available women were instructed to sit in the back of the room. http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2012/03/21/allah-in-the-cafeteria/ I know the term "slippery-slop" is often derided but what precedent does this set? Will accommodations be made if students don't want to interact with someone of another race or religion? What if a group of students decide they would prefer women not present in their class at all and if they are present they have to sit at the back? Where is the line drawn? before it was when a freedom infringed on the rights of others, now I'm not so sure.

No the professor did, in denying the request.

It's news because the administration of the University said it's OK for a man to ask not to associate with women. What would you think if an HR department allowed the same accommodation?

That's the narrative his opponents might have to use. Refute his conservatism. Because laughing at Ford as an embarrassment hasn't seemed to hurt his popularity all that much.

I don't live in Toronto so I can only comment as an outsider, BUT it seemed that under David Miller, the people who lived in the Toronto suburbs were somewhat forgotten. Ford's rise to power was most certainly built on people who thought "urbanites" couldn't give a crap about them. You see this from Premiere Kathleen Wynne who, it would appear, would like to run the next election by adding up to 10 cents/litre to gas to mostly paying for downtown transit improvements. This is a blatant wedge issue between rural/suburban voters and urban voters.

I think "elite" could mean people that consider fiscal conservatives as "brick-stupid".

UH OH!!! http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/08/ice-storm-response-thaws-mayor-rob-fords-approval-rating-poll

PIPELINE!!!!

Slow Clap Canada Post. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/06/canada_post_skips_200_thornhill_homes_for_two_weeks_over_holidays.html

Well Brigitte!!!! was a paige, all she had to do was smuggle a sign into her job. She got fired immediately. My favourite part of this story is the "dolt" hasn't ruled out legal action against the RMCP for being roughed up. LOL! Had you got that close to POTUS you'd be lucky to be still alive you putz!

They aren't mutually exclusive are they? having a cleaner fuel would be a benefit would it not? Why else would Ontario be in the Natural Gas game? Completely supported by Al Gore. Wouldn't imposing those regulations be better than banning the practice all together. Power has to be generated somehow.

So you're saying the United States being self-relient is a bad thing then? If the price Canada pays is dependent on export and that market is drying up because of the Shale Boom, then why try and drill in New Brunswick and the Gaspe? Would there not be a domestic use for that gas? Or exporting to another market, not the US?

Depends how the process is regulated. You seem to ignore the benefits of using Natural Gas. Why else would Ontario be lauded for replacing Coal-fire plants with Natural Gas plants? Here's an example of how a state is working to mitigate the methane emissions. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-colorado-fracking-emissions-idUSBRE9AH18520131118