?Impact

It would help if you read what I said: A phase out is not the same thing as a shutdown.

Yes, but the US government demanding a Canadian company buy US steel is certainly a violation of NAFTA. In fact the US government demanding a US company buy US steel is also a violation.

Who has an opposition to nuclear? I have expressed here, and much more completely in other places a detailed description of the issues that nuclear has to deal with. If you want to support nuclear, then get you head out of the sand and address those issues.

Agreed. Everything is relative. Give some true empirical numbers to support your point.

Why can't you rely on something people say, and not have to say something completely different in order to make a counter point? Is that because you have nothing?

Let's see: hydro, tidal, solar, wind, etc. Lots of lower C02 alternatives. The fallacy that nuclear is C02 free is just that. Yes, there is little C02 involved in generation, but in the complete life cycle of the plant, fuel, and disposal there is considerable C02.

Once he hits his first snag in Congress the Ermächtigungsgesetz will follow.

I don't necessarily agree with GPC policy here, but your interpretation is wrong. A phase out is not the same thing as a shutdown, it is replacing plants that end of life with alternatives. They also make some good suggestions as to were we should be investing. They identify the issues about nuclear, but instead of addressing the issues you stick your head in the sand and say nothing can be done. How about addressing the issues. I took this up directly with the Ontario PC government when they were in power, and brought to their attention the real issues that need to be dealt with. Instead of addressing the issues they embarked on their pass the buck privatization campaign.

Sorry bud, but congrats have been signed. That is like saying you buy a boat, take possession, and then refuse to pay.

"Revived" with a big caveat. Do it on my terms. Well we will see if those terms are acceptable, and if he tries to violate any trade agreements with them.

Good advice Tim. Time to listen to what the opposition is, and actually address it instead of sticking you head in the sand.

Trump is no Reagan. You could disagree with Reagan on a whole host of issues, but you couldn't help but like him. Only the first part applies to Trump.

"Presidential stuff" Dear Detroit carmakers, You have 30 days to tell me how we are going to Make America Great again.

Yes it is a tax, but it is not the total tax burden. Only the total tax burden has anything to do with all the hellfire and brimstone you preach, how much of it is allocated to any specific tax is completely, 100% irrelevant. If taxes are focused on the right areas then those who are less wasteful of our planets resources and future will benefit (bigly).

There are lots of protests against Arab countries as well. There were major protests here about the arms deal we made with Saudi Arabia for example. There were protests in London about supporting Saudi Arabia due to its military action in Yemen. In Norway last summer there was a protest about the money that seems to find its way from Saudi Arabia to terrorists. If you open your eyes, you will see that people do indeed get involve in other actions. Trumps despicable actions are also worthy of protest, he is not the victim although he loves to play that card.

Funny how obnoxious behaviour is contagious.

Most self-identified skeptics are nothing of the sort - they are climate change deniers. There are issues with nuclear, like long term management of the waste products. The self identified skeptics are completely clueless about that, because they are also deniers there as well. They don't want to deal with reality, they just want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything is rosy. They are clueless about the issues around nuclear safety as well, spouting tired old lines about it is only those dang Soviet systems that fail, and then well that is old technology in Japan. They don't have a clue about the real issues, they just want to pretend them away.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Total taxation contributes to competitiveness. The percentage of that taxation that is collected through carbon taxation is completely, 100% irrelevant.

Absolutely we should be trying to solve the problems around nuclear power, but the climate change deniers are the same people that don't want to look at it. The climate change deniers are also the people that support immigration to "grow our economy". You are blaming the wrong folks.

Reduction and elimination are not the same thing. There is plenty that can be done to reduce. Carbon taxes do not make Canada a single cent less competitive, that is a complete fabrication. Increased overall taxation may, but moving the tax burden onto those that create the most GHG has nothing to do with overall taxation. Keep crying wolf, but nobody is listening.

There has been a significant* decrease in lung cancer for men over the past 30+ years, certainly tobacco usage has been part of that and taxation has some impact on that tobacco usage. For women we have not see the same order of improvement, so other factors cannot be ignored. *significant means significant, almost half the new cases (rate by population) as we had in the 70's.

Yes, it will be interesting indeed. I am not so sure it has a better than 50/50 chance of 'winning' but it will certainly demand a lot of discovery evidence.

I can see him running as an independent in 2020.

I find Siri rather cold, it needs an overhaul on planet Cygnet XIV.