BC_chick

Because agreeing with the experts on a subject and deviating from them are exactly the same thing. Sure. No, TimG, that's not how it goes. If 97% of accountants believe a generally accepted accounting principle and 3% don't, then Joe Blow who sides with the 3% is the one lacking the qualification to question the 97% who are experts in their field. Joe Blow who believes the 97% is correct is just better at discerning qualified advice.

In a province of 4.5 million, it's naive to think we could get 1.5 million gas vehicles off the road. Even if it was doable, the price tag for the incentive, using the the current rate of $5000, it would cost $7,500,000,000 which takes a large chunk out of that $36 billion investment. So in the best case scenario, we offset the GHG's but we go back on our agreements with FN's and mess up the ecosystem of the Salmon for $20 billion. I don't know, I'd rather we focus on renewables all together.

Well no, that's not it. These are people who specialized in areas and spent many years of their lives devoted to a subject. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who know a lot about our legal system, but at the end of the day, if I need legal advice, I talk to a lawyer.

You answered my question with a question.

Look Tim, no offence, but when it comes to climate-change, I believe climate-change scientists over anonymous internet posters. No hard feelings, k?

Jesus, did you even open the link? Yes, it absolutely is the argument against it. And sure, all those respected scientists who signed that letter are just 'silly'. Why am I listening to what they have to say when I have you?

I'm not aware of anything that they're going to do to offset LNG, so maybe it's wishful thinking on your part. At the very least, can you acknowledge that in absence of an offset plan, this deal will ensure that Paris was a farce?

CBC of course. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lng-petronas-pacific-northwest-ghg-emissions-1.3607070

In absence of Bonam's trustworthy analysis, I'm going with the consensus of the scientists who say we won't meet the targets if LNG goes through. http://media.wix.com/ugd/f85bab_86eaddc3c8f04f5f967f0a5ccb333cda.pdf

That's a great point Big Guy.

I don't understand the bickering about details either, the real issue is that by ok'ing this deal, we went back on everything we committed to do.Paris was one big fat lie. Canada never left.

The comparison to Harper was an afterthought, forget I even brought it up. My point which you overlooked is that the fine balance between economic development and environmental protection did not come out of nowhere. Trudeau knew Canada needs economic growth when he went to Paris and made the promises that he did. Instead of being candid about the importance of economic development, he made grandiose promises, flashed a dazzling smile saying "Canada's Back"... and then turned around and said yes to a project that is going (at best projections) put the equivalent of one MILLION cars on the road. And that's best case scenario, it's more likely to be 50% more than that. He went back on his commitments and I'm sorry but economic development is not a good excuse because if that's the case, he never should have committed in the first place.

Well that's not an issue that sprung out of nowhere. It's what Trudeau knew very well when he went to Paris and made the commitments that he made.Yet there is no way BC will be able to meet its GHG reductions with LNG, and it puts Canada's overall commitments in jeopardy as well. Why all the empty showmanship? Why not just be candid about it if the targets are over ambitious? Say what you want about Harper at least what you saw is what you got.

Yeah. And some show nothing - like messenger and notifications.

There seems to be a lot of kinks. Are we still not sorted or is it just me?

None of the links in your post or quote say that.

I'm not asking in a confrontational way, but where did you read this? Google isn't coming up with anything but it sounds interesting.

Agreed on everything. I was just nitpicking because while demonstrating the asset side of things, it seemed you also ignored the expense side. Also, I think you took my post about ageism and contempt the wrong way. I think this thread started off on a ridiculous premise and the fact that the OP didn't even stick around shows a bit about their modus operandi. I was just stating that IMO it would have been better to ignore it than get baited into throwing back insults. On proving ignorance wrong - contempt away. I enjoy reading your posts.

I'll entertain you. How do you propose we make a 'generation' pay for its own debt? Do we go by age? Voting age? Do we exempt those that did not vote for the party that garnered the deficits? Do we factor in the social services each member of the generation used? Generations are loosely defined, the continuity isn't easily defined. How do you think it'll work out? And lastly, are you willing to take your share of the Harper deficits because I don't think I should have to since I never voted for him.

Or.. it'll have the exact opposite effect. If it gets built, he basically proved himself a complete liar with everything he said and did in France about climate change and reducing greenhouse gases. If it doesn't get built, the fact that ok'd it will tarnish him in the eyes of those who bought the whole "Canada's back" BS.

I would never argue for the ridiculous notion of a loose term like a 'generation' carrying its own debt, but you do have to consider that budget deficits were not entirely investments. They also included period costs.

How do you figure?

As I said, the prosecutor wrote an article highlighting all the incriminating parts that were left out. Also, I had no sense of closure after the movies so I spent a good day at or so reading anything I could find online. While it's true that initially I thought he's innocent I went on to believe it's a possibility. However, I stand by what said in spite of that I learned in hindsight: I don't find anything that was left out a huge game changer when it comes to *hard evidence proving a murder*.

Yep. Just empty dazzle. Huge fail today.