msj

No, the problem with Canada is that the sunny parts of the world that produce oil are building out solar at unsubsidized rates that are cheaper than natural gas. This will allow Saudi Arabia to export more oil (and probably, someday, electricity from renewables) which will have a further impact on the world price of O&G. Meanwhile, people in Canada are holding back development in these industries because they are too afraid of killing a cash cow that is on the brink of a long economic decline. Conservatives hate change and it harms us all as the economy will suffer while the rest of the world leaps past us. Alberta is like Wales and oil is like coal. Yes, give it 30-40 years but it is already happening all because some people can't see the bigger picture.

I will refer you guys to this article: http://ritholtz.com/2016/11/portfolio-trumped/ I also highly recommend this one too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/06/AR2011020600114.html Will also point out that I have been fully invested during the past several years because my bias is FOMO (fear of missing out). In fact, my FOMO was so great that I bought stocks throughout a down cycle starting in August, 2015 (and even was buying Canadian O&G stocks in May, 2015). Sharkman, if one were to believe a discussion elsewhere in these forums, was hoping the DOW would decline to 14,000 before buying in. It never went below 15,793 during this period. Presumably his FOLP (fear of losing principal) has kept him out of the market until now. The key, as usual, is to know yourself and invest accordingly. I am not right and sharkman is not wrong for how we have invested. We have invested in ways that make us comfortable and suit our own goals and each person should ensure they are in a position to do the same for themselves. However, if you think playing the markets based on politics is a good idea then have fun losing money. Oh, and read the links above.

Why is this hypocritical? I do not agree with every law that is on the books and certainly not this one. So I am being perfectly consistent when I say the law is an ass in Canada and an even bigger ass in, say, Saudi Arabia.

Canada's emissions will not matter, true. However, I wonder who will lead in renewable technology in the future? Germany, US, China, anyone else? Canada, well, we will be really good at getting oil out of the ground in a world where oil will be in decline. Sort of like Wales was good at producing coal in 1953. Brilliant economic strategy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Wales

Yet, 2013 CO2 emissions were substantially the same as 2014 with 3% economic growth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomzeller/2015/03/13/in-historic-turn-co2-emissions-flatline-in-2014-evan-as-global-economy-grows/#314b41851d2a Perhaps this is just technology. Perhaps it is just government forcing action. Maybe it is just people coming to their senses and choosing cleaner solution. And talking about irrelevant: who said anything about teenagers and sex? Once again, put up (the evidence) or shut up (go on and remain on ignore with the other ....).

I dunno, if she were brown and left the country I'm sure a drone could take her out.

Ha ha, do people seriously think this "campaign device," as Newt Gingrich called it recently, was real? That #draintheswamp is anything but rhetoric? My gawd people never learn. 4 more years! 4 more years!

I have made some claims for which I can easily support as fact: 7 Million deaths from pollution: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/ Beijing's smog being hazardous at levels of 500: http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/12/07/beijing-issues-first-ever-red-alert-for-hazardous-smog/ You don't need to believe me if my staff member was there or not - but given how sick she is right now I think it is related to the pollution moreso than anything else. China's increase of solar power: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/ China's increase of wind power: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=growth+in+wind+power+in+china (pick some links) As to my claim of compounding and its impact on renewables and fossil fuels - understand the rule of 72: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/04/040104.asp It's like a snowball which starts at the top of a hill and gets bigger and bigger as it goes down the mountain. That is where renewables are without wonderful storage. Between price declines for capacity, use of technology/software and improvements in storage, renewables are going to eat fossil fuels lunch pretty soon. In fact, they already are in sunny locations: http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/solar-energy-cheap/ and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels So, when you get to be as "progessive" as me and can back up your statements with some real live believable links then lets have a discussion. Until then may you go forth and fossilize....

I think better when I have facts before me. You are the one starting a discussion with very little facts. One would think that comparable statistics between Canada and the US/UK would be a bare minimum to even start an intelligent discussion on such a matter. So either put up some facts for the basis of an intelligent discussion or stop this BS about how "progressive" I am because I want facts. I mean, HOW DARE I, how dare I ask for facts upon which to have a discussion....

I'm not the one coming here starting OP's with few to no facts in them. When you do choose to post some facts then maybe I'll come back because there may be something worth discussing.

I am saying that it is more likely that he, and the educated people he consults with from all kinds of political backgrounds, has more of a "clue" than most of the people on this forum. Particularly ones who do not appreciate the use of PBO sources and the Fiscal Monitor as sources - what? we headed down to Trump land too? Lets go to the land where some peoples political beliefs and opinions outweigh the use of facts?

You are complaining about non-partisan sources - big surprise.... Oh no, I like to use facts when discussing things....

The BC government lowered income taxes and provide a rebate for the poor people. They have to provide a rebate for the poor people since they don't pay income taxes since they are poor. As for making fuel expensive having an effect on consumption - yes, I do think that it has an impact but the only way to know for sure would be to add, say, $1 per litre to the price so we can truly find out. Too bad government is too chicken sh!t to try that.

The data is right here: http://abacusdata.ca/climate-carbon-and-pipelines-a-path-to-consensus/ Here is the relevant quote: BROADER ENERGY TRANSITION PLAN PLUS A PIPELINE We then asked, “let’s imagine that while putting in place these measures to encourage a shift to renewable energy, the federal government also approved a new pipeline to get Canada’s oil and gas to new markets, would you strongly support, support, accept, oppose, or strongly oppose such a decision?”: • Three out of four (76%) would support (41%) or accept (35%) this decision. The theory is simple: Tax carbon to make it less economical to use and to encourage people to use less or to switch to other forms of energy use (renewables). Sort of like how hardly anyone smokes anymore thanks to taxes on cigarettes. And the world is a better place for this change. Another part of the theory is one that conservatives seem to have ideological blinkers on: compromise. This is a compromise solution that allows for O&G to continue operations until renewables are able to take over. Now, renewables likely won't take over very well in Canada, but in sunny parts of the world solar is already cheaper than natural gas without subsidy. So, whether the energy Luddites like it or not, the times are a changin' as they say.

Without good data there will be no good discussion so I am not going to waste my time doing your homework for you. If you want to prove something then prove it. If not, then discuss it, unsubstantiated, as you usually do and I will continue to ignore this "discussion."

Yes, I know some people don't like facts so I won't bother. But one of my staff just got back from China and, with the smog indicator showing >500 (when 300 is considered hazardous to ones health) it is no wonder something like 7 million people die from pollution. China will have no choice but to switch to cleaner than coal for energy. Renewables are growing at a compounded rate of return each year which means what looks small now is gonna look yuge in the future. I can't wait for the decline and fall of the fossil fuel era. I think we are at the beginning of the end but the end is going to have a very very long tail. And, with people, conservatives in particular, not liking change we can expect the usual complaints from the energy Luddites.

1) No government has control over oil/natural gas prices so no government deserves much of the blame for the fall out there. 2) Gateway is off the table because lots of voters don't want it - we may tolerate Kinder Morgan and Keystone (which is mostly a US concern anyway so f' them and their environment for all I care anyway). 3) 75% of Canadians seem to agree that a carbon tax on the one hand can then help justify O&G extraction and pipelines on the other. It is a good idea to have it both ways: fight climate change/pollution while O&G still have some value to the world. 20 years from now O&G likely are not going to have much value at all other than as jet fuel and backup generators for the renewables. So, fine, monetize them while we can. 4) So far Trudeau seems to have the political capital to do this - Harper didn't and never had the ingenuity (or was shackled thanks to ideology) to mix a carbon tax with pipelines. If he can make the carbon tax into something like what BC has (revenue neutral) then it will not be a big deal. This is challenging for the Feds given jurisdictional issues which adds some complexity but I think many are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to try something. 5) The $30 billion deficit has a pretty big cushion built in so unless the economy weakens further or a housing crisis occurs I'll bet on the under. 6) Even the PBO says that we could run deficits of $20 billion per year right now and see no fiscal pressure to our debt/GDP ratio. 7) Current government practices of reviewing the budget status in November and planning for the 2017 budget by doing consultations starting now indicate that our government continues to practice a professionalism that is the envy of the world. To think that we actually have a finance minister with a Masters in economics and MBA - well, I guess that is probably just too elitist in a Donald Trump world. But it is a sign that they know what they are doing; you just don't like their politics so you will resort to your insults of "no clue" while you pine for those years of deficits and stupid boutique tax cuts brought to us by our previous elites.

Yeah, I saw the reference to the 30 months but I mean real stats showing averages and medians and other things from the real world. Without that for Canada, US, UK I do not see any point to this thread - it is just farting in the wind with unsubstantiated opinions using anecdata of single cases here and there which signify nothing more than to justify our otherwise misinformed prejudices. I know some of you can do that all day but it's not for me. So, when there is some real live comparable data between countries then lets have a discussion.

Maybe in the video? Can't watch it right now - no sound. Don't see anything about suitable and comparable stats for Canada in that link though.

If that is the point of this thread then where are all the stats for the UK and the US? Hell, where are the stats for Canada? If you are going to compare and contrast such things then should you not step up and actually do some?

Proof? I have not done an analysis of how many inches of space this got in the paper editions of the NYT and WP as who actually gets real paper newspapers anymore, but it seems to me that more people are talking about one issue over the other and for the simple reason that the fraud settlement is not worthy of being discussed. It is a binary without nuance: either you support Trump on it or you don't. I doubt it has changed anyone's mind one way or the other. The tweets for safe/special spaces, however, have all kinds of story lines: comedic, hypocritical, serious, etc.... Much more interesting hence more people discussing it (in social media in particular).

I don't understand this line of thought. Everybody knows Trump settled. They either believe he did because he is now POTUS- elect and had little choice or because he is guilty as only the con man that he is can be. What else is there to discuss about it?

I look forward to the next 4 years as it will provide much comedic relief at the expense of American taxpayers. The graft is going to be yuuuuugggge!