FutureCanadian

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/canada-carbon-emissions-2030-tar-sands ----------------------------------------------------------- "Canada carbon emissions to soar by 2030"

Nm

So when the newer cheaper EV models are released next cycle within the normal range for new motor vehicles, what will the talking point be then?

I personally scoffed at people who thought cellphones would take off when I saw the DynaTAC. Stuff happens.

Why does Young have to be a hermit to have credibility? Why can't he just be the most carbon-limiting musician he can be? Do people who don't believe in unfettered free market capitalism hypocritical for owning a business? Are religious people incapable of dealing in sin? Do they only have credibility if they vacuum out every antithetical notion from their lives?

He he he

Can't say I understand the meaning of this phrase.

No reason you can't do what you can when you can. I'm by no means rich, but I recycle, compost, upgrade to more efficient appliances and equipment, pay the renewable surcharge etc. If you're gunna put your mouth behind it, you might as well put your time and money behind it too.

Corporations or conservatives then, eh?

Well actually that sounds quite interesting

As an interested party, I'd like to know more than the general knowledge of parliament and such. Any good books or websites that detail such topics?

Amazing the difference between the normative and the descriptive! As long as everyone else is doing it! Sigh...

Rather surprised that the normally prudent Germans failed to have any foresight about obvious problems with renewables. So successful they don't know what to do. I'll applaud them for being one if the first to take the pain for others to learn from.

The "costliness" is relative to other forms of extraction. Offshore is viable without subsidies and still doesn't have to pay royalties. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/oil_royalties By the way, fracking is getting subsidized and it isn't "expensive" extraction either. Oops. That wasnt the point. The point is the price of oil determines royalties in as far as subsidies remain constant. If the price drops then subsides actually become necessary to maintain production, but the price has risen substantially in the last decade and all forms of extraction are commercially viable and these companies are making billions yet we are still subsidizing them and declining royalties in some instances. Spin it however you want, that is corporate handouts to the T for dirty fossil fuels. Looks like everybody is winning but the common citizen/taxpayer.

Lol. Wut? The cost of extraction is dependent on the means of extraction, not the price of oil. If anything, the price of oil now has increased more costly, riskier drilling (offshore). Companies that are utilizing fracking are making bank because its cheaper and effective AND the price of oil. Does one really think it not dubious to ignore x in x-y=z? So what happens when the price of oil declines and costs remain the same? Uh oh. Looks the government would be in trouble....and yet still subsidizing. Stinks we can't control global oil prices. That made sense when the price of a barrel of oil was $38 and oil companies weren't raking in 11 figures hand over fist. Royalties will be paid no matter what in this enviornment. Profits are to be had. Not all subsidization occurs on public lands anyways. They shouldn't be there at all. Maybe we'd be better off subsidizing demand for oil to increase the price and increase royalties that way. Then we could help the little guy instead of profitable, private corporations. Lulz. Like that would happen.