Hudson Jones Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 A lot more "old white men" (???) do this instead: So did the guy who is now backing these hybrid trucks. The reason is that he was able to get over the ignorance and the fear of progress and change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) So did the guy who is now backing these hybrid trucks. The reason is that he was able to get over the ignorance and the fear of progress and change. Well, he better work a lot harder and faster than all the other "old white guys" (???) restoring far more gasoline/diesel powered trucks and automobiles. I have yet to see oohs and ahhs for a Prius at a Barrett-Jackson auction. Edited January 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) I made it clear that regulation is necessary. But I don't agree that every regulation is useful. The only thing I asked was for evidence the regulations that Harper has cut served some useful purpose.I guess we'll just have to evaluate that disaster by disaster. This study examines the Lac-Mégantic disaster, and points the finger at corporate negligence and regulatory failure as root causes of the tragedy. According to the study, the evidence to date suggests a flawed regulatory system, dangerous cost-cutting corporate behavior, and responsibility extending to the highest levels of corporate management and government policy-making. - See more at: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/lac-mégantic-disaster#sthash.Lhx7GAvl.dpuf Edited January 21, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) This study examines the Lac-Mégantic disaster...Would you read a report form the Fraser institute? Why is this report any more credible in your mind? (other than it tells you what you want to hear?). Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) So did the guy who is now backing these hybrid trucks.Hybrid vehicles are simply the next step in the evolution of the internal combustion engine. They simply provide a better way to use gas to power vehicles. The success of this technology is no harbinger for a future of electric vehicles. The electric vehicles have too many fundamental problems that are not likely to be solved soon. Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Practice what you preach Neil. I thought rock stars didn't need oil? I guess good old Neil Young isn't really into thinking? http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Corbella+Neil+Young+chooses+comfort+over+convictions/9406082/story.html WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well, he better work a lot harder and faster than all the other "old white guys" (???) restoring far more gasoline/diesel powered trucks and automobiles. I have yet to see oohs and ahhs for a Prius at a Barrett-Jackson auction. Have a look at the link and the information on the hybrid truck. There is plenty of ooh's and aah's. Your laziness and ignorance makes it difficult to respond to you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25721122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Give me one example of such a rule AND explain how the rule actually helped. Lots of rules get created that serve no useful purpose so there is no loss if these rules are eliminated. Keep in mind that many rules sound good on paper but are useless in practice. You could start with the changes Harper made to the navigable waters act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 You could start with the changes Harper made to the navigable waters act. We used to have, according to environment Canada, at least 31, 752 lakes in Canada. Now, under bill c-45 we have 97 lakes and 62 rivers. Fish habitat has been taken out of the equation and guess who helped out come up with these new numbers? Apparently pipeline companys had a bit to do with it. And here's a funny correlation. All those rivers and lakes happen to be in conservative ridings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 And here's a funny correlation. All those rivers and lakes happen to be in conservative ridings. That sounds interesting. Do you have a link that shows the lakes/river removed and their relation to the riding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 You could start with the changes Harper made to the navigable waters act.Fine. Then explain exactly why those changes actually made things worse for the environment? It is not enough to say regulation X was revoked because regulation may have been an expensive waste of time. You need to show that regulation X did something important and there is no other regulation that accomplishes a similar objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Fine. Then explain exactly why those changes actually made things worse for the environment? It is not enough to say regulation X was revoked because regulation may have been an expensive waste of time. You need to show that regulation X did something important and there is no other regulation that accomplishes a similar objective. Regulation X no longer exists. No regulation took it's place. Now I don't doubt that, for instance, Trans Canada Pipe has a concern for the environment, but I wonder if that concern might not flag if there is no regulation X. If you want to put your faith in the boardrooms of the world, go ahead. I don't. Maybe we should do away with police forces as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) Regulation X no longer exists. No regulation took it's place.So where is the evidence that the regulation served a useful purpose other than keeping lawyers employed? If a company dumps hazardous waste into a river it is still liable under the law. This is not the act that is used to prosecute them. This was an act that was originally intended to protect navigation. It was turned into a tool to delay and block projects. The removal of the regulation is not a license to pollute. It does not mean that there is no way to keep polluters accountable under Canadian law because other laws do that. Please explain the exact problem that this law solved before it was changed. Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 So where is the evidence that the regulation served a useful purpose other than keeping lawyers employed? If a company dumps hazardous waste into a river it is still liable under the law. This is not the act that is used to prosecute them. This was an act that was originally intended to protect navigation. It was turned into a tool to delay and block projects. The removal of the regulation is not a license to pollute. It does not mean that there is no way to keep polluters accountable under Canadian law because other laws do that. Please explain the exact problem that this law solved before it was changed. Yes it is a license to pollute. Ever been to fort mac? In any case did you ever wonder why they tried to bury all this in a 400 page omnibus that they tried to call a budget? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Yes it is a license to pollute.Explain exactly why you think that. I suspect you don't have a clue and are just repeating the talking points that you have been given by enviro groups upset that they can't use the act to block development projects. It is still illegal to pollute in canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Explain exactly why you think that. I suspect you don't have a clue and are just repeating the talking points that you have been given by enviro groups upset that they can't use the act to block development projects. It is still illegal to pollute in canada. Yeah I have a pretty good clue, I've been to Ft. Muck, have you? First you should you define you mean by "pollute" and then take a trip up there and see if what you encounter has any resemblance to that description. Then get back to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) Yeah I have a pretty good clue, I've been to Ft. Muck, have you? First you should you define you mean by "pollute" and then take a trip up there and see if what you encounter has any resemblance to that description. Then get back to me.Ft McMurrey existed long before the conservatives changed the law. You have no basis to claim that the *change* to the law made Ft McMurrey possible which is what you are asserting. Why don't you explain why the environmental protection act does not address the issues you saw at Ft McMurrey? http://www.ec.gc.ca/pollution/default.asp?lang=En&n=A24743CC-1 Perhaps you are simply exaggerating because you confuse 'messy' and 'unsightly' with 'polluted' Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Ft McMurrey existed long before the conservatives changed the law. You have no basis to claim that the *change* to the law made Ft McMurrey possible which is what you are asserting. Why don't you explain why the environmental protection act does not address the issues you saw at Ft McMurrey? http://www.ec.gc.ca/pollution/default.asp?lang=En&n=A24743CC-1 Perhaps you are simply exaggerating because you confuse 'messy' and 'unsightly' with 'polluted' When "messy" and "unsightly" is flowing into the Athabasca River, I call that pollution. Ever done any research into how many human carcinogens are in that stuff? At least 14 from what I have found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Ever done any research into how many human carcinogens are in that stuff? At least 14 from what I have found.Done any research into how many human carcinogens are in car exhaust? Does that mean car exhaust should be banned? Do you have any evidence that the levels of these chemicals are danger to anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Done any research into how many human carcinogens are in car exhaust? Does that mean car exhaust should be banned? Do you have any evidence that the levels of these chemicals are danger to anyone? There is quite a lot of evidence that carcinogens are a danger. They cause cancer, which is why they are called carcinogens. Do you think that the reduction in car exhaust levels would have been reduced as much as they have been if it would have been left to ,say, Exxon Mobil or the Ford Motor company? They would have probably said "not economically viable at this time" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) Plug-In Electric Car Sales In Canada In 2013: Up 50 Percent From virtually nothing, to virtually nothing plus a few. I honestly look forward to the day an electric car is a viable option, even the only real option, but that day is far off, particularly in colder places like Canada. Even further off is the day any 'green' alternative to fossil fuels produces power at anywhere near the same cost. Hey, I'd even be willing to pay a premium for green power, but not double the cost, much less ten times the cost. And that day is even further away in other countries, which means oil and gas are going to be extremely profitable exports for a long time to come. Edited January 21, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 We reject pipelines and shipping, the industry experts explore alternatives ... that's called constructive discussion. Not really. Rejecting the only two means of getting products to market and then claiming you're open to constructive discussion is disingenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 What progress has been made on the fact that the battery in E-cars are very difficult to dispose of? Everyone's favourite NeoCon went to town on Neil in today's column in the Sun. Apparently he's being funded by Tides. http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/20/young-changes-his-tune-at-last-canuck-concert Neil Young ended his Blame Canada tour in a bizarre way. At his last anti-oilsands concert in Calgary, he left his five diesel tour buses idling outside throughout the entire concert. They kept burning fuel. “Bio-diesel,” we’re assured, trucked in from the U.S.A., so I guess that’s OK. Inside the concert, Young did something even weirder. All week, he had been comparing the oilsands to Hiroshima, claiming it caused cancer, that there was no reclamation of the land afterwards, that it caused pollution in faraway China, etc.. But then on Sunday, he said he was fine with all of it — he could actually support the expansion of the oilsands — if “the First Nations treaties (are) honoured.” Huh? So all that Hiroshima talk was just a bargaining chip to get some legal tinkering? It’s uncertain what Young means by “honouring the treaties,” which happened to be the name of his concert tour. Actually, “Honor the Treaties” was the title of his tour. It was designed in California, and they don’t spell honour with a u down there. They don’t do a lot of treaty honouring or honoring in California. It’s a state that didn’t sign any treaties with its Indians. They pretty much just wiped them out, including the Tongva tribe that used to live near Young’s massive 1,500-acre estate. Juana Maria was the last of the Tongva, and she died in 1853. Which is why Neil Young has to come up to Canada to lecture people about Indians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Yes it will. -green-car-sales-rise- Last month's US sales of hybrids, battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and diesels jumped 30 percent from May 2012 numbers to more than 60,000, perhaps because Americans are gearing up for higher summer gas prices by buying more fuel efficient cars. Plug-in vehicle sales rose even faster, at a 69 percent clip You think everyone lives in a city and can afford the hydro. You need to get out more and see how the rural fold live. Do the have electric 4x4's??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 What progress has been made on the fact that the battery in E-cars are very difficult to dispose of? Everyone's favourite NeoCon went to town on Neil in today's column in the Sun. Apparently he's being funded by Tides. http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/20/young-changes-his-tune-at-last-canuck-concert Did neil mention his 300 acre ranch is on indian land that never had any treaties ,but instead were wiped out? And by the US census, where he lives is over 90% white and no natives. This man is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.