Ontario announces plan to destroy its economy

[?Impact]

Just read about the 600 and it was answered. Now I am wondering about the wood stoves or is this the ploy they use everytime bad news comes out.

I haven't heard about the wood stoves. I know our standards are way, way, way lower than the US EPA so I suspect that there will be tightening of the emission standards. Montreal did however come closer to 'banning' wood stoves last year, so perhaps there is something similar happening in Ontario. I suspect however, like the 600, we have someone looking at some changes and then exaggerating them a billion fold to come up with terms like ban.

I would think the good news of the recent jobs report, and GM making investment in high technology engineering in Ontario would be what they would focus on instead of banning. Maybe this is more about Levant/Lilley and their agenda to make up stories in order to ignore the good is happening.

Edited June 10, 2016 by ?Impact

[Guest]

I think wood stoves, or any kind of wood fire for that matter, should only be banned if there is a chance someone else might breathe the smoke.

[Guest]

Note that the requirement to increase the use of ethanol still more will cost Ontario drivers but hugely benefit the Liberals' biggest campaign donor.

Weren't corporate and union donations to parties recently nixed in Ontario?

[Argus]

Weren't corporate and union donations to parties recently nixed in Ontario?

No. They just pretended to do so. The Liberals are the most twisty, weaselly, dishonest government in Canada by a very long ways.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-reevely-ontarios-ban-on-corporate-election-donations-doesnt-ban-corporate-election-donations

[Guest]

No. They just pretended to do so. The Liberals are the most twisty, weaselly, dishonest government in Canada by a very long ways.

Well that sucks doesn't it? I guess we'll see if corporations register and run ads with their name attached but I doubt it. Unions, certainly will though and I expect we could also see Heritage Foundation like front groups pushing corporate messages.

Argus, even if you and your ilk think of climate change as an who-gives-a-shit-it's-an-after-we're-dead problem, it is real for the rest of us and our children. GHG emissions certainly need to be minimized but Wynne is going about it the wrong way. She should have introduced a carbon tax and then went for a run. But no, instead they effed it up. First they decided to adopt a complicated Cap N' Trade system that will certainly lead to mismanagement and corruption. Am I right Harperites? Isn't corruption the real the appeal of the Cap N' Tade system in the first place? Still the ON-Libs had to complicate things further by dreaming up, as the Globe callis it, a "megaproject of micromanagement".

I think most of us have been part of groups or committees where the leadership mistakenly values the contributions of everyone. In the end it takes an incredibly long time to achieve horribly complicated, incoherent results. I believe that is what is going on here. The solution is simple. Tax carbon at an increasing rate over time and let the market sort it out.

[Argus]

Well that sucks doesn't it? I guess we'll see if corporations register and run ads with their name attached but I doubt it. Unions, certainly will though and I expect we could also see Heritage Foundation like front groups pushing corporate messages.

They protected the source of their own kickbacks

Argus, even if you and your ilk think of climate change as an who-gives-a-shit-it's-an-after-we're-dead problem,

My ilk? What exactly is my ilk? People who can intelligently assess a situation? None of YOUR ilk has yet come up with anything that is going to address climate change. I'll repeat that. ANYTHING which is going to make any difference whatsoever. That hasn't stopped YOUR ilk from spending hundreds of billions of dollars which could have gone into other things, like, for example, ameliorating the future affects, of course. Or, say, health care or education.

it is real for the rest of us and our children. GHG emissions certainly need to be minimized

Well they're not going to be. So what else you got?

The solution is simple. Tax carbon at an increasing rate over time and let the market sort it out.

This is the solution? To what? Because if Canada raises the price of gas to $10,000 a liter and we stop using the internal combustion engine, halt all mining and resource extraction, and go back to heating our homes with peat moss and wood it won't make a single solitary iota of difference to climate change. None. Zero. Zip. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron or a liar.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Argus

[Bob Macadoo]

...heating our homes with peat moss and wood it won't make a single solitary iota of difference to climate change. None. Zero. Zip. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron or a liar.

I think that's what Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln's rival, said about slavery; Illinois being a free state wouldn't make a difference in the national sense and slave states would have a competitive advantage...

[-1=e^ipi]

GHG emissions certainly need to be minimized

Do you wish to reword this statement? GHG emissions being minimized would involve everyone stop using fossil fuels starting tomorrow.

Edited June 12, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

This is the solution? To what? Because if Canada raises the price of gas to $10,000 a liter and we stop using the internal combustion engine, halt all mining and resource extraction, and go back to heating our homes with peat moss and wood it won't make a single solitary iota of difference to climate change. None. Zero. Zip. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron or a liar.

I disagree. That would reduce the future temperature of the planet by a few thousandths of a degree.

[Argus]

I think that's what Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln's rival, said about slavery; Illinois being a free state wouldn't make a difference in the national sense and slave states would have a competitive advantage...

Given the US is not likely to do anything to reduce emissions and that the third world, including China and India, are building theirs up as fast and high as possible, any suggestion Canada can influence world emissions is total lunacy.

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

I have little sympathy for Ontario, you people keep re-electing the Liberals. You let Dalton McGuinty screw your province for a decade and then you gave a majority government to Kathleen Wynne so she could continue the work of her predecessor. The people of Ontario don't have the sense to vote them out, so I don't know how you will ever get rid of them unless the courts intervene and throw the lot of them in jail.

[capricorn]

I have little sympathy for Ontario, you people keep re-electing the Liberals.

But...but...Mike Harris...Walkerton....common er, revolution.....bully.../sarc off/

[overthere]

But...but...Mike Harris...Walkerton....common er, revolution.....bully.../sarc off/

You left out: employment and a viable economy.

[overthere]

I haven't heard about the wood stoves. I know our standards are way, way, way lower than the US EPA so I suspect that there will be tightening of the emission standards. Montreal did however come closer to 'banning' wood stoves last year, so perhaps there is something similar happening in Ontario. I suspect however, like the 600, we have someone looking at some changes and then exaggerating them a billion fold to come up with terms like ban.

.

That is not correct or wasn't last year in the West. Our standards are the same as the US for wood stoves. ( I bought and installed a new high tech wood stove in a family members home. )The building code requires that only stoves that meet or exceed EPA standards can be installed. Essentially, that meant that only those stoves with catalytic converters qualified- the stoves also must be CSA approved. Many of these stoves are made in Canada, then sent to the US for EPA certification so they can be installed in Canada. Is it different building code in Ontario?

[?Impact]

That is not correct or wasn't last year in the West. Our standards are the same as the US for wood stoves. ( I bought and installed a new high tech wood stove in a family members home. )The building code requires that only stoves that meet or exceed EPA standards can be installed. Essentially, that meant that only those stoves with catalytic converters qualified- the stoves also must be CSA approved. Many of these stoves are made in Canada, then sent to the US for EPA certification so they can be installed in Canada. Is it different building code in Ontario?

Last time I checked the Ontario building code, the focus was on safety. They want proper clearances, carbon monoxide detector, etc. Newer homes required heat recovery ventilators and fresh air intake. There are municipal regulations that focus on emissions & efficiency, but that is generally only the larger municipalities. Insurance companies want WETT certification, but again that is mostly safety oriented.

Edited June 15, 2016 by ?Impact

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Many of these stoves are made in Canada, then sent to the US for EPA certification so they can be installed in Canada. Is it different building code in Ontario?

Seriously ? Canada's code requires U.S. EPA certification ? Why doesn't this surprise me.

[Guest]

I have little sympathy for Ontario, you people keep re-electing the Liberals. You let Dalton McGuinty screw your province for a decade and then you gave a majority government to Kathleen Wynne so she could continue the work of her predecessor. The people of Ontario don't have the sense to vote them out, so I don't know how you will ever get rid of them unless the courts intervene and throw the lot of them in jail.

A government change was inevitable but the PC leader was so incompetent he blew an election that a dead skunk could have won. The level of ineptness displayed by Hudak was inconveivable. Not only did he get destroyed in an unlosable contest, but he lost so bad that the government with 10 years of baggage actually won a majority. Unless you were from Ontario, or say the London area , it would be hard for you to fathom just how incompetent the Ontario PC party has been.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Guest

[Argus]

A government change was inevitable but the PC leader was so incompetent he blew an election that a dead skunk could have won.

His major mistake, as I recall, was telling the truth. Ontarions did not want to hear that.

[Smoke]

A government change was inevitable but the PC leader was so incompetent he blew an election that a dead skunk could have won. The level of ineptness displayed by Hudak was inconveivable.

Can you give some examples of how he was incompetent. Thanks!

[Boges]

His major mistake, as I recall, was telling the truth. Ontarions did not want to hear that.

This. . .

Hudak spelled out a plan to contain costs by reducing the size of the civil service. This was too honest for Ontario. They wanted to be lied to by McWynnty.

If you listen to radio in Ontario it's pretty much being funded by Public Service Unions and Government interest groups, they same that got this awful government a majority, bitching about what Wynne is doing to their piece of the pie.

[?Impact]

Hudak spelled out a plan to contain costs by reducing the size of the civil service.

Except of course he totally made up numbers that had zero basis in reality. He decided to put a stake in the ground "I am going to fire a 100,000 civil servants" and expected that people would accept that he had a clue who to fire and why. Anybody can say vote for me, I will save you billions, but if you have zero credibility then it is meaningless blather. Combine that with the fact that basically all the civil servants saw their job on the line because some dolt wanted to get elected, he immediately lost every single one of those votes as well.

[Boges]

Except of course he totally made up numbers that had zero basis in reality. He decided to put a stake in the ground "I am going to fire a 100,000 civil servants" and expected that people would accept that he had a clue who to fire and why. Anybody can say vote for me, I will save you billions, but if you have zero credibility then it is meaningless blather. Combine that with the fact that basically all the civil servants saw their job on the line because some dolt wanted to get elected, he immediately lost every single one of those votes as well.

Never had those votes anyway. He said a good majority of the job losses would come from attrition.

Regardless it was a bad move and lost him a very winnable election. He should have been completely dishonest about his intentions like Wynne.

[?Impact]

He said a good majority of the job losses would come from attrition.

As I said, speaks to credibility. First he didn't say attrition, that was part of the damage control afterwards. The attrition rate is nowhere near reaching that number in less than a decade, let alone the timeline he suggested. Attrition doesn't address what jobs, it only addresses rate overall; what specific jobs are being cut.

[Boges]

As I said, speaks to credibility. First he didn't say attrition, that was part of the damage control afterwards. The attrition rate is nowhere near reaching that number in less than a decade, let alone the timeline he suggested. Attrition doesn't address what jobs, it only addresses rate overall; what specific jobs are being cut.

I'm sure he couldn't speak to that being in opposition. Granted he probably shouldn't have given a figure if he didn't have access to where could have been cut.

He was a bad leader though. Patrick Brown seems way more capable.

[Argus]

As I said, speaks to credibility.

What credibility did the Liberals have? People still rushed to vote for them since they promised wine and roses, no job cuts and a quick return to a balanced budget. They told people what they wanted to hear, that they could go on having their cake while eating it. People jumped to vote for them.

Trudeau learned that lesson himself.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Argus