Virtuous Canada will not allow more coal mines

[Argus]

Canada will not permit any new mines in order to help combat climate change. I'm quite sure all the lefties and progressives will cheer this and not have a single thought about the cost in jobs and wealth production. Even though this will not to a single thing to combat climate change. There is plenty of coal production in the world. Australia does a ton of it. Russia is spending billions to expand its coal production. Hundreds of coal fired power plants are being built around the world. So Canada turning up our noses will not do a thing to help. It will just rob us of jobs and a wealth-producing export.

Natural resource production and experts have always been a major part of this country's economy. But since getting elected the Liberals have imposed draconian new regulations and laws which have put a straightjacket over the development or expansion of natural resource projects. They've done nothing to expand our economy. All their attention is spent on income redistribution. Meanwhile Canada's moribund economy is being surpassed by others. We're 50% larger than Australia but our economy has been growing much more slowly than theirs and so now it's only 15% larger than theirs. India and Brazil now have larger economies than Canada, and little Australia will probably catch up in a few years.

And the Liberals just go on borrowing money and increasing our debt.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-new-federal-policy-restricts-thermal-coal-mine-projects-citing/

[Guest]

At least the coal production will be picked up by other producers, many with far more lax environmental regulations.

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

At least the coal production will be picked up by other producers, many with far more lax environmental regulations.

In the same way oil will be produced and sold abroad though we can't seem to build a pipeline to anywhere to do so. Same goes for other mines and no-doubt forestry too. We get poorer, the liberals borrow more money, and other producers prosper.

[Nefarious Banana]

Ship Canadian coal to China where they dump their pollution into the air, while we sit on our abundant saleable LNG reserves because pipelines can't get approved.  

[myata]

I could never understand this argument (OP), isn't it obvious that it's circular and nothing will and could ever change this way? If A (future) wants to be different from C (now) and A have to be the same as C because someone is doing it then how do one solve this paradox and move forward?

[Yzermandius19]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

I could never understand this argument (OP), isn't it obvious that it's circular and nothing will and could ever change this way? If A (future) wants to be different from C (now) and A have to be the same as C because someone is doing it then how do one solve this paradox and move forward?

the paradox doesn't get solved

the world isn't going to follow Canada's example or "move forward"

so virtue signaling accomplishes nothing and results only in downsides

 

the only way to move forward from coal

is for coal to be come significantly more expensive as a fuel source than the alternatives

without government intervention

until that happens, moving forward does no good

the only solution is the free market

government bans do not address the issue

Edited June 12, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

This is maybe one of the most boring countries in the developed world. It's endowed with everything and anything, clean water, woods, minerals, fish that was leaping out of the water oil gas etc tiny population bathing in natural resources. And never it stopped for a minute to reflect how can we make it a foundation for a clean, sustained prosperity for generations.

No, no time, dig dig dig cut cut cut sell sell sell cod resources destroyed, salmon in the queue, woods clear cut, last standing old forest facing destruction because prices soar, oil sands a world-renown feature titled "beautiful devastation". And at that, claim and expectation to lead the world, show it something. What?

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

This is maybe one of the most boring countries in the developed world. It's endowed with everything and anything, clean water, woods, minerals, fish that was leaping out of the water oil gas etc tiny population bathing in natural resources. And never it stopped for a minute to reflect how can we make it a foundation for a clean, sustained prosperity for generations.

No, no time, dig dig dig cut cut cut sell sell sell cod resources destroyed, salmon in the queue, woods clear cut, last standing old forest facing destruction because prices soar, oil sands a world-renown feature titled "beautiful devastation". And at that, claim and expectation to lead the world, show it something. What?

expecting Canada to lead the world

is going to end in disappointment

nobody cares about what Canada does

it is incapable of leading the world

what benefit would leading the world

even provide Canada with anyway?

things that don't matter for $1000, myata

Edited June 12, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

Maybe self-esteem? The sense and knowledge of an accomplishment, of own and unique development and contribution?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, myata said:

I could never understand this argument (OP), isn't it obvious that it's circular and nothing will and could ever change this way? If A (future) wants to be different from C (now) and A have to be the same as C because someone is doing it then how do one solve this paradox and move forward?

You get the world to cooperate, to act as one, for the common good.

Until then, nothing you do will do any good.

[Queenmandy85]

We need to remember these resources also belong to future generations. If we sell off our coal, oil and iron ore, we are robbing future generations. Although, if we don't resolve global warming, there won't be that many future generations.

You cannot generate electricity without steel and lubricating oil. You cannot make steel without coal. You cannot produce the tens of thousands of products that come from coal and oil if you burn it up. You cannot maintain a transportation network without steel. I could go on but there is no substitute for coal, iron ore and oil. If we sell it off or burn it up, we will be headed for another dark age. We owe it to future generations to conserve our resources as long as possible.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, myata said:

I could never understand this argument (OP), isn't it obvious that it's circular and nothing will and could ever change this way? If A (future) wants to be different from C (now) and A have to be the same as C because someone is doing it then how do one solve this paradox and move forward?

Not alone. You need an international agreement. Otherwise you're accomplishing nothing but impoverishing yourself. I mean, even Germany is opening up new coal mines! If there's no international agreement to stop producing it and building coal-fired power plants then what's the point?

 

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, myata said:

I could never understand this argument (OP), isn't it obvious that it's circular and nothing will and could ever change this way? If A (future) wants to be different from C (now) and A have to be the same as C because someone is doing it then how do one solve this paradox and move forward?

Green technology has to become competitive with fossil fuels.  Some environmentalists want to reduce supply of fossil fuels to drive up its price in order to help achieve this.

[myata]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Green technology has to become competitive with fossil fuels.  Some environmentalists want to reduce supply of fossil fuels to drive up its price in order to help achieve this.

It goes further than that. Everything that we do, create, manufacture and consume has to cost exactly as much as to cover the full, 100% cost of the full, 100% reclamation. Otherwise, with 7 billion consuming ever more and counting, it's only trivial arithmetic. Postponing it till someone figures it out does not really explain anything, simply because they are us. If we could not change, why would they?

[myata]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

Not alone. You need an international agreement. Otherwise you're accomplishing nothing but impoverishing yourself. I mean, even Germany is opening up new coal mines! If there's no international agreement to stop producing it and building coal-fired power plants then what's the point?

It's not about closing. We could figure out a clean way to extract it and produce clean energy. And yes, that would be something good to show and give to the world. Why though? Dig dig dig, burn burn burn no time!

[myata]

Further, carbon burning is undeniably the foundation of the Western economic progress and prosperity. For three centuries now, from early 1700 it's been burn, burn, burn whatever comes handy, wood, coal, oil, gas. And now we want to turn around and tell the 6 billion developing world, nah can't do the same, see it's hurting our precious planet. How realistic is to reach such an agreement? So back to the circular song, if not all together (forget the past including levels of prosperity) then nobody, so nowhere?

Not necessarily though, there is one way out: show and give the others how it can be done differently, not repeating the wrong path on even greater scale. Develop and show and give new and clean technologies. What, nothing to show except precious but cheap chat and let's get another agreement? Then and by default, nowhere - and is it any surprise?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, myata said:

Further, carbon burning is undeniably the foundation of the Western economic progress and prosperity. For three centuries now, from early 1700 it's been burn, burn, burn whatever comes handy, wood, coal, oil, gas. And now we want to turn around and tell the 6 billion developing world, nah can't do the same, see it's hurting our precious planet. How realistic is to reach such an agreement? So back to the circular song, if not all together (forget the past including levels of prosperity) then nobody, so nowhere?

Not necessarily though, there is one way out: show and give the others how it can be done differently, not repeating the wrong path on even greater scale. Develop and show and give new and clean technologies. What, nothing to show except precious but cheap chat and let's get another agreement? Then and by default, nowhere - and is it any surprise?

I always had sympathy for the developing world argument.  After all, it's fair. 

But either one believes climate change is real or one doesn't.  Fair doesn't enter into it.

[Shady]

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

You get the world to cooperate, to act as one, for the common good.

Until then, nothing you do will do any good.

But not everyone in the world has the same interests.  Your thinking is idealist, unrealistic and childish.  All you’re doing is strengthening our competition at the expense of Canadians.  This is short sighted and foolish.

[myata]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

But either one believes climate change is real or one doesn't.  Fair doesn't enter into it.

It's not so much about fairness, but practicality. It is not very convincing to appeal to others to do something while demonstrating the opposite. And if asking them of a serious effort probably unlikely that the appeals however appealing, would be taken seriously. There goes the chance for an agreement; and back to circular.

The moral being, hard to convince with empty appeals, not substantiated by anything real. Not many left in this world who wouldn't know the price of empty appeals.

Edited June 13, 2021 by myata

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Shady said:

But not everyone in the world has the same interests.  Your thinking is idealist, unrealistic and childish.  All you’re doing is strengthening our competition at the expense of Canadians.  This is short sighted and foolish.

Yes, that was my point...

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

It's not so much about fairness, but practicality. It is not very convincing to appeal to others to do something while demonstrating the opposite. And if asking them of a serious effort probably unlikely that the appeals however appealing, would be taken seriously. There goes the chance for an agreement; and back to circular.

The moral being, hard to convince with empty appeals, not substantiated by anything real. Not many left in this world who wouldn't know the price of empty appeals.

Practically speaking, based on the evidence up to now, climate change is unstoppable.  That might change as effects worsen, but really, who among the decision makers has taken it seriously?  Another conference?  That'll do the trick.

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Further, carbon burning is undeniably the foundation of the Western economic progress and prosperity.

and other countries are just supposed to give that up because Canada is dumb enough to do so?

good luck with that, it's never going to happen, regardless of what Canada does

in fact other countries aren't as keen to cut their own throats

so Canada doing so will simply serve as an example of why not follow their lead

Edited June 13, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

19 hours ago, myata said:

Maybe self-esteem? The sense and knowledge of an accomplishment, of own and unique development and contribution?

sounds nowhere near worth the cost

no wonder your proposition is such a hard sell to the rest of the world

and hasn't gained much ground

except in virtue signaling fake countries who are laughing stocks

and perfect examples of what not to do

 

Canada's self-esteem is already way too high

based on meaningless "accomplishments"

more of that isn't a good thing

it would just make Canadians more delusional

and their priggishness even more insufferable

Canada deserves to be knocked down a peg

not feel better about itself

Edited June 13, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Queenmandy85]

This has nothing to do with virtue signalling (what ever that is) or whether you "believe" in climate change.

The earth's atmosphere is heating up at an unnatural pace due to human action. The level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates re-radiation of heat. Belief has no bearing on that. It is a simple fact. If we do not reverse global warming, you may as well throw future generations on the barbecue. 

Our best way to avoid an apocalypse is to transition to nuclear power and preserve our coal, iron ore and oil for the future. We only have enough uranium for about a century, but we need that time to get thorium on line and develop a viable fusion generation system. 

We can build CANDU's and small modular reactors for use all over the world. Then no one will be saying the developing world needs to burn coal. Coal and oil are far too valuable to burn.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm not against things like this that could help the environment.  But the feds and provinces doing a lot to fight climate, which will incur costs on the consumer, while at the same time doing little to fix cost of living problems like exploding housing prices, is some really elitist nonsense and rubs people the wrong way.

MP's make close to 200k annually and get a pension after barely serving long.  They can't empathize with the single mom  making 35k trying to raise kids.