Jump to content

Liberals flood Canada with hundreds of thousands of colonists/settlers as part of ramping up Neo-colonization plans.


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, G Huxley said:

"Growth is economic activity, which can be environmental clean-up and restoration"

Environmental clean-up and restoration do not require growth.

"You need a modest level of growth because stagflation and deflation are terminally bad for economies. "

Endless growth is terminally bad for economies. It is unsustainable and will ultimately collapse in on itself.

I don't find deflation to be a bad prospect. It increases the value of your savings and wages. I find inflation to be much more abhorrent, which decreases the value of your savings and wages. Inflation and economic growth are tied to the waist.

"People naturally build and produce, even when population growth is flat. We build and improve on the civilization of our ancestors. "

Increasing environmental destruction through endless economic growth is not some sort of progress.

How many Subways and Starbucks in a city block does it take to realize that building endlessly doesn't actually accomplish anything?

"You want a reasonably productive society, but not a burnt out unhappy society where people literally die from work, a phenomenon more common in Asia but not uncommon here. "

Asia is overpopulated, the result of too much growth. We should not be repeating that mistake here.

Having a laid back life dependent on other people to do our work is the sign of a decadent and a collapsing society like ours.

You don’t want deflation.  Watching your assets lose value is frightening and puts a chill over investment and activity. Environmental clean-up is indeed economic activity and represents an increase in GDP.  Basically when people create and generate income, that’s growth.  It’s the value of and amount of work we do that represents productivity. The goal is always to add value to what we create and efficiency to our methods of production, as that increases the value of what we sell, allows us to charge more for it, and produce more units more cheaply and competitively, making it possible to raise wages and living standards.

Automation complicates this if companies hoard the profits rather than passing them onto employees. It’s also bad when there are fewer workers in high paying jobs because machines replace the workers. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely don't want inflation, which is driven by growth including the 77 percent rise in housing prices look at this:

"HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Solomon: Cost of living and affordability is slightly different than inflation…. But let's talk about inflation in housing, which is the other big issue. Since 2015, when you were elected, the average house price has gone up 77 per cent, and we can talk about who's to blame for that… What will your government do on a material level, to help people buy houses and to stop the housing crisis from inflating?

Trudeau: One of the things we need to do is create more supply, and that's why we put forward a plan in the last election to invest $4 billion to municipalities to help accelerate the creation of supply, of creating more low income and modest income rental housing. Cut down some of the red tape, provide federal lands to build on, move things forward in a way that incentivizes the creation of more housing, not just so housing prices can go down but so that we can continue to bring in immigrants to continue to contribute to our workforce."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-on-deficit-concerns-his-2021-regrets-and-what-he-thinks-will-define-2022-1.5712061




Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Watching your assets lose value is frightening and puts a chill over investment and activity. "

A. I don't invest, as it is, because the stock market is rife with unreliability, poor regulation, outright scams and terrible ethics and it is based on endless growth, which is the problem.

Would you invest in cancer if it brought a good rate of return?

" Environmental clean-up is indeed economic activity and represents an increase in GDP."

This is double speak. Cleaning up the environment does not require growth and is an absurdity anyway based on circular logic anyway. What is driving environmental destruction? Economic growth. More growth means more clean up necessary, it's a circular cycle.

"The goal is always to add value to what we create and efficiency to our methods of production, as that increases the value of what we sell, allows us to charge more for it, and produce more units more cheaply and competitively, making it possible to raise wages and living standards. "

The increase in wages is wiped out by inflation. If you increase wages at a rate lower than inflation as we have now, you aren't increasing real wage, which is the cynical understanding economists like Keynes actually pointed out was a means of driving down the real cost of labour and thus keeping down the working class.

The cost of living is not improving when housing prices have increased 77% in just over half a decade.

"Automation complicates this if companies hoard the profits rather than passing them onto employees. It’s also bad when there are fewer workers in high paying jobs because machines replace the workers. "

This could be solved by modifying the tax system accordingly, but that is not what is actually happening. Edited by G Huxley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2021 at 3:20 PM, G Huxley said:

"Watching your assets lose value is frightening and puts a chill over investment and activity. "

A. I don't invest, as it is, because the stock market is rife with unreliability, poor regulation, outright scams and terrible ethics and it is based on endless growth, which is the problem.

Would you invest in cancer if it brought a good rate of return?

" Environmental clean-up is indeed economic activity and represents an increase in GDP."

This is double speak. Cleaning up the environment does not require growth and is an absurdity anyway based on circular logic anyway. What is driving environmental destruction? Economic growth. More growth means more clean up necessary, it's a circular cycle.

"The goal is always to add value to what we create and efficiency to our methods of production, as that increases the value of what we sell, allows us to charge more for it, and produce more units more cheaply and competitively, making it possible to raise wages and living standards. "

The increase in wages is wiped out by inflation. If you increase wages at a rate lower than inflation as we have now, you aren't increasing real wage, which is the cynical understanding economists like Keynes actually pointed out was a means of driving down the real cost of labour and thus keeping down the working class.

The cost of living is not improving when housing prices have increased 77% in just over half a decade.

"Automation complicates this if companies hoard the profits rather than passing them onto employees. It’s also bad when there are fewer workers in high paying jobs because machines replace the workers. "

This could be solved by modifying the tax system accordingly, but that is not what is actually happening.

Very modest inflation of around 1% is good.  Also, you want at least a modest rise in the stock market, property values, etc., as otherwise we won’t have pensions.  I suppose we could revert to having nothing more when we retire apart from what we sew into our mattresses.  Yikes.  Also remember that without a little inflation it’s very hard to pay down current debt.

However, rampant inflation like we’re seeing now is very dangerous, especially since our wages aren’t keeping up and housing is unaffordable. Get rid of carbon taxes (replacing them with a green building code), increase fuel and energy supply (pipelines and deregulation), and stop handling out borrowed money, and inflation should moderate.  Increasing housing supply is only possible with some deregulation.  Slowing or setting more conditions on immigration should slow the demand for housing in our major cities.  Keep in mind that our Liberal government won’t do any of these things.  It’s all a transfer of tax revenue to non-workers and non-taxpayers, hyper-immigration, and massive borrowing.  They’ve put climate activists in charge of resource development.  These are not serious people. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Very modest inflation of around 1% is good. "

Why even have 1%? Albeit it is better than the target of 2% we have now which is actually around 5% in recent times.

" Also, you want at least a modest rise in the stock market, property values, etc., as otherwise we won’t have pensions."

The pensions we have dependent on that are a ponzi scheme.  I would rather we didn't have them based on those.

And Canada pension is weak anyway.  I'd rather just not pay into the ponzi scheme and keep my money instead.  If we didn't have inflation, we could simply save money for retirement instead of relying on phony government pensions, which have so often acted as slush funds and come attached with all this growth garbage, which really just subsidizes big business.

"Also remember that without a little inflation it’s very hard to pay down current debt. "

As if debt is actually being paid down right now.  Debt is skyrocketing under the present system. To pay down debt taxes must be raised accordingly, as they used to be in earlier times.

"However, rampant inflation like we’re seeing now is very dangerous, especially since our wages aren’t keeping up and housing is unaffordable."

Absolutely.

"Get rid of carbon taxes (replacing them with a green building code),"

Nah carbon taxes are good for discouraging carbon use and they actually generate revenue which pays down debt.

", increase fuel and energy supply (pipelines and deregulation),"

More environmental destruction.  No thanks.  Invest instead in alternatives.


"Increasing housing supply for a only possible with some deregulation. "

As long as you have an increasing population, increasing housing supply doesn't make a difference.

 

Slowing or setting more conditions on immigration should slow the demand for housing in our major cities. "

Agreed on that.

"Keep in mind that our Liberal government won’t do any of these things.  It’s all a transfer of tax revenue to non-workers and non-taxpayers, hyper-immigration, and massive borrowing."

Asbolutely.

"They’ve put climate activists in charge of resource development. "

I don't have a problem with that.  Relying on dino fuels hasn't gotten us anywhere productive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the draconian carbon taxes that are raising transportation and food  costs for workers will make any measurable alteration to climate change.  They’re taxes on existence.  Canada is resource rich.  The world buys them from Russia, the Saudis, and other bandits when we cut supply.  Don’t be so naive.  Climate activists are destroying Canada.  We can reduce emissions much more than we are without adding to the cost of living, but that requires intelligence.  As for thinking that your savings will carry you from retirement to death without some kind of investment vehicle, good luck with that.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2021 at 9:42 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Environmental clean-up is indeed economic activity and represents an increase in GDP.  Basically when people create and generate income, that’s growth.

 

Allow me to disagree.

Why do you think the companies do not clean after themselves - oil and gas, mining, every industry ????

Because it affects their bottom line - wages paid with zero additional product and sales at the end.

So who would then be paying for the clean ups?  The government.  It will pay with your tax money.  Or it will pay with the proceeds from selling crown land that belonged to you too before the sale.

You are saying "that's growth"  I will tell you: that's a joke.

Don't get me wrong, I wish more people felt like you, so we could start a mass cleanup of our lands to grow our economy at the same time.

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"None of the draconian carbon taxes that are raising transportation and food costs for workers will make any measurable alteration to climate change. "

Please don't abuse the word draconian.  It increases costs for everyone using carbon.  That is good, people should pay a premium for global environmental destruction.  Albeit what you end up getting is a sort of sin tax that doesn't actually address the underlying problem that is at least also true.

"They’re taxes on existence."

No a tax on existence would be a head tax.

"Canada is resource rich." 

And balance book poor.

"The world buys them from Russia, the Saudis, and other bandits when we cut supply.  Don’t be so naive."

I'm not naive about that, I'm well aware.

That can also be carbon taxed through tariffs.

"Climate activists are destroying Canada." 

Anti-climate activists are destroying the World.

"We can reduce emissions much more than we are without adding to the cost of living, but that requires intelligence. "

That is true.  How would you do that?

"As for thinking that your savings will carry you from retirement to death without some kind of investment vehicle, good luck with that." 

It won't as long as we have inflation.  That is why I am saying that we should be getting rid of inflation, so that people can save for their retirement without relying on ponzi scheme pensions which don't actually amount to much anyway.

Edited by G Huxley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, G Huxley said:

Why grow the economy at all?  Even mass cleanup causes environmental destruction e.g. the vast amounts of carbon it takes to do so.

Too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing.  Moderation and balance are better.

You should have spotted the sarcasm in my previous post.  Mass clean ups will actually choke the economy.  And this is what I want.

You can send everyone out there planting trees by hand. You can also pay them to walk to the sites, so they do not burn carbon fuels.  You can also pay my dog, for barking, because this is a job too, and more paid jobs should be good for the GDP and the economy (according to Zeitgeist, at least).

The simple principle is:  if you take from nature more and more and sell more and more - this is good for the economy.  If you take from nature less and less and sell less and less - this is bad for the economy. 

Needless to say, one cannot always take and continue to take in bigger chunks before the resource is depleted, sales go down to nothing, economy contracts, and those people on the outside of the curve fall off the train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, G Huxley said:

"None of the draconian carbon taxes that are raising transportation and food costs for workers will make any measurable alteration to climate change. "

Please don't abuse the word draconian.  It increases costs for everyone using carbon.  That is good, people should pay a premium for global environmental destruction.  Albeit what you end up getting is a sort of sin tax that doesn't actually address the underlying problem that is at least also true.

"They’re taxes on existence."

No a tax on existence would be a head tax.

"Canada is resource rich." 

And balance book poor.

"The world buys them from Russia, the Saudis, and other bandits when we cut supply.  Don’t be so naive."

I'm not naive about that, I'm well aware.

That can also be carbon taxed through tariffs.

"Climate activists are destroying Canada." 

Anti-climate activists are destroying the World.

"We can reduce emissions much more than we are without adding to the cost of living, but that requires intelligence. "

That is true.  How would you do that?

"As for thinking that your savings will carry you from retirement to death without some kind of investment vehicle, good luck with that." 

It won't as long as we have inflation.  That is why I am saying that we should be getting rid of inflation, so that people can save for their retirement without relying on ponzi scheme pensions which don't actually amount to much anyway.

Most of the climate change narrative is overblown.  A more crowded Earth means that we’re more impacted by our own actions.  Basically it becomes harder not to shit on our doorsteps.  Carbon tax is absolutely a tax on existence because every action requires energy (even physical labour requires food, which must be produced and delivered somehow).  In Canada we must heat our homes. Our sources for energy can only shift to renewables with improved capacitors and a massive infusion of solar, wind, geothermal, deep water cooling, etc., and this is only possible by requiring it in the building codes.  Basically all new roofs become solar.  All buildings are equipped with batteries, etc.  The unit costs would become massively cheaper once green tech becomes mass-produced.  Even then we’ll need nuclear and/or more hydro plants (concrete production).  At that point governments can look at the expense of retrofitting existing buildings once the unit costs are lower.  Our governments are too dumb and beholden to developers to do this, so all the poor bastard workers who have no choice but to commute to work in this vast land must pay carbon taxes that will have no measurable impact on emissions.  They’re another ineffectual  “Drive Clean” scheme.  No matter what, some climate change is unstoppable.  Get over it and adapt.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Carbon tax is absolutely a tax on existence because .......

No matter what, some climate change is unstoppable.  Get over it and adapt............

Isn't income tax and every other tax a tax on existence ??  Gee..

Adapt?  Like learn how to live in 50'C , how to swim in floods, how to fly in a tornado, how to breathe without oxygen, how to be alive without food or water.

I suggest you go to the moon for a week with no supplies and learn  to adapt there.  When you come back you will be ready.

Edited by cougar
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cougar said:

Isn't income tax and every other tax a tax on existence ??  Gee..

Adapt?  Like learn how to live in 50'C , how to swim in floods, how to fly in a tornado, how to breathe without oxygen, how to be alive without food or water.

I suggest you go to the moon for a week with no supplies and learn  to adapt there.  When you come back you will be ready.

I am curious how does a group or an individual measure the effect they have on the global climate temperature or changes in weather?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Most of the climate change narrative is overblown. A more crowded Earth means that we’re more impacted by our own actions."

Agreed on the second part, which actually makes the climate change narrative underblown, because overcrowding is hardly ever mentioned and only when they are saying that we need to densify more in order to save the planet (political double think).

"Basically it becomes harder not to shit on our doorsteps."

Indeed.

"Carbon tax is absolutely a tax on existence because every action requires energy (even physical labour requires food, which must be produced and delivered somehow)."

All tax is a tax on energy. The point is that not all energy need be derived from carbon and carbon based energy should be discouraged.

"In Canada we must heat our homes. Our sources for energy can only shift to renewables with improved capacitors and a massive infusion of solar, wind, geothermal, deep water cooling, etc., and this is only possible by requiring it in the building codes."

Good point.

"Basically all new roofs become solar. All buildings are equipped with batteries, etc. The unit costs would become massively cheaper once green tech becomes mass-produced."

Good points again.

" Even then we’ll need nuclear and/or more hydro plants (concrete production). "

Why would we need those if we are reducing our population as we should be?

" At that point governments can look at the expense of retrofitting existing buildings once the unit costs are lower. Our governments are too dumb and beholden to developers to do this, so all the poor bastard workers who have no choice but to commute to work in this vast land must pay carbon taxes that will have no measurable impact on emissions. "

Or they use electric vehicles.

"They’re another ineffectual “Drive Clean” scheme. No matter what, some climate change is unstoppable. Get over it and adapt. "

See Cougar's point. We can only adapt so much before we start dying in droves as is already happening, see the heat dome in B.C.

Edited by G Huxley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Winston said:

I am curious how does a group or an individual measure the effect they have on the global climate temperature or changes in weather?

 

An individual?

I can tell you how much gasoline I burn weekly - it is about 35 liters with my personal vehicle, and another 40 liters with the company pickup.

My family generates one 60 litter bag of plastic waste / week , one 20 litter bag of foam / week , one 40 liter bag of recyclable plastics, 7 glass bottles of wine, 24 beer cans

I use about $250 worth of electricity per month in the winters (always wondered why they called it "hydro" here, which suggests water).

Then you have the food items for the week, with the associated emissions to produce those and deliver them to market.

But that's me only.

You go to the next person and his consumption may be 10 times higher than mine because he only drives a pickup, has a snowmobile , a boat, just bought a new property and spent a few weeks of excavator work to "develop the land".  He works in forestry and also burned 1,000 liters of diesel a week, but in addition he also destroyed a chunk of forests that would have cleaned some of his mess, if he did not wipe it out.

Or you have the homeless bum, who does not have a vehicle and generates very little carbon emissions.

Then you have a moron like Bezos fly into space, so he can look at the Earth from there, hide it under his thumb, to only then supposedly realize that it is vulnerable.  But he will insist he needed to look at it from space because then the humanity can really take it seriously.

Seriously?

You can see what kinds of huge idiots we have in the cockpit and that is because we have a system in place designed to produce and reward the idiots.

And that is the really sad part for the rest of us.

Edited by cougar
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately much of current green energy tech simply can’t provide the essential heating, food production, and transportation that we need to survive in our highly populated world (electric vehicles need to get their electricity from somewhere!).  Humans require energy to exist.  Taxing energy is taxing existence.  EV’s have their own giant environmental footprints.  People who think that subsidizing the hell out of ineffectual green energy while other bandit countries supply the world’s energy needs are on a path to self-destruction.  Better planning and building can make important reductions in emissions, but carbon taxes mostly just add to the cost of living for working people.  Prediction:  Emissions rise along with carbon taxes and the cost of living. We better plan better, which basically means adapt.  Thankfully Canada will be a net beneficiary of climate change as more land becomes arable and trade expands in the north ports, but expect mass migrations.  Canada better think carefully about how many people we want to take on and where they settle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cougar said:

You go to the next person and his consumption may be 10 times higher than mine because he only drives a pickup, has a snowmobile , a boat, just bought a new property and spent a few weeks of excavator work to "develop the land".  He works in forestry and also burned 1,000 liters of diesel a week, but in addition he also destroyed a chunk of forests that would have cleaned some of his mess, if he did not wipe it out.

Or you have the homeless bum, who does not have a vehicle and generates very little carbon emissions.

 

Ill expand on my question as it is not exact. For example burning a specified amount of diesel a week, causes 1 kg of Co2 gas to be released into the atmosphere, what specific effect(s) does this 1kg release of CO2 have to the climate or change in climate? I am not looking for generalizations or an LCA, but specific measurable changes, from mass released to resultant climate change.

Why? If specific steps or cycles are know for say 1 kg of CO2 emission, the results could be quantifiable, thus predictable with acceptable uncertainty. This predictability would seem scientifically justifiable to use in taxation.

50 dollars per Tonne of CO2 emitted is the minimum number enforced federally by 2022. The exactness of the number indicates either a rounding or an arbitrary price setpoint. However without knowing the precise measurable results per CO2 Tonne emitted, this number could be far too high or far too low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unfortunately much of current green energy tech simply can’t provide the essential heating, food production, and transportation that we need to survive in our highly populated world (electric vehicles need to get their electricity from somewhere!)."

Then lower the population.

"Humans require energy to exist.  Taxing energy is taxing existence."

All tax is a tax on energy.

"EV’s have their own giant environmental footprints."

Again lower the population.

"People who think that subsidizing the hell out of ineffectual green energy"

Cite your claim that Green energy is ineffectual

"while other bandit countries supply the world’s energy needs are on a path to self-destruction."

Put tariffs on them.  Don't tell me the Arabs don't understand the word.  It comes from Arabic.

"Better planning and building can make important reductions in emissions, but carbon taxes mostly just add to the cost of living for working people."

If working people are making bad choices then tax them for it.

"Prediction:  Emissions rise along with carbon taxes and the cost of living."

That is certain with population rise.  So reduce population.

"We better plan better, which basically means adapt."

How long do you think it will take to evolve gills?

"Thankfully Canada will be a net beneficiary of climate change as more land becomes arable and trade expands in the north ports, but expect mass migrations."

That isn't a benefit for Canada. 

It reminds me of  when Harper and the American politicians were denying a warming arctic, while at the same time talking about how we can cash in when the Northwest Passage becomes ice free soon.  I remember Hillary Clinton ranting about how the Arctic is America's as well and that America has rights to the new ice free NW Passage.  Even China is now trying to get in on the Arctic action now.  How on earth does that improve Canada's position?

"Canada better think carefully about how many people we want to take on and where they settle. "

How about none?  Better the current population learns to adapt as you are so enamoured by that turn instead of depending on other populations to adapt for us.

Edited by G Huxley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Winston said:

Why? If specific steps or cycles are know for say 1 kg of CO2 emission, the results could be quantifiable, thus predictable with acceptable uncertainty.

 

Are you insane?

You can't ever know that in a system in which everything is changing !

Like in the example I gave you above, if that Joe Blower burned 100 litters of gas while causing no damage, it is one effect.  If he burned the 100 litters to fall down trees that would have cleaned the resulting CO2 emissions and converted it into oxygen , the result would be different.

And then, it is most likely not a linear equation.  Once you reach the absorption capacity of the planet , things start happening much faster and new emissions have a greater impact per 1 ton of CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G Huxley said:

Again lower the population

Completely agree with you, as I am sure 90% of Canadian would agree too.

So why are we welcoming new record numbers of immigrants and this doesn't seem to have an end in sight?

(I know the answer; what I don't know is how we turn things around to stop the flow; let alone "lower the population")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, cougar said:

Are you insane?

You can't ever know that in a system in which everything is changing !

Like in the example I gave you above, if that Joe Blower burned 100 litters of gas while causing no damage, it is one effect.  If he burned the 100 litters to fall down trees that would have cleaned the resulting CO2 emissions and converted it into oxygen , the result would be different.

And then, it is most likely not a linear equation.  

 

Correct me if I am wrong, your saying that the system is complex, we must view more than one action at any given time, from burning gas to also include cutting down trees. I would agree, there is more to the climate or environment that one specific input. 

What I am specifically showing is that the system is complex, as you mentioned, probably nonlinear. Thus a full understanding of how the total system responds to a specific input is required before any generalized taxation can take place. 

If we do not know how the basics of the system behaves with simple mass to a change in climate, how can we implement a carbon tax? Unless I am mistaken.

 

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Once you reach the absorption capacity of the planet , things start happening much faster and new emissions have a greater impact per 1 ton of CO2.

This is precisely what I am looking for, without a generalization, per mass of CO2 is causing per unit of what exact monetary impact? (since the tax is monetary) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Winston said:

If we do not know how the basics of the system behaves with simple mass to a change in climate, how can we implement a carbon tax? Unless I am mistaken.

 

This is precisely what I am looking for, without a generalization, per mass of CO2 is causing per unit of what exact monetary impact? (since the tax is monetary) 

The only mistake you make is your assumption that the carbon tax is designed to fight climate change.

It is not.  

It is dust in your eyes, like the COVID mask you wear which is supposed to protect you.  By itself, it will not protect you.

A carbon tax will be only successful when it stops the economy and people start dying in mass - something we could achieve by simply starting a war.

No matter what price we pay, the damage done to the environment will always be greater.   Why ? Because you need to destroy the environment to pay the tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, G Huxley said:

"Unfortunately much of current green energy tech simply can’t provide the essential heating, food production, and transportation that we need to survive in our highly populated world (electric vehicles need to get their electricity from somewhere!)."

Then lower the population.

"Humans require energy to exist.  Taxing energy is taxing existence."

All tax is a tax on energy.

"EV’s have their own giant environmental footprints."

Again lower the population.

"People who think that subsidizing the hell out of ineffectual green energy"

Cite your claim that Green energy is ineffectual

"while other bandit countries supply the world’s energy needs are on a path to self-destruction."

Put tariffs on them.  Don't tell me the Arabs don't understand the word.  It comes from Arabic.

"Better planning and building can make important reductions in emissions, but carbon taxes mostly just add to the cost of living for working people."

If working people are making bad choices then tax them for it.

"Prediction:  Emissions rise along with carbon taxes and the cost of living."

That is certain with population rise.  So reduce population.

"We better plan better, which basically means adapt."

How long do you think it will take to evolve gills?

"Thankfully Canada will be a net beneficiary of climate change as more land becomes arable and trade expands in the north ports, but expect mass migrations."

That isn't a benefit for Canada. 

It reminds me of  when Harper and the American politicians were denying a warming arctic, while at the same time talking about how we can cash in when the Northwest Passage becomes ice free soon.  I remember Hillary Clinton ranting about how the Arctic is America's as well and that America has rights to the new ice free NW Passage.  Even China is now trying to get in on the Arctic action now.  How on earth does that improve Canada's position?

"Canada better think carefully about how many people we want to take on and where they settle. "

How about none?  Better the current population learns to adapt as you are so enamoured by that turn instead of depending on other populations to adapt for us.

I have a $33,000.00 solar system that generates $1200.00 a year at a heavily subsidized rate.  Trying to supply our energy needs with wind and solar is like trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun, unless everyone is mandated through building codes to have solar squirt guns.  Even then I’m doubtful.

You’re right, the planet is going to fry.  In a few billion years the sun will supernova and engulf Earth.  Hide in your basement.

Americans don’t pay carbon taxes.  Those are for sucker Canadians.  Think of the subjects in the Roman provinces enjoying fewer freedoms than Roman citizens.  That’s us.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...