Federal Government in a Surplus

[Queenmandy85]

Electrify the rail system.

It is an indictment of the education system that caused fear of nuclear power.

How is wanting to make money communism?

[Yzermandius19]

32 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Electrify the rail system.

It is an indictment of the education system that caused fear of nuclear power.

How is wanting to make money communism?

electrifying the rail system would be far more expensive

you don't want to make money

you want central planned energy to replace free enterprise energy

if there is so much money to make

they'd already be building it

apparently not that many see the prosperity gained from building it that you see

Edited September 7, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Queenmandy85]

This country would not exist if the Conservative government left the building of the railroad completely up to free enterprise.

If free enterprise will not do it, what do you propose to eliminate most global emissions of greenhouse gases? Windmills? Covering the face of the earth with solar panels? Rationing electricity like they did in Communist Albania?

It is better to begin mass producing nuclear reactors and SMR's for both domestic use and export.

Or, we can start throwing future babies onto the barbecue. Just out of curiosity, since I never took biology, is there any species of life form that can live without liquid water?

 

[RedDog]

PAYbec has the highest subsidized tuition rates in CanaDUH. What a surprise. Another day, another couple billion.

Get Alberta Out!

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This country would not exist if the Conservative government left the building of the railroad completely up to free enterprise.

If free enterprise will not do it, what do you propose to eliminate most global emissions of greenhouse gases? Windmills? Covering the face of the earth with solar panels? Rationing electricity like they did in Communist Albania?

It is better to begin mass producing nuclear reactors and SMR's for both domestic use and export.

Or, we can start throwing future babies onto the barbecue. Just out of curiosity, since I never took biology, is there any species of life form that can live without liquid water?

 

So if global annual temperatures rise about 1.5 percent in 100 years, not resulting in barbecued babies, but to prevent this rise we throw billions of people into poverty or lower class lifestyles to shut down all fossil fuel power sources and build these nuclear power plants, is that intelligent policy?

What if doing all of that made no substantial difference to global temperature changes?

You’re reorganizing and oppressing whole populations to head off a potential problem that may not exist or may not be something we can change in a meaningful way.  Affordable climate action may be fine, but climate change is only one of our challenges and we still don’t really know what would happen if we carried on without a climate policy.  We do know that expensive climate action will hurt billions of people.  

Edited September 7, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

So if global annual temperatures rise about 1.5 percent in 100 years, not resulting in barbecued babies, but to prevent this rise we throw billions of people into poverty or lower class lifestyles to shut down all fossil fuel power sources and build this nuclear power plants, is that intelligent policy?

What if doing all of that made no substantial difference to global temperature changes?

You’re reorganizing and oppressing whole populations to head off a potential problem that may not exist or may not be something we can change in a meaningful way.  Affordable climate action may be fine, but climate change is only one of our challenges and we still don’t really know what would happen if we carried on without a climate policy.  We do know that expensive climate action will hurt billions of people.  

 

That general plan seems to be to reduce a very large sector of the population into a standard of living below that of 1850. While this seems outrageous, they're already talking about no heat for winter and other measures that pretty much mean horse & buggy time...for those that can afford a horse.

[Queenmandy85]

How will transitioning to nuclear power cause poverty to millions of people? It means jobs for the people who will be buildint the reactors and all the new infrastructure. 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

That general plan seems to be to reduce a very large sector of the population into a standard of living below that of 1850. While this seems outrageous, they're already talking about no heat for winter and other measures that pretty much mean horse & buggy time...for those that can afford a horse.

Yes, cheap and affordable energy is essential for human progress, including the education of people and resulting technological progress that makes society more energy efficient and “green”.

[Queenmandy85]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

to prevent this rise we throw billions of people into poverty or lower class lifestyles to shut down all fossil fuel power sources and build this nuclear power plants, is that intelligent policy?

We not only slow the temperature rise, but we also conserve our coal and petroleum resources for future generations.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How will transitioning to nuclear power cause poverty to millions of people? It means jobs for the people who will be buildint the reactors and all the new infrastructure. 

 

 

You haven’t paid for any of these thousands of multi-billion dollar plants yet, so unless you want to engage in taxation and inflationary money-printing or borrowing, I’m not sure how you intend to move these mountains.  Technology might make leaps in energy production, but prosperity and education (the first begets the second and they reinforce each other) is essential for progress.  

Edited September 7, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How will transitioning to nuclear power cause poverty to millions of people? It means jobs for the people who will be buildint the reactors and all the new infrastructure. 

DoP is a believer in WEF conspiracy theories.  Just don't ask him for any cites to support his theory; he gets right testy.  

[Yzermandius19]

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We not only slow the temperature rise, but we also conserve our coal and petroleum resources for future generations.

the only solutions you like

are centrally planned boondoggles

thus you are fake environmentalist

the real goal is to impose a radically altered economy

to the detriment of billions

anything short of that

and you invoke environmental armageddon

as the only alternative in a false dichotomy

because otherwise your plan won't sell

at least you aren't anti-nuclear like most commies masquerading as environmentalists

but that is a rather low bar

[Queenmandy85]

It seems you disagree with Stephen Hawking.

That is very brave of you.

[DogOnPorch]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It seems you disagree with Stephen Hawking.

That is very brave of you.

 

There are no expert opinions in science. Even Stephen can be proven incorrect by new findings using the scientific method.

[PIK]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We not only slow the temperature rise, but we also conserve our coal and petroleum resources for future generations.

We start selling LG to Europe and China which could help end the war and get China off coal. Now we produce 1.5% and with the forests we have we could be a net producer. So if we went from 1.5 to 2.0 but China drops from 38% to 30 or 25 or even less, is that not a good start?

[Queenmandy85]

44 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

There are no expert opinions in science. Even Stephen can be proven incorrect by new findings using the scientific method.

If you are comfortable showing where Prof. Hawking was wrong and, based on your research, you are right, you rock, my friend. ?

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If you are comfortable showing where Prof. Hawking was wrong and, based on your research, you are right, you rock, my friend. ?

Science is a method. There are no expert opinions in science. Just wild card peer review from the people doing/repeating your experiments. The whole Fred Hoyle vs Edwin Hubble affair is a good example of why you don't allow expert opinions to cloud results. Fred's expert opinion was wrong. Edwin's science proved to be repeatable. Likewise with Hawking. If someone comes along and uses the scientific method to overturn his theories...oh well. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

However, Hoyle's attempt to smear Hubble's results as a 'Big Bang' stick with us to this very day. Thanks for the meme, Fred.

 

[herbie]

The trees around you are burning, the neighbour's house is getting washed away, your money buys less and less, your kids will never afford a home, wages are stagnant and there's shortages of labour everywhere,

But the same blockheads steer every discussion on anything into hot air about gender pronouns, who's behind the bathroom door, McCarthy era red-bashing, etc. as if those are the important issues, while utterly denying everything happening around them.

There is no surplus they're lying, it's a quarterly surplus so it's not real, etc. We should be discussing what they should DO with the surplus
and my two cents says nothing. No pay down anything at this time, no spending it just because there is one.

[ironstone]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How will transitioning to nuclear power cause poverty to millions of people? It means jobs for the people who will be buildint the reactors and all the new infrastructure. 

 

 

I wish the governments would focus most of their attention towards nuclear energy and discard wind and solar subsidies.

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Electrify the rail system.

It is an indictment of the education system that caused fear of nuclear power.

How is wanting to make money communism?

I have to admit that I’d love to see bullet trains everywhere.  If I could get from Toronto to Montreal in less than three hours by train, I’d go several times a year.  

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I have to admit that I’d love to see bullet trains everywhere.  If I could get from Toronto to Montreal in less than three hours by train, I’d go several times a year.  

Faster than you can get through security at the airport.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Faster than you can get through security at the airport.

The best thing for national unity.  I’d go to Quebec City on long weekends.  

[Dougie93]

 

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I have to admit that I’d love to see bullet trains everywhere. 

sucker

[Zeitgeist]

18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

sucker

Yeah well, I have a thing for fast trains.  I just want to travel quickly to other cities. The distances are great between major centres in Canada.  

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah well, I have a thing for fast trains.  I just want to travel quickly to other cities. The distances are great between major centres in Canada.  

a problem which does not need solving

I grew up driving across Canada

from British Columbia to Nova Scotia

driving is a joy unto itself

I don't need to get there any more quickly, than by highway

I can stop anywhere, take in the local culture, meet with the people

never mind a commie train

just give me a North American Autobahn ; with no speed limits

Edited September 8, 2022 by Dougie93