Federal government releases new draft regulations on clean electricity, The regulations would drive up the cost of energy "slightly"

[CdnFox]

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/federal-government-expected-to-release-new-clean-electricity-regulations-today-1.1957297

So the long and short of it is that energy costs would go up, but over time they hope there will be savings to offset that by about 2050.  Long after everyone's forgotten it happened.  Maybe.  If their calculations are correct.  But definitely increases now.

Like - no joke. Do they NOT actually realize how bad off most canadians are financially?  You can't not use energy, it's not 'optional' like the frikkin disney+ channel (looking at you Freeland)

"It has come to our attention that some Canadians can still afford food. Therefore we are enacting a policy to fix that. If they can hang on till 2050 they can eat food again. "

 

What the hell is wrong with these people?

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Like - no joke. Do they NOT actually realize how bad off most canadians are financially?  You can't not use energy, it's not 'optional' like the frikkin disney+ channel (looking at you Freeland)

How bad are most Canadians off financially?  Does it have anything to do with them borrowing too much and saving too little?  

Either way, anytime the government says "it'll even out in the long run," you know they're probably either wrong, or they're lying.  

It's sort of like saying, "the budget will be balanced in four years." ?  

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

How bad are most Canadians off financially? 

 

Pretty bad based on all the data, and getting worse.  It doesn't look like interest rates will be going down and food is still facing high inflation.

 

Quote

Does it have anything to do with them borrowing too much and saving too little?  

Ahhh yes, blame the victim, always a classic

It has to do with sky high interest rates that went on far too long combined with the radical increase in interest rates that were necessary to fight it along with additional taxes for the most part. 

Quote

Either way, anytime the government says "it'll even out in the long run," you know they're probably either wrong, or they're lying

So far that has been the case.

Quote

It's sort of like saying, "the budget will be balanced in four years." ?  

You'll notice the camera never shows their middle finger when they're saying that.....

[Zeitgeist]

The federal government is tone deaf.  They don’t understand how high the cost of living already is and how hard it is for most Canadians to make ends meet.

They don’t understand or care how these policies will send more manufacturing and tech jobs to low cost jurisdictions.

When they criticize Alberta for freezing the construction of renewables, they don’t understand or care that Alberta has paid a fortune and given over massive chunks of land to build renewable power that doesn’t contribute much to the energy grid, nor can it.  They’ve given more than other provinces and are sick of it.  The Maritime provinces can’t afford these policies at all.

Basically the fees are pushing through another costly program with little real promise to significantly lower emissions for ideological reasons.  Canadians are paying a huge price to cater to ideologues like Guilbeault.

Hopefully this is the nail in the coffin for the Liberals.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/federal-government-expected-to-release-new-clean-electricity-regulations-today-1.1957297

So the long and short of it is that energy costs would go up, but over time they hope there will be savings to offset that by about 2050.  Long after everyone's forgotten it happened.  Maybe.  If their calculations are correct.  But definitely increases now.

Like - no joke. Do they NOT actually realize how bad off most canadians are financially?  You can't not use energy, it's not 'optional' like the frikkin disney+ channel (looking at you Freeland)

"It has come to our attention that some Canadians can still afford food. Therefore we are enacting a policy to fix that. If they can hang on till 2050 they can eat food again. "

 

What the hell is wrong with these people?

If any costs go up, how can there be savings realized?  Any time there is an increase to energy (any energy) the impact is an increasse in cost of everything.

Also, by 2050???

All levels of government seem to be making statements about what their proposals and policy will be 30 years hence. What a load of BS. We need policy for now, not 30 years in the future.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

If any costs go up, how can there be savings realized?  Any time there is an increase to energy (any energy) the impact is an increasse in cost of everything.

They seem to think it will eventually make electricity cheaper as inflation drives up other means and also because oil and gas prices are 'bumpy'..

"Shifting to clean electricity saves households on their energy bills, away from the shocks of yo-yo-ing gas and oil prices," Guilbeault said

Quote

Also, by 2050???

I know. And when we get there and it ISN'T cheaper they will scream that they can't be held to account for 2023's liberals, they're all gone now!

Quote

All levels of government seem to be making statements about what their proposals and policy will be 30 years hence. What a load of BS. We need policy for now, not 30 years in the future.

That would require real thinking.  These are politicians, you realize that right? Might as well go tell your dog you absolutely must have the equations for a grand unified field theory by this afternoon. Honestly of the two my money would be on the dog

And people have to smarten up. They let the libs bring in a carbon tax which did nothing and then wash their hands and walk away as if the issue was resolved, with the occasional virtue signal.  We should have done either nothing or something real, letting them get away with occasionally signing an accord and then doing virtue annoucements and taxes gets us nowhere.

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Pretty bad based on all the data, and getting worse.  It doesn't look like interest rates will be going down and food is still facing high inflation.

Interest rates aren't going back to where they were.  They were unnaturally low and it was bad policy that helped fuel asset and debt bubbles across North America.  It was also something that economists were warning about 5 years ago and longer and the reversal was predictable, though it may be painful for many.  

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 Ahhh yes, blame the victim, always a classic

Victim?  Why would you call someone who spends more than they earn victims?  Real consumer spending has gone up this year, despite how worried everyone is about their finances.  10+ years of near-free borrowing has given the average consumer unrealistic expectations.  

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So far that has been the case.

You'll notice the camera never shows their middle finger when they're saying that.....

I think folks are finally getting wise to how silly it all is.  As Exflyer suggests, 2050 is a joke.  Anyone who's trying to sell their policies based on results decades away is just trying to sweep things under the rug. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Interest rates aren't going back to where they were.  They were unnaturally low and it was bad policy that helped fuel asset and debt bubbles across North America.  It was also something that economists were warning about 5 years ago and longer and the reversal was predictable, though it may be painful for many.  
 

well it depends on what you mean by 'what they were'.   I don't think they'll go as low as the lowest they were  but i can easily see them falling back to 2.5 percent

And lets not pretend they went up because of some change in policy regarding where they should be. This was an urgent and immideate rise to over 3 times what it was in a short period to fight runaway inflation,  And rises that fast are extremely damaging and that's the point - they're supposed to really hurt people so that people spend less. '

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Victim?  Why would you call someone who spends more than they earn victims? 

Who spent more than they earn?  Millions spent what they COULD earn....  right up until trudeau's policies send inflation through the roof and interests rates chasing it - after the gov't and the bank was screaming about how there wouldn't be any interest rate hikes anytime in the foreseeable future - that was in 2021.

So you believe them, you get a mortgage and such and you're just getting by but you're making it.  A few years from now you'll be earning more, you'll have that student loan paid off and you'll be in a solid place.

Then suddenly - the same BoC that told you that interest rates would NOT go up and inflation was transitory jacks your mortgage payments through the roof  Thousands of dollars a month more than you were expecting.  And inflation isn't 'trnasient' at all, it's extended and very high which means everything is more expensive than you were lead to believe it was going to be.

These are victims.  THe only 'crime' they committed was believing the liberals and the BoC.

 

Quote

I think folks are finally getting wise to how silly it all is.  As Exflyer suggests, 2050 is a joke.  Anyone who's trying to sell their policies based on results decades away is just trying to sweep things under the rug. 

I hope you're right.  One thing we can probably both agree on is that left or right, voters have got  to start holding politicians to account for the bullcrap.

[ExFlyer]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They seem to think it ....

And people have to smarten up. They let the libs bring in ....

Lets be fair.

All politicians and political parties and governments make promises or policies for action so far in the future most folks will be dead or too old to remember them LOL

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Lets be fair.

All politicians and political parties and governments make promises or policies for action so far in the future most folks will be dead or too old to remember them LOL

Well i'm going to prove you wrong.  By 2080 at the latest. 

[Moonbox]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well it depends on what you mean by 'what they were'.   I don't think they'll go as low as the lowest they were  but i can easily see them falling back to 2.5 percent

Central Bank rates, sure, but not mortgage rates.  

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And rises that fast are extremely damaging and that's the point - they're supposed to really hurt people so that people spend less. '

No, they're meant to decrease borrowing and thereby spending, so that demand drops and people don't have to deal with prices spiraling out of control, which is what really "hurts them".  

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Who spent more than they earn?  Millions spent what they COULD earn....  right up until trudeau's policies send inflation through the roof and interests rates chasing it - after the gov't and the bank was screaming about how there wouldn't be any interest rate hikes anytime in the foreseeable future - that was in 2021.

Trudeau's overspending didn't help inflation, but a quick look at global inflation numbers should dispel the myth that he's uniquely to blame for 2022's spike...if you didn't have Justin hate-goggles on.  

As for the BoC's forecasts, they couldn't predict the Ukraine war or China's disastrous zero-COVID policy.  

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you believe them, you get a mortgage and such and you're just getting by but you're making it.  A few years from now you'll be earning more, you'll have that student loan paid off and you'll be in a solid place.

The folks who bought into variable rates at the absolute bottom of the rate cycle only have themselves to blame.  The BoC doesn't promise anything, and it's never more than a best guess.  Getting a variable rate mortgage when rates have only one direction to go is a bad gamble, and people who take risks often have to pay the price.  

The folks who got fixed rates in that very brief interim between the BoC's forecast and when rates started to spike are going to be fine, because they'll be renewing in 2025 or later.  It's the folks swimming in revolving credit debt that are going to feel the rates the most.  

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

These are victims.  The only 'crime' they committed was believing the liberals and the BoC.

The only thing they're victims of is their own greed.  

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I hope you're right.  One thing we can probably both agree on is that left or right, voters have got  to start holding politicians to account for the bullcrap.

Sure, and if Poilievre can stick to reasonable messaging and cut the demagoguery, he'll win.  You don't get a lamer duck than Trudeau as an incumbent to run against.  This has 1993 vibes.  

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Central Bank rates, sure, but not mortgage rates.  

We'll see.  I think we'll be looking at a long dark period starting pretty soon, and the gov't will be looking to stimulate things a little bit.

Quote

No, they're meant to decrease borrowing and thereby spending, so that demand drops and people don't have to deal with prices spiraling out of control, which is what really "hurts them".  

That's almost the same thing in the end - but the goal is to hurt people so they spend less to prevent worse hurt from inflation down the road no matter how you want to phrase it.  People will have less money and less buying power and will struggle.

Quote

Trudeau's overspending didn't help inflation, but a quick look at global inflation

This has been shot down more times than i can count already.  There is little doubt that thanks to covid spending we were going to see some inflation and it would be dishonest to say there should have been no covid releif spending.  But the rate of inflation, how soon it started and how long it dragged on was at LEAST 50 percent due to trudeau's policies. And now it's been replaced with a higher bank interest rate which is almost as bad a thing.  You think it's consumer spending that is really impacted by that but it's not - it's new home construction, every tradesperson out there who gets paid after the job, every business looking at investing in growth etc.

 

Quote

As for the BoC's forecasts, they couldn't predict the Ukraine war or China's disastrous zero-COVID policy.  

Those aren't what drove our inflation rates so high.  And remember - they later admitted they got it wrong and should have known inflation was going to get this bad.

AND - infation started its climb long before the war even started.  By the time the war started inflation was already at over 5 percent.

 

Quote

The folks who bought into variable rates at the absolute bottom of the rate cycle only have themselves to blame. 

Yeah yeah - blame the victims. Not the bank that promised them rates wouldn't go up. Sure sure.

 

Quote

The only thing they're victims of is their own greed.  

Or, y'know - wanting somewhere to live. those bastards   . oh and those fixed rate people - they're about to get it just as bad in a year or two. Sooooo... yeah.

Every radio program was screaming the same thing - boc says rates stable, inflation transitory.  If you're blaming people for believing in our gov't and Canadian institutions  then we've got a problem in this country.

Quote

Sure, and if Poilievre can stick to reasonable messaging and cut the demagoguery, he'll win.  You don't get a lamer duck than Trudeau as an incumbent to run against.  This has 1993 vibes.  

Feeling more like 84, where mulroney topped 50 percent of the vote. Against the last Trudeau. You'd think people would have learned.

[Moonbox]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We'll see.  I think we'll be looking at a long dark period starting pretty soon, and the gov't will be looking to stimulate things a little bit.

Yes, probably - maybe in 2024 or 2025.  It's still unlikely we'll get back to <3.00% mortgages.  That was a gravy train that last longer than it should have - economic stimulus when we didn't need economic stimulus.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's almost the same thing in the end - but the goal is to hurt people so they spend less to prevent worse hurt from inflation down the road no matter how you want to phrase it.  People will have less money and less buying power and will struggle.

Saying it's meant to hurt people is silly though.  That's sort of like saying a personal trainer and a dietician are out to hurt a fatty.  Sure, you might feel hungry, tired and sore, but you're going to be better for it after.  The intention is to stop people gorging on cheap debt, which was driving prices up.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But the rate of inflation, how soon it started and how long it dragged on was at LEAST 50 percent due to trudeau's policies.

Forgive me if I assume you just pulled that number out of your ass.  The global numbers should disprove it if you weren't so blindly partisan about it.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Those aren't what drove our inflation rates so high.  And remember - they later admitted they got it wrong and should have known inflation was going to get this bad.

No, they admitted in hindsight they underestimated it. That's all.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

AND - infation started its climb long before the war even started.  By the time the war started inflation was already at over 5 percent.

Which was only slightly off their original projections and within forecast range.  The War in Ukraine, zero-COVID China, and continued brutal supply chain disruptions were all things the BoC had no control over nor could it anticipate.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah yeah - blame the victims. Not the bank that promised them rates wouldn't go up. Sure sure.

The Bank didn't promise anything, nor does it ever promise anything, because it doesn't control everything.  Since when are folk so willing to believe what the government and the BoC says as Gospel?  

With logic like that, it's a wonder why fixed rates even exist.  You should just be able to choose variable rates and take all of the benefits, without having to deal with the risks, is that right?  

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, probably - maybe in 2024 or 2025.  It's still unlikely we'll get back to <3.00% mortgages.  That was a gravy train that last longer than it should have - economic stimulus when we didn't need economic stimulus.  

 

You may well be right.  But getting back to around 3 percent seems plausible to me. Of course - who can say these days.

 

Quote

Saying it's meant to hurt people is silly though.  That's sort of like saying a personal trainer and a dietician are out to hurt a fatty.  

I love that   

But there is a difference.  For the dietician their goal is not to cause harm, if they could reduce fat without causing pain then they would.

For the bank tho, the goal specifically IS to make it painful financially for individuals in order to cripple their ability to spend money.  That's what it does. THey are sucking money out of the economy and repressing people's spending ability.

It would be more like saying a surgeon is cutting and hurting his patient in order to make them better.  Same deal - the bank is cutting and hurting the citizens to solve a worse problem.  But making it hurt is in fact the goal, it doesn't work without it,

 

Quote

Forgive me if I assume you just pulled that number out of your ass.  The global numbers should disprove it if you weren't so blindly partisan about it.  

You're forgiven , but wrong.  I think i've posted all the numbers before.  At max we were 6 percent over target,  the carbon tax before the last increase was responsible for about .5 percent of that directly and about 1 percent more indirectly, his monetary and fiscal policy was good for about 1 - 1.5 percent additional, and that's three percent right there. Then there's the effect of his other policy choices which drive up inflation as well, including repressing the oil and gas sector which reduces supply and drives up prices.

You're the only one partisan about this. This is acknowledged and observable numbers.

Quote

No, they admitted in hindsight they underestimated it. That's all.  

Sigh.

“We Got Some Things Wrong,” Bank of Canada Governor Tells Parliament

https://betterdwelling.com/we-got-some-things-wrong-bank-of-canada-governor-tells-parliament/

 

Quote

Which was only slightly off their original projections and within forecast range. 

It was massively off.  Big time.  They screwed up majorly. they've admitted it.

Quote

The Bank didn't promise anything

Double sigh.

'Interest rates WILL be low for a long time': Macklem

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/interest-rates-will-be-low-for-a-long-time-macklem-1.1465901

Said that at the end of 2020 - said that pretty much identical word for word 2021.  By 2022 rates were increasing.

 

Not - SHOULD be low. Not PROBABLY will be low.   WILL be low.

 

I'm sorry but you're just making shit up as you go at this point  You're DESPERATE for it not to be justin's fault - but it's justin's fault.  You're Obsessed with the idea that the victims are the criminals - but they're not. They're the victims. The numbers and the statements are there, it's not hard to figure out, and you're frantically trying to rewrite history.

 

Sorry dude. It's plain as day and black and white.  The bank and justin both assured people right into 2021 that there would be no interest rate hikes and people believed them.

And justin's policies started inflation early, kept it going longer, and made it considerably higher than in should have been, and that has now translated into higher interest rates.  Them's the factcs.

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I love that   

But there is a difference.  For the dietician their goal is not to cause harm, if they could reduce fat without causing pain then they would.

That's the same with the central banks.  If they could stop inflation without it hurting anyone they would, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, but that seems to be what people expect.  You were hardly out there singing the bank's praises when they were keeping rates low and making people "feel good", were you?  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

For the bank tho, the goal specifically IS to make it painful financially for individuals in order to cripple their ability to spend money.  That's what it does. THey are sucking money out of the economy and repressing people's spending ability.

The goal is to lower inflation.  The means are to make it more expensive and unattractive to borrow and thus spend.  Whether or not there is pain is a side effect.  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You're forgiven , but wrong.  I think i've posted all the numbers before.  At max we were 6 percent over target,  the carbon tax before the last increase was responsible for about .5 percent of that directly and about 1 percent more indirectly, his monetary and fiscal policy was good for about 1 - 1.5 percent additional, and that's three percent right there.

Waving your hands around and breaking down your made-up numbers further isn't good for much, I'm afraid.  The only thing you listed above that I've ever seen any hard data on is the .5% carbon tax effect, much of which had already been accounted for from previous years.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

“We Got Some Things Wrong,” Bank of Canada Governor Tells Parliament

https://betterdwelling.com/we-got-some-things-wrong-bank-of-canada-governor-tells-parliament/

Where is the admission that they should have known better?  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

'Interest rates WILL be low for a long time': Macklem

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/interest-rates-will-be-low-for-a-long-time-macklem-1.1465901

Said that at the end of 2020 - said that pretty much identical word for word 2021.  By 2022 rates were increasing.

Hate to tell you this, but that's not a promise, lol.  If you knew anything about the Central Banks, you'd know that literally nothing they do or say can be taken as a promise, and they all have a long track record of having their predictions be wrong and having to later revise them - every single central bank ever.  They can neither predict nor control events around the world, so if anyone took that as a promise or a guarantee, they're dumb-dumbs.  ?‍♂️

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You were hardly out there singing the bank's praises when they were keeping rates low and making people "feel good", were you?  

Well first off you didn't even know me then   so kind of a silly thing to say.

And it's not relevant how low rates were. It's the sudden increase that kills people.  If it had been at 5 percent and shot up to 10, it's no different than if it's at 1 and shoots up to 5.

For 20 years we had very stable inflation, and a stable economy. The usual ups and downs but even the great recession couldn't shake us too bad.

The instability, the runaway inflation, the DOUBLING OF ALL DEBT which just hasn't happened before, the loss of productivity, the housing crisis the health care underfunding etc etc etc etc.  That's all recent within the last 7 years.

Quote

Where is the admission that they should have known better?  

right where it says we got it wrong and we made mistakes.   A mistake is something that you should have known better than to do.

You're grasping at straws here pretty hard

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Hate to tell you this, but that's not a promise

Hate to tell you but it is.  When a gov't official says "This thing will not happen" -that's a promise. That is a commitment from a person in authority.

Again - if you grasp at straws any harder you're going to do yourself  an injury

THe BoC promised no increases - within a year there were increases.  And they admitted they made mistakes and got things wrong.

Simple truths.  Sorry for the inconvenience.   

[Moonbox]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well first off you didn't even know me then   so kind of a silly thing to say.

It was a question.  I didn't need to know you.  

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And it's not relevant how low rates were. It's the sudden increase that kills people.  If it had been at 5 percent and shot up to 10, it's no different than if it's at 1 and shoots up to 5.

Aside from 10-5 being different than 5-1, the sudden increase is a dislocation, and while it's uncomfortable it's not something that could be avoided.  Canada couldn't keep its rates low while global (read that again - GLOBAL) inflation spiked.  

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The instability, the runaway inflation, the DOUBLING OF ALL DEBT which just hasn't happened before, the loss of productivity, the housing crisis the health care underfunding etc etc etc etc.  That's all recent within the last 7 years.

You've never seen runaway inflation.  Be glad the rates increased, otherwise you may have. 

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

right where it says we got it wrong and we made mistakes.   A mistake is something that you should have known better than to do.

You're grasping at straws here pretty hard

Grasping at straws...yes that's a good description for what you're doing here.  Your definition of "mistake" is as flimsy/awkward as your explanation of how promises work.  ?

Edited August 12, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It was a question.  I didn't need to know you.  

lol  right.

Quote

Aside from 10-5 being different than 5-1, the sudden increase is a dislocation, and while it's uncomfortable it's not something that could be avoided. 

It could easily have been avoided. Many many ways.  Don't pump billions more than necessary in unearned dollars into the economy, which spikes inflation. Increase the rate sooner and don't pretend inflation is transitory. Increase the GST by 1 percent - has a similar effect but affects discretionary spending more so it doesn't hurt as bad.  etc etc.

Quote

You've never seen runaway inflation.  Be glad the rates increased, otherwise you may have. 

Sure i have.  What a stupid thing to say.

Quote

Grasping at straws...

Dude - everyone can see you're grasping at straws.

 

You are trying so desperately to argue that black = white that i'm concerned you're going to get yourself killed at the next zebra crossing.

 

The bank promised no rate hikes, inflation was transitory - and remember they're the ones who control the rates.  People took them at their word and took justin at his word and got clobbered.

While i do agree that anyone stupid enough to think the liberal party ever tells the truth kinda has it coming.  we usually refer to someone who's been taken in by a confidence trickster as a 'victim' regardless.

 

[Goddess]

On 8/10/2023 at 7:12 PM, CdnFox said:

You can't not use energy, it's not 'optional' like the frikkin disney+ channel (looking at you Freeland)

Her money saving tips are just precious:

Cancel Disney+ subscription

Take limos to work

Open a savings account

?

[Moonlight Graham]

On 8/11/2023 at 8:12 AM, ExFlyer said:

If any costs go up, how can there be savings realized?  Any time there is an increase to energy (any energy) the impact is an increasse in cost of everything.

Also, by 2050???

All levels of government seem to be making statements about what their proposals and policy will be 30 years hence. What a load of BS. We need policy for now, not 30 years in the future.

You need decades to phrase out things like energy plants.  New ones need to be built as the older ones age.  You can't just snap your fingers and replace every energy plant, it's not politically or economically very realistic.  You also need to get the provinces on board since they're the ones in charge of electrical plants.  We know Alberta already isn't going to play ball.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You need decades to phrase out things like energy plants.  New ones need to be built as the older ones age.  You can't just snap your fingers and replace every energy plant, it's not politically or economically very realistic.  You also need to get the provinces on board since they're the ones in charge of electrical plants.  We know Alberta already isn't going to play ball.

But they are talking about snapping their fingers and making that change. That's what this is all about. That's why it'll be a cost up front rather than the normal costs of phasing out plants.  This isn't going to happen over decades - this is within a few years.

 

[ExFlyer]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You need decades to phrase out things like energy plants.  New ones need to be built as the older ones age.  You can't just snap your fingers and replace every energy plant, it's not politically or economically very realistic.  You also need to get the provinces on board since they're the ones in charge of electrical plants.  We know Alberta already isn't going to play ball.

That all goes without saying but...to make statements without proposing or planning or indicating such development is just pi$$ing into the wind.

Any politician saying something will occur 20 or 30 years in the future is just blowing smoke up our a$$es.

[Dougie93]

On 8/11/2023 at 7:00 AM, Zeitgeist said:

The federal government is tone deaf.  They don’t understand how high the cost of living already is and how hard it is for most Canadians to make ends meet.

They don’t understand or care how these policies will send more manufacturing and tech jobs to low cost jurisdictions.

When they criticize Alberta for freezing the construction of renewables, they don’t understand or care that Alberta has paid a fortune and given over massive chunks of land to build renewable power that doesn’t contribute much to the energy grid, nor can it.  They’ve given more than other provinces and are sick of it.  The Maritime provinces can’t afford these policies at all.

Basically the fees are pushing through another costly program with little real promise to significantly lower emissions for ideological reasons.  Canadians are paying a huge price to cater to ideologues like Guilbeault.

Hopefully this is the nail in the coffin for the Liberals.

but easily half the population is utterly convinced

that "climate change" is going to cause a "mass extinction" in the near future

that level of existential panic requires beyond world war levels of intervention without delay

which of course immserates the population by its astronomical expense

this is now a permanent state of emergency, a world war without end

so even of the Liberals are thrown out of power, the mass hysteria is not going away

the Conservatives will be forced to pander to it as well, if they want to stay in office

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

but easily half the population is utterly convinced

that "climate change" is going to cause a "mass extinction" in the near future

It's more like 2/3rds actually.  Meaning it's only taken about a third of the population of doubters and deniers to prevent action.

You guys won the war years ago.  

[Dougie93]

Just now, eyeball said:

It's more like 2/3rds actually.  Meaning it's only taken about a third of the population of doubters and deniers to prevent action.

You guys won the war years ago.  

it's not my war

I don't even engage in the climate change debate ; fool's errand

instead,  I follow scripture ;

The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation  . . ."

And Noah did all that the Lord commanded him.

~ Genesis 7