Are we witnessing the globalist hostile takeover of Canada by Justin Trudeau?

[blackbird]

On 12/26/2023 at 10:53 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is worse today than it was several years ago, not just financially but politically, socially, and spiritually.

That is true.  You make a ton of good points.  Hope you have a happy new year.

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is true.  You make a ton of good points.  Hope you have a happy new year.

Thanks!  You have a happy New Year’s as well.  

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

You can post all the links you want to their vague ill thought mumbo jumbo dance to avoid all financial cost, but that will never qualify it as a climate plan.

And as far as touting nukes, yeah we possibly could have some online in 15 or 20 years, so let;s avoid current alternatives and do nothing until then but scale up oil and gas exports.....

I have posted the links and although they may seem mumbo jumbo to you, ..It still beats the liberals current climate change plan...ask most people on this forum left and right and find out what they think of the liberals non plan...

Once again the article i linked to stated that these SMR in NB will be operational in 2030's with up to 6 in NB alone. not 15 to 20 years...but rather 6 years time...but they are just a small part of the larger picture, wind solar, tidal, natural gas, all geared to lowering emissions...plus newer tech like carbon capture, turning a gas into solid carbon, left deep underground forever...key word is forever...as a solid...and in 6 or more years this to will become a reality , with even newer tech on the horizon...mean your content with the liberals pretend plan which kind of means your really not that serious about it, as long it is not a conservative plan...

[eyeball]

On 12/27/2023 at 4:21 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Nuclear power plants are safe and will help us reduce our carbon emissions dramatically. 

I suppose it's possible they could be made and operated safely one day but the bigger issue I have is with the safe operation of the regulatory institutions tasked with overseeing public safety and protecting the environment. These are two often closely linked issues where impacts to human health are amongst the first indications something is wrong.  This lack of trustworthy oversight should be evident enough in other sectors of the economy to give anyone pause to consider any vast expansion of the nuclear industry.

With multiple SMR's would also come the issue of nuclear proliferation and greater access to nuclear materials for making weapons.  No thanks. Not with such a lax regulatory landscape populated with so many people grinding their axes over one thing or another.

[Queenmandy85]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

With multiple SMR's would also come the issue of nuclear proliferation and greater access to nuclear materials for making weapons.  No thanks.

Would you be okay with thorium? It is compatable with the Candu reactor, but it is not as efficient or safe as a LFTR. The LFTR won't melt down, is far more efficient , produces much less waste and has no military applications. Before the war, thorium was the fuel of choice in nuclear research but the need to create the atom bomb diverted attention away from thorium to uranium and the Cold War arms race cemented uranium's position. 

 

[eyeball]

45 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Would you be okay with thorium?

Probably not. My support for nuclear is dependent on a very high level of public sousveillance of the regulatory regime which is to say, enough to make Orwell himself blush.

[herbie]

So why the popularity of promoting the most expensive, slowest to implement and lowest job creating solution as the alternative energy solution? When waste solutions and if thorium even works remain in question?

Hell, the 'sun doesn't always shine' and 'turbines kill whales that jump out of the water' and dams kill fish, the ladders are too expensive. drilling deep holes can only be used to extract oil, and every other petty bullshit excuse for every already here alternative is tossed about like they're impossible.

[WestCanMan]

On 12/26/2023 at 12:04 PM, Army Guy said:

So lets stop the climate change bullsh*t talk, altogether, everyone already knows what is going to happen if we do nothing....

If the people who pretend to care so much about global warming were legit, their solution wouldn't be: "Stop burning Alberta coal right beside the mines - ship it 10,000 km to China to be burned there."

There's nothing about our "Global warming" targets that doesn't benefit China. Buy their batteries, buy their solar panels and other green tech, sell our cheapest fuels to them at a discount, and make energy costs here skyrocket, while they use all the cheapest forms of energy available.

And do we really believe in the purchase of these "carbon offsets"?

Does Trudeau really pay enough money into a legitimate carbon offset company to make up for the fact that he flies his own sycophant mediatards around in a jumbo jet, or is that BS as well? 

Who owns these companies? A bunch of cronies? 

Celebrity global warming pimp: "Yeah, I fly a private jet and cruise in circles in a yacht - burning more fuel almost every day than you burn in your entire lifetime - but I pay for some tree-planting. If I didn't pay for those trees to be planted, we would eventually run out." 

Sure buddy, I totally believe you. Thanks for saving the planet. 

[Gaétan]

On 12/26/2023 at 9:22 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

The price you pay is nothing compared to what our decendents will pay if we do nothing. They are the ones whole will truly suffer. 

You seem very concerned about the government wasting money, yet you are considering throwing your own money away on a polemic like the one you mentioned in the OP. 

It doesn't matter to Trudeau or Poilievre to borrow money because this is the money the population will have to pay to richer with interest, who are really worry about it are socialist government. These capitalist government like the conservatives are just hypocrites if they are elected as govenrment they'll borrow as never did any government before them.

[CdnFox]

On 12/26/2023 at 8:19 PM, herbie said:

The Tories have never had a climate plan, or they would've revealed it. Just hinted at 'sweep it under the rug' (that'a ALL carbon capture is) and credits that will enable ways to continue the status quo.

 

And yet they achieved more than the liberals have on the climate change front. And you still vote liberals so you must be Excited about parties that do nothing :}

[Queenmandy85]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And yet they (the CPC) achieved more than the liberals have on the climate change front.

Could you explain?

[Zeitgeist]

On 12/27/2023 at 10:29 PM, herbie said:

You can post all the links you want to their vague ill thought mumbo jumbo dance to avoid all financial cost, but that will never qualify it as a climate plan.

And as far as touting nukes, yeah we possibly could have some online in 15 or 20 years, so let;s avoid current alternatives and do nothing until then but scale up oil and gas exports.....

Tell us about your alternatives.  Do you mean solar and wind that produce so little energy that we couldn’t operate a developed society or even keep our lights on at night, you know the ones that the oil and gas sector loves because they must be backstopped with natural gas, coal, or oil power generation when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining?

Reality dictates that other than the few jurisdictions with abundant hydropower like Quebec and parts of Ontario and B.C., the only way to make up the balance of our energy requirements is through non-renewables.  At that point the question is, “Which non-renewables are the least environmentally damaging?”  The answer will generally be nuclear and natural gas.

The alternative of course is to make people live in tents, reduce their living standards by 80%, and send all manufacturing and most jobs overseas.  That’s the radical left carbon tax and regulation plan.

Small incentives like tax breaks and modest cap and trade for industry may help spur innovation, but only if the playing field is level and all countries are doing them.

Any policies that lower living standards or impoverish people are bad, because only a well educated, prosperous society can afford to give attention to nebulous concepts like “climate science”, and only such a cutting edge society can bring solutions and create wealth from selling technology.  Economic consequences will always trump climate concerns, whether you like it or not.  No one wants expensive energy and not being able to afford to buy a home, let alone afford rent and healthy food.  If a government imposes lower living standards on a population, those with the talent and means to leave the country will do so.

The irony is that places without carbon taxes like the US have seen bigger drops in greenhouse gas emissions than Canada through innovation and productivity gains. Canada protects monopolies in the name of maintaining control, but it basically means Canadians pay more for fewer options and our less competitive and innovative big companies are protected by not having to compete.

To advance environmentally and in other ways that improve quality of life, we need the widest range of energy options   The same applies to housing and other options.  We need an abundance mentality   Deregulate, unlock supply, let innovation and competition thrive in the freest marketplace we can handle.  Maybe also stop bringing in so many people and setting policies that don’t serve the interests of the Canadians who are already here.

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Could you explain?

It's pretty straight forward. GHG emissions went down under harper even before the recession kicked in and stayed low - they went up with the liberals including trudeau till we shut the economy down for covid.

In fact harper inherited a rapidly climbing GHG emissions number and not only got it under control after year it dropped. Then as part of the economic stimulus he did the GST rebate for people who upgraded their furnaces and insulation etc, and a hell of a lot of people took advantage of that (which our GHG numbers still benefit from today). 

Justin inherited a low ghg growth and squandered it, till covid shut the place down.  And justin is no where remotely close to achieving his paris agreements despite numerous times saying it was his priority.  His carbon tax has hurt the economy and people's ability to afford food and homes tremendously, and yet it's is an utter failure to achieve the goals he said it would.

Harper very arguably did more long term good without any promises than justin and the liberals have done with all of their promises. Kyoto, paris, etc.

Edited to add chart link i forgot.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Edited December 30, 2023 by CdnFox

[herbie]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And yet they achieved more than the liberals have on the climate change front.

Make shit up why don't you?

[blackbird]

Just received the book this topic is about.  Just starting it.

I feel the carbon taxes imposed on me is definitely a Communist type oppression.  Obviously Trudeau and the climate change alarmists don't respect individual beliefs and freedom.  They are imposing their ideology and hammering us with increasing carbon taxes based on their beliefs.  It is an assault on personal freedom.  As far as they are concerned you are to suffer for the "greater good", which is pure Communist thinking.

I have changed my thinking about the forced vaccinations too.  I am starting to believe that was a form of Communist oppression of the masses.  There was no serious warning about the danger of the vaccine. The fact is people did die as a result of taking the vaccine.  Nobody has the right to impose that on the population by forms of coercion, such as making it mandatory in the federal government as a condition of employment.  People in certain positions could have been given the option of wearing a mask instead of forcing them to be vaccinated.  That would have provided some protection for the people around them.  In the case of health care workers, that is a different issue because many health care workers are working in close proximity to vulnerable patients, whose rights must also be weighed.  Older people, hospital patients, and immune-compromised patients require extraordinary protection.

 We are fed the ideology by the government through the media that government always knows what is best for us and government embraced the Marxist ideology that nobody has individual rights if they deem it is for the greater good.

My younger son in his early fifties believes he is paralyzed by the Covid vaccine which was given to him a couple of years ago about one month before he suffered a massive stroke that paralyzed one leg and arm on one side of his body.  Because he was under government care, he had no real choice and had to take the vaccine.  I tend to believe the vaccine had something to do with it.

Edited December 31, 2023 by blackbird

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, Gaétan said:

It doesn't matter to Trudeau or Poilievre to borrow money because this is the money the population will have to pay to richer with interest, who are really worry about it are socialist government. These capitalist government like the conservatives are just hypocrites if they are elected as govenrment they'll borrow as never did any government before them.

Hey you should stick to terrorist sh*t, becasue you have no idea what your talking about....

[Army Guy]

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Could you explain?

Well my pet hamster now wears a plastic bag over his hind quarters to trap all his hamster farts, once a week i take it outside and bury it deep under ground...i call it my carbon capture plan...and here is the good part it has already done more for climate change than the liberals...

how hard was it it come up with an idea, of putting a tax on fuel, then tell gullible Canadians you'll get back more than you put into at the end of the year...and here is the kicker you'll get back more than you paid into it...my math is bad but if the majority of Canadians are getting back more than then paid into it, how does that add up...it does not the watch dog has already point that out...most Canadian will be paying into it , and not breaking even as suggested...we are just not smart enough to ask why did they lie to us...

[herbie]

36 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Well my pet hamster now wears a plastic bag over his hind quarters to trap all his hamster farts, once a week i take it outside and bury it deep under ground

My gripe with urban pet owners. Catch your dog's turds in a plastic bag and send it to a landfill so it won't decompose for 400 years. So much easier than teaching your kid to be aware enough not to step in it! Plus then you can cover the park with brand name chemical fertilizers.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

Make shit up why don't you?

Awww sorry  little guy -  i forget sometimes how much the truth upsets you

If i wanted to make shit up, i'd become a liberal  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Well my pet hamster now wears a plastic bag over his hind quarters to trap all his hamster farts, once a week i take it outside and bury it deep under ground...i call it my carbon capture plan.

Lets see..... animal control.... spca....  ECCC ....  the department in charge of single use plastics.....  Ripley's believe it or not...  who do i call first.....      

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

how hard was it it come up with an idea, of putting a tax on fuel, then tell gullible Canadians you'll get back more than you put into at the end of the year...and here is the kicker you'll get back more than you paid into it...my math is bad but if the majority of Canadians are getting back more than then paid into it, how does that add up...it does not the watch dog has already point that out...most Canadian will be paying into it , and not breaking even as suggested...we are just not smart enough to ask why did they lie to us...

As embarassing as it is, it was the conservatives who first came up with the idea.  But - soon after they abandoned it, because there was a glaring hole in the whole idea.  And that was the 'elasticity' of energy expenses.

The whole idea was predicated on the concept that people would choose to reduce their use of carbon if it cost them money not to.  But - turns out that they can't.  They still need to heat their homes - freezing isn't an option. They still need to pick up little jimmy after hockey, they still need to go to work etc.  They were ALREADY doing as much as they could to reduce those costs.

So the whole idea was shot to begin with.  What happened instead is the gov'ts KEPT the money and didn't return it and people cut back OTHER expenses.  They heated as much and drove as much but bought less food and went out less and went on fewer vacations etc.

Instead the conservatives under harper gave people a VERY nice tax break if they improved their home. And craptonnes of people did.  IT helped the economy tremendously during a recession and ALSO helped actually address heating bills and helped people keep their homes in good repair. 

The libs kept on with the tax.  And promised at paris that it would work to achieve their goals.  Of course - it didn't come close.

[Gaétan]

The government spends a lot of money on batteries but it's a waste of resources, it pollutes as much as gasoline cars, it can't be considered on heavy vehicles and machinery, the increase in the weight of vehicles destroys the roads, it requires huge infrastructure of charging stations for that, no one will want to wait 6 hours or even an hour to charge their vehicle. Battery-powered vehicles are nothing but rubbish from corruption. We would be better off with green hydrogen.

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, Gaétan said:

The government spends a lot of money on batteries but it's a waste of resources, it pollutes as much as gasoline cars, it can't be considered on heavy vehicles and machinery, the increase in the weight of vehicles destroys the roads, it requires huge infrastructure of charging stations for that, no one will want to wait 6 hours or even an hour to charge their vehicle. Battery-powered vehicles are nothing but rubbish from corruption. We would be better off with green hydrogen.

Not bad, but where does the "green" hydrogen come from? I agree about the batteries. What we need to do is electrify public transit and rail. Build nuclear power plants to supply the electricity. I can see people being reluctant to give up their personal vehicles (Me included), but if it saves the unborn future generations, it is something we have to do. It has something to do with the rights of the unborn.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Not bad, but where does the "green" hydrogen come from? I agree about the batteries. What we need to do is electrify public transit and rail. Build nuclear power plants to supply the electricity. I can see people being reluctant to give up their personal vehicles (Me included), but if it saves the unborn future generations, it is something we have to do. It has something to do with the rights of the unborn.

There's a lot of resistance still among environmentalist towards nuclear energy.   Maybe they'll be willing to set it aside as these new designs come online.

And the problem is I don't think anyone believes it'll save future generations.  I'm not saying that it wouldn't but you won't get buy in from the public nearly so easy. A lot of political capital on the issue was wasted on fake solutions like the carbon tax.  Which the gov't is pocketing the money for in case you didn't notice - revenue neutral my ass.

Now they're more worried about having food and a roof over their head, and any solution that costs them more money and reduces their quality of life even further is going to be a tough sell.

At the end of the day right now we just don't have the tech tho solve the problems.  If canada really wants to help then that's probably where it should put it's energy, advanced nuclear tech, advanced energy storage and charging, next gen stuff that could be affordably adapted and be accepted by all.  I don't think anything people will be 'reluctant' to do is going to sell.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/27/2023 at 5:09 PM, TreeBeard said:

Nuclear already exists.  It’s hella expensive and has severe long term waste issues.  

Wind and solar aren't exactly harmless to the environment either.  Windfarms suck, windmills kill birds.  There's no perfect solution.  Use all of them.

They bury used nuclear fuel deep underground in a safe container, it's not hard to dig a hole.

[Michael Hardner]

The book referenced in the OP is a retarded scrap of scare mongering and conspiracy profiteering, that advances a view sponsored by our enemies.

Iran, Russia and China benefit from dissolution of our global alliances in trade and defence.

Trudeau is a only a pawn in this strategy, as were past PMs who established and maintained it.  This includes Diefenbaker, Trudeau Sr., Mulroney, Chretien, and Harper.