Indeed. We certainty need a major overhaul on our train infastructure. The fact that we are still on the standard gauge of 4.5 feet demonstrates that much hasn't changed in that regard since the 1890s.
HIppies' protesting aside,
we could create a green nuclear-powered double-deck train circuit operating on a 100 foot gauge connecting the major metropolitans. In theory, sounds like an economics nightmere, but wouldn't be as carrying capacity would be as high as 8,000 and thus you wouldn't need multiple vehicles operating the same route.
But I'm just thinking about the longterm future. After all, you have Ontarians like Doug Saunders who is convinced that we need 100 million people living in Canada. Heck, there's probably individuals in Government who would have 1 billion people living in Canada if they could.
high speed rail is something needs to happen irregardless of your political view on GW. And getting Bombardier to build it and build it here would be a good economic idea for us anyways. I, personally, believe Canada can sustain many more people than we have. I am not qualified to put a number on it. I would say that the problem is that we aren't reproducing ourselves enough as it is, and so we are so reliant on immigration and that's nasty in today's world. Tripling our population would take immigration too and we wouldn't recognize our own country if we did it. We need to encourage people to start screwing more, hahaha.
I would say to make sure the Catholic church regains much of it's power so more children are born but they might even be changing their views on birth control as we speak. Heaven forbid. jk
The only thing that will get rid of cap and trade or a carbon tax is if businesses are regulated to reduce emissions and forced to make alternate investments now.
As opposed to the plan most people that fund the green movement have of just making sure it's economic suicide to do so forcing them to be even bigger polluters in Asia. The problem with regulation is that you can't drive them to go to unregulated markets with it or it defeats it's own purpose. Also, forcing them to make alternative investments sounds awfully totalitarian of you. You know who is "forced" to make investments in today's world? the Russian oligarchs. You can't force investment and you can't over regulate. There needs to be a balance.
That and if you got your wish they wouldn't stop carbon tax anyways because the plan from the international banks is to use carbon tax to collect on the debts they've sold the world. That's why the family that is most associated with being thought of as the actual owners of the world's private federal reserves in most Western countries, the Rothschilds, are so financially tied to the Climate Change movement.
It's one of those things that sounds good but in reality it is regressive. Sort of like calling something a "Patriot Act" when it gets rid of liberty and destroys the rights that real patriots value. It's along those lines. Call it a carbon tax, sure, but where does it go? It's not like somebody is collecting it and planting trees. They are planning to collect it and offer nothing in the way of environmental measures in things they are financially backing. That's why Dion's carbon based tax scheme was shut down by the big banks. They want the profits, not the government, which is supposed to be the people.
I think there are political agendas at work that we don't address enough here.