Trudeau has eyes set on a great reset for Canada

Tygerbright

Electoral Member
Oct 21, 2019
687
10
18
Bagtown
It's funny I was just talking to my account about that..

Why are there so many tech giants in California, when the taxes and regulations are so high.

Then there is Microsoft in Washington..

But how about BC? Maybe the next billion dollar tech giant will be Canadian? Who knows, it's actually much cheaper to do business in BC that California.

I think Canada is going to break records in 2021.
My first guess would be pacific trade and shipping? And both tech firms like the optics out there but I'm pretty sure they don't build the stuff out there as much as other places....IDK just guessing that. weather too?
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
13,279
102
63
Twin Moose Creek
I think that's a great idea.

Honestly we need a green deal, the tech is here, it's coming elsewhere and advancing, it might as well be something we build on here and get jobs going. Plus infrastructure... it really doesn't matter the province we need to fix things it's crumbling everywhere and we need to get people working.
It has been literally happening for years organically, will the rise in jobs be more than the loss of jobs in other sectors affected by the great reset?
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave and petros

petros

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 21, 2008
94,731
360
83
Moccasin Flats
It has been literally happening for years organically, will the rise in jobs be more than the loss of jobs in other sectors affected by the great reset?
It's better if someone works for $12 an hr than not working at all?

Swapping out $40 an hr in industry for a $12hr job in warehousing is good for the environment.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,616
124
63
Olympus Mons

I think that's a great idea.

Honestly we need a green deal,
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Oh fer sure man. And WHAT a sweet deal. Mass environmental, ecological and habitat degradation caused by the massive increase in mining required for the transition to "green", which ironically can't exist without fossil fuels. According to the World Bank (are they a good enough source for you or are they "full of right-wing bullcrud" too?) we currently sit at 84% of our mining sustainability. Pushing for the 2050 goal will push that sustainability to well over 100%.
When it comes to lithium production, in 2018 alone lithium production blew through 107 BILLION gallons of water. South American farmers downstream of the lithium "mines" are seeing their farms dry up as the water flow slows to a trickle. And this is just the early days of going supposedly "green".

Let's take a look at wind turbines. You need fossil fuels to mine the minerals needed to build them. You need fossil fuels to process and refine them. You need fossil fuel power to smelt them. You need fossil fuels to transport them. And then once you have all your components built, you need 5 semis just to haul the components for one turbine. And worst of all, just to meet annual global increasing demand for power you'd have to cover an area almost the size of Great Britain in turbines every year. That doesn't even take into account replacing current fossil fuel power generation. By 2050 a landmass the size of Russia would be covered in turbines. And the kicker? They only have a designed 20 year lifespan. Although depending on the environment and stress load on them, they can last 25 years or so. Put it this way, every turbine that was installed this year will have to be replaced by 2040-2045. Do we really have the mineral resources to keep doing that every 20-25 years? We're gonna have the exact same problem with the storage batteries too based on current technology.

Green isn't a panacea cure. It just moves the problem to another part of the environment while still relying on fossil fuels for its existence. The leftist "green" plan to save the planet is about as brilliant as bombing for peace or f*cking for virginity.
 

petros

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 21, 2008
94,731
360
83
Moccasin Flats
Green isn't a panacea cure. It just moves the problem to another part of the environment while still relying on fossil fuels for its existence. The leftist "green" plan to save the planet is about as brilliant as bombing for peace or f*cking for virginity.
If there truly were an issue, we'd be going nuclear....in a hurry. That's the final word.

One big bastard in W Canada would put coal, gas, solar and wind out of business within 10 years which is the lifespan of solar panels and whirlygigs.

Transmission. Nobody wants to take on the debt stringng all the grids together.

It's far cheaper to add power to subgrids with solar and wind bandaids.

Life and death doesnt have a price tag. Is this supposed to be a life or death crisis or not?
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,616
124
63
Olympus Mons
If there truly were an issue, we'd be going nuclear....in a hurry. That's the final word.

One big bastard in W Canada would put coal, gas, solar and wind out of business within 10 years which is the lifespan of solar panels and whirlygigs.

Transmission. Nobody wants to take on the debt stringng all the grids together.

It's far cheaper to add power to subgrids with solar and wind bandaids.

Life and death doesnt have a price tag. Is this supposed to be a life or death crisis or not?
One thing about the grids, Nobody wants to string them together because it's a national security issue. At least in Canada and the US. That's why the US and Canada are interconnected by 9 different, independent power grids. The people who say the US could power the entire country with the solar power potential of the South-Western region aren't wrong. It could be done, it would just be stupid to do it. If there's a serious issue anywhere in the system, the entire country goes down, not just a city or region or whatever. I dunno, maybe there's new technology available that removes that risk?
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
12,578
102
63
Toronto, ON
One thing about the grids, Nobody wants to string them together because it's a national security issue. At least in Canada and the US. That's why the US and Canada are interconnected by 9 different, independent power grids. The people who say the US could power the entire country with the solar power potential of the South-Western region aren't wrong. It could be done, it would just be stupid to do it. If there's a serious issue anywhere in the system, the entire country goes down, not just a city or region or whatever. I dunno, maybe there's new technology available that removes that risk?
I would think a smart computer controlled relay or 2 should be able to solve the issue they have when the grids fall like dominoes. But I am not an electrician nor do I play one on TV. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 

Tygerbright

Electoral Member
Oct 21, 2019
687
10
18
Bagtown
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Oh fer sure man. And WHAT a sweet deal. Mass environmental, ecological and habitat degradation caused by the massive increase in mining required for the transition to "green", which ironically can't exist without fossil fuels. According to the World Bank (are they a good enough source for you or are they "full of right-wing bullcrud" too?) we currently sit at 84% of our mining sustainability. Pushing for the 2050 goal will push that sustainability to well over 100%.
When it comes to lithium production, in 2018 alone lithium production blew through 107 BILLION gallons of water. South American farmers downstream of the lithium "mines" are seeing their farms dry up as the water flow slows to a trickle. And this is just the early days of going supposedly "green".

Let's take a look at wind turbines. You need fossil fuels to mine the minerals needed to build them. You need fossil fuels to process and refine them. You need fossil fuel power to smelt them. You need fossil fuels to transport them. And then once you have all your components built, you need 5 semis just to haul the components for one turbine. And worst of all, just to meet annual global increasing demand for power you'd have to cover an area almost the size of Great Britain in turbines every year. That doesn't even take into account replacing current fossil fuel power generation. By 2050 a landmass the size of Russia would be covered in turbines. And the kicker? They only have a designed 20 year lifespan. Although depending on the environment and stress load on them, they can last 25 years or so. Put it this way, every turbine that was installed this year will have to be replaced by 2040-2045. Do we really have the mineral resources to keep doing that every 20-25 years? We're gonna have the exact same problem with the storage batteries too based on current technology.

Green isn't a panacea cure. It just moves the problem to another part of the environment while still relying on fossil fuels for its existence. The leftist "green" plan to save the planet is about as brilliant as bombing for peace or f*cking for virginity.
Good goddess that's a lot of blather for your allergic reaction to industries and jobs the Cons aren't tits deep in.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,616
124
63
Olympus Mons
Good goddess that's a lot of blather for your allergic reaction to industries and jobs the Cons aren't tits deep in.
So I guess the World Bank IS just "right wing bullcrap" to you. Well, we certainly know your objectivity is totally f*cked. Thanks for playing.

No wait, let me get this straight. You're anti-oil and don't give a f*ck about the tens of thousands of jobs lost in the patch and the tens of thousands more in the downstream industries because "Conservative oil lovers are destroying the planet", but you're fine with destroying the planet for jobs and industries you think the Cons aren't tits deep in. You mean like MINING? Yep, that industry is just chalk FULL of left-wing environmentalists. :ROFLMAO: Seems that everyone except brainwashed ideologues on the left know that mining is the most environment, ecology and habitat destroying activity humans routinely engage in. We have literally removed the tops of mountains to get at the mineral wealth inside. And it's not just that. The numbers simply do not add up. It is literally impossible to continue meeting the annual increasing demand for power with just wind and solar. That isn't opinion, it's cold, hard reality. There are a finite number of resources on this planet and even fewer commercial-sized deposits. You can't keep building wind and solar farms indefinitely. Especially when you have to keep replacing them every couple of decades. Do you not understand that? Yet that is exactly what the green plan is basically proposing. But that doesn't really matter to you does it. You're so blinded by ideology you refuse to accept the fact that "green" isn't the least bit green. You know what green is? Green is using less energy. Green is choosing NOT to be a consumerist pig. Maybe you should take a long hard look in the mirror to see if you're part of the problem.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
13,279
102
63
Twin Moose Creek
So I guess the World Bank IS just "right wing bullcrap" to you. Well, we certainly know your objectivity is totally f*cked. Thanks for playing.

No wait, let me get this straight. You're anti-oil and don't give a f*ck about the tens of thousands of jobs lost in the patch and the tens of thousands more in the downstream industries because "Conservative oil lovers are destroying the planet", but you're fine with destroying the planet for jobs and industries you think the Cons aren't tits deep in. You mean like MINING? Yep, that industry is just chalk FULL of left-wing environmentalists. :ROFLMAO: Seems that everyone except brainwashed ideologues on the left know that mining is the most environment, ecology and habitat destroying activity humans routinely engage in. We have literally removed the tops of mountains to get at the mineral wealth inside. And it's not just that. The numbers simply do not add up. It is literally impossible to continue meeting the annual increasing demand for power with just wind and solar. That isn't opinion, it's cold, hard reality. There are a finite number of resources on this planet and even fewer commercial-sized deposits. You can't keep building wind and solar farms indefinitely. Especially when you have to keep replacing them every couple of decades. Do you not understand that? Yet that is exactly what the green plan is basically proposing. But that doesn't really matter to you does it. You're so blinded by ideology you refuse to accept the fact that "green" isn't the least bit green. You know what green is? Green is using less energy. Green is choosing NOT to be a consumerist pig. Maybe you should take a long hard look in the mirror to see if you're part of the problem.
For a little more support on your excellent post

Jack M. Mintz: The least-cost path to net zero needs oil and gas


The Trudeau government is expected to announce this morning legislation committing Canada to “binding” five-year targets, starting in 2025, to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050. As the target is to be legislated without an enforcement mechanism, however, it’s not exactly clear what “binding” means.

Though this latest announcement may just be virtue-signalling it actually makes sense not to enforce “commitments.” It would make even more sense not to legislate them. We don’t know the decarbonization plan. We don’t know the cost of various decarbonization options, nor the technologies required to achieve them. And if other countries fail to achieve the same objective despite their “commitments,” we could incur considerable economic loss with little benefit in reducing climate change threats.
As for Canada, GHG emissions grew seven per cent over these nine years, from 526 Mt (megatonnes) to 565 Mt. This reflects 36 per cent growth in energy production, our largest net export. As a result, emissions have increased even though we have reduced intensity by almost 30 per cent.

For an energy-producing country that thrives on robust energy production, the key issue is whether decarbonization will shut down our oil and gas industry by 2050. Many false prophets predict the imminent end of oil. Instead, I like to listen to the science.

Obviously, emissions are best reduced with greater energy efficiency, as efficiency also reduces economic costs. Even though bio-energy and renewables (including hydro and decarbonized biomass) will grow to be a significant part of the energy mix, they won’t be all of it. On average, the modellers see renewables as accounting for just a third of mid-century global supply. Nuclear energy will also be needed, accounting for over five per cent of supply by 2050. As for fossil fuels, they won’t disappear. Far from it: they’ll be 53 per cent of total supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

petros

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 21, 2008
94,731
360
83
Moccasin Flats
There isnt a mineral shortage. There is a shortage of access to minerals. They've been "greened out of feasibility". Nobody wants to deal with the "social" hassles of building infrastructure, denunding vast swaths of boreal, water use, access to energy etc etc etc.

But if it were State owned...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose