As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Canadian Politics] Take care. Listen to health authorities.

11213151718101

Posts

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Some days it feels like Beaverton is just reading this thread for ideas of articles to write.

    Toronto woman who endured Harper decade “just doesn’t understand” what it’s like for feds to ignore her interests

    sig.gif
  • Descendant XDescendant X Skyrim is my god now. Outpost 31Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    @CanadianWolverine got me thinking - what would happen if we got rid of the Indian Act?

    This question also brings me some embarrassment as I don’t actually know what the Indian Act does. I’m going to rectify that right now.

    EDIT: Well, it certainly didn’t begin with the best intentions. Johnny Mac was a real racist piece of shit, eh?

    Alright, I’ve read the Act. Basically gives the GoC a paternalistic role over pretty much everything occurring in a reserve, with faaaaar too much about who is and isn’t Aboriginal at the outset.

    Descendant X on
    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited October 2019
    god i just got back home to Vancouver after spending a few days with my mom and some of her family in Toronto.

    Sitting around the dinner table listening to my mom and her partner and my aunt and uncle all complain about Trudeau and feel all concerned about Alberta for a couple hours really killed me. Their complaints are all awful too.
    "He bought the pipeline" - "well why hasn't he done anything with it?"
    "he's literally trying" - "well what about future pipelines, this new bill won't ever allow a badly needed natural gas pipeline"

    Then they just complain and are like "if I was an Albertan I'd push to secede but also to join the USA. The Americans would obviously embrace us with open arms and we'd immediately become the 51st state"

    at that point my brain started leaking out of my head.

    I'm typing this as a ghost, you're talking to a ghost.

    edit - my mom sits around and just has fox news on all day. I had to tell her it wasn't allowed on while my son and I were visiting

    Hardtarget on
    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    as somebody who lives in BC and is left I'm still pro pipeline, it is what it is right now.

    somebody posted earlier that we need to work with the oil now while also getting green stuff going, that's how I see it. We can't just magically cut over immidiately.

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
  • chuck steakchuck steak Registered User regular
    The racism in Saskatchewan towards the Native American population is beyond sickening. I know very few people who aren't casually racist, I'm very sad to say, and any time I stand up to any racism people look at me like I'm insane for doing so.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    The racism in Saskatchewan towards the Native American population is beyond sickening. I know very few people who aren't casually racist, I'm very sad to say, and any time I stand up to any racism people look at me like I'm insane for doing so.

    I grew up on the Island of Montreal and had frequent dealings with many of the bands around there professionally. Part from some off color jokes and during the Oka crisis people did not have much to say about Natives.


    Alberta ? Not so much.... The ingrained hate towards natives around here is super Icky.
    On the flip side the Bands out here in my experience are incredibly mismanaged vs those i dealt with out east. We stopped granting credit or taking cheques from them as there was issues pretty much always.

    The whole thing is a mess

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    I see it pretty constantly up here in Yellowknife, as well the constant drone of it growing up in small town Alberta.

    But I get told by everyone that's been to Thunder Bay that nothing I've seen comes close to what it's like for First Nations there.

    Everyone has stories like this in Canada. The entire country is rotten when it comes to treatment of First Nations.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    I see it pretty constantly up here in Yellowknife, as well the constant drone of it growing up in small town Alberta.

    But I get told by everyone that's been to Thunder Bay that nothing I've seen comes close to what it's like for First Nations there.

    Everyone has stories like this in Canada. The entire country is rotten when it comes to treatment of First Nations.

    The whole relationship we have with Natives is built on sand.

    Fundamentally, they need to have a bigger piece of the pie. They need land given back to them or we need to substantially change how they receive income from the government.

    And the government to do this will get slaughtered in the next election or may not even pass the vote. The hatred many folks have for the subject is intense.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • chuck steakchuck steak Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    I see it pretty constantly up here in Yellowknife, as well the constant drone of it growing up in small town Alberta.

    But I get told by everyone that's been to Thunder Bay that nothing I've seen comes close to what it's like for First Nations there.

    Everyone has stories like this in Canada. The entire country is rotten when it comes to treatment of First Nations.

    The whole relationship we have with Natives is built on sand.

    Fundamentally, they need to have a bigger piece of the pie. They need land given back to them or we need to substantially change how they receive income from the government.

    And the government to do this will get slaughtered in the next election or may not even pass the vote. The hatred many folks have for the subject is intense.

    "I didn't steal their land, and they get all this stuff for free, so it's all their fault they are in this mess!". People are fucking stupid and unable to grasp the tiniest bit of nuance or how history has an impact on the present.

  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    psyck0 wrote: »
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Having spent the last 5 years of my life in Saskatchewan, feel free to abandon it. Racist Evangelical Christians outnumber the decent people by far too much to be worth the effort in the short or medium term.

    What's your threshold? 33% of Saskatchewan voters cast for Liberals, NDP, or Green party.

    Yes. They are severely outnumbered by the racist religious Christians.

    Good chat.
    e: I mean, shit, 1 in 3 people you interact with probably have similar opinions and beliefs as you and you're saying "feel free to abandon it". Shit like this is the disease of modern society. People taking their positions and beliefs to extremes and saying "fuck the other". Gross.

    BlazeFire on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The prairies isn't like the "American South".

    If treatment of the First Nations is the criteria, then the whole of Canada is like the 'American South'. There is no where in this country where they aren't vilified.

    There's plenty of regional variation in attitudes from what I've seen, both personally and in surveys. (this is all unrelated to the above point, just as a note on general attitudes in Canada towards First Nations and such)

    Last year Angue Reid, for instance, did a big survey on this:
    http://angusreid.org/indigenous-canada/

    Probably the most relevant bit for what we are discussing:
    Based on their responses to these and other questions in this survey, Canadians can be grouped into four distinct subsets, which exist along a continuum.
    At one end of this spectrum are the Hardliners (21% of the total population). This group is defined by its antipathy toward any special status or accommodation for Indigenous people in this country.[...]
    The Hardliners are, on average, older, wealthier, and more male than the general population. They are also disproportionately located in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, where they make up at least one-third of the population.
    At the other end of the spectrum are the Advocates (29% of the total population). This group takes a strong stand in favour of Indigenous self-determination and Canada’s responsibility to acknowledge and make amends for its history of colonial oppression.[...]
    The Advocates are the only one of the four groups that includes more women than men. Members of this group are more likely to have university degrees and tend to be younger than the general population. They’re also disproportionately located in Ontario and Quebec, and not on the Prairies.
    In between these two poles are a pair of mindsets that each represent roughly one-quarter of the total population: The Wary (25%) and the Sympathetic (25%). As their names might imply, the Wary tend to be more closely aligned with the Hardliners – though they take less of a hard-line and are less consistent in doing so – while the Sympathetic align more closely with the Advocates on most questions in this survey.

    Like the Hardliners, the Wary are, on average, older and more male than the general population. Unlike the Hardliners, however, they’re not so geographically concentrated. The Wary represent roughly one-in-four respondents in each region of the country.

    The Sympathetic, meanwhile, tend to be younger than the general population, like the Advocates. Unlike the Advocates, the Sympathetic are balanced along gender lines and tend to have average levels of education. They are the group most likely to be living in households that earn less than $50,000 per year.

    Other interesting note here:
    Notably, self-identified Indigenous Canadians – who make up 6 per cent of respondents to this survey, roughly equivalent to their proportion of the total population – can be found in each of these four groups, though there are more of them among the Sympathetic and Advocates than among the Wary and the Hardliners. In all, 10 per cent of Indigenous Canadians surveyed are Hardliners, 13 per cent are Wary, 35 per cent are Sympathetic, and 41 per cent are Advocates.

    That said, while the views of self-described Indigenous people are reported here to provide valuable context, it should be noted that this sample is not necessarily representative of the Indigenous population of Canada as a whole.

    Anyway, there's a bunch in there speaking to regional variation in a lot of ways. There's also a lot about how often people actually interact with indigenous peoples and reservations and such, which is heavily weighted toward Manitoba and west.

    Of note, they make a "contact index" ranking how often people interact with indigenous people or know about their issues and it seems people more likely to interact with indigenous peoples (scoring high on the index) have more positive things to say about it even as the regional breakdown shows that places where people have more contact have more Hardliners (as described above) and regions with less have more Advocates (as described above). Although, it should be noted, this whole section of the report says only like 6% of people describe their interactions with indigenous peoples as negative, so there's probably some sort of disconnect here between the two.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    As a personal anecdotal, my experience with people from Toronto region/southern Ontario vs Thunder Bay and northern Ontario over to Manitoba border and such was that people from up north were much more likely to have strong opinions on first nations people to some degree or other and people from southern Ontario just didn't ever really think about the issue at all. Which seemed to reflect the degree to which the issue was at all relevant to their lives.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Nosf on
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    As a personal anecdotal, my experience with people from Toronto region/southern Ontario vs Thunder Bay and northern Ontario over to Manitoba border and such was that people from up north were much more likely to have strong opinions on first nations people to some degree or other and people from southern Ontario just didn't ever really think about the issue at all. Which seemed to reflect the degree to which the issue was at all relevant to their lives.

    Being born and raised in the GTA, but more recently having family and friends from Winnipeg and spending time there.... this rings true.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Everything is fucked and everyone should feel worse about everything. Have I summed up the last several days appropriately? <_<

    I'm in Florida because partner's parents wanted to take us to Disney. The thread is making me feel bad, but not as much as the existence of our southern neighbors. We're fucked no matter what. Revel in the Nihilism and try to be a better person anyway as we all sink/burn/crumble together~

    ArcticLancer on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Everything is fucked and everyone should feel worse about everything. Have I summed up the last several days appropriately? <_<

    I'm in Florida because partner's parents wanted to take us to Disney. The thread is making me feel bad, but not as much as the existence of our southern neighbors. We're fucked no matter what. Revel in the Nihilism and try to be a better person anyway as we all sink/burn/crumble together~

    Yeah, like I said, I'm pretty hopeless about our future.

    There is no stopping this train. Alberta could cut all greenhouse gas emissions activity tomorrow to zero and it would make no difference to climate change.

    Nova_C on
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Everything is fucked and everyone should feel worse about everything. Have I summed up the last several days appropriately? <_<

    I'm in Florida because partner's parents wanted to take us to Disney. The thread is making me feel bad, but not as much as the existence of our southern neighbors. We're fucked no matter what. Revel in the Nihilism and try to be a better person anyway as we all sink/burn/crumble together~

    Yeah, like I said, I'm pretty hopeless about our future.

    There is no stopping this train. Alberta could cut all greenhouse gas emissions activity tomorrow to zero and it would make no difference to climate change.

    Like, big things or little things, it still feels fucked. We're here for ~10 days and did a grocery at Target. We got more plastic bags in that one trip than my partner and I tend to get in a year. And that's completely separate from the number of bottled water packs I know her parents get all the time. Plus I'm pretty sure even if they do recycle in some parts around here they don't make it easy for you to participate as a visitor, so I'm just dying a bit over how much my own largely inconsequential but still morally important to to me impact is shitting the bed just by existing here. :|

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

    Also, the problem is not just production, it's preventing anything that would reduce consumption. We need to stop helping production and distribution because it's the only way to force Alberta to give a shit about something other than oil.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

    I love the way that we speak about stuff like this in a vacuum. If oil went up to 2$/L tomorrow the Canadian economy would take a massive hit as well as the average joe.

    We do need to phase away from it but that's a 30+ year process.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

    This is only true if supply is significantly constrained. If supply production is below peak production possible (which it is) then some other places will just produce more and keep any price increases to a minimum

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

    I love the way that we speak about stuff like this in a vacuum. If oil went up to 2$/L tomorrow the Canadian economy would take a massive hit as well as the average joe.

    We do need to phase away from it but that's a 30+ year process.

    Taking 30 years means the Canadian economy will likely collapse entirety. Not acting now is more expensive and the longer the wait the worse it gets

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    I wonder how viable it would be to convert Alberta's oil/gas infrastructure into hydrogen production using the hydrocarbons as feedstock and then capturing all CO2 so none or very little enters the atmosphere.

    Then you can continue to extract as much oil as you want. Just depends on if that is economically and energetically viable or not.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

    I love the way that we speak about stuff like this in a vacuum. If oil went up to 2$/L tomorrow the Canadian economy would take a massive hit as well as the average joe.

    We do need to phase away from it but that's a 30+ year process.

    Taking 30 years means the Canadian economy will likely collapse entirety. Not acting now is more expensive and the longer the wait the worse it gets

    How will it collapse entirely?

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

    I love the way that we speak about stuff like this in a vacuum. If oil went up to 2$/L tomorrow the Canadian economy would take a massive hit as well as the average joe.

    We do need to phase away from it but that's a 30+ year process.

    Taking 30 years means the Canadian economy will likely collapse entirety. Not acting now is more expensive and the longer the wait the worse it gets

    How will it collapse entirely?
    Pretty sure it's not a complicated notion to suggest that if switching now would break us, we're therefore even more broke in the future given that the damage done could cost more to clean up than is gained by actually causing the damage. You can disagree, but it's a very easy argument to follow. <_<

  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    In thirty years the world will be different and bad in ways I reckon we can't reckon

    Broke as fuck in the style of the times. Gratitude is all that can return on your generosity.

    https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me, as a person who voted Liberal, on pipelines:

    The world still needs oil. While the world needs oil, I would rather than Canada benefit from it than Saudi Arabia.

    A pipeline is safer than road or rail transport; I think that a pipeline would therefore be a net benefit with regards to safety.

    Oil represents a substantial part of the Canadian economy. In a very real sense, oil money will be what pays for green infrastructure.

    I am not at all a fan of infringing on tribal land rights to build the pipeline. If the native bands won’t permit the pipeline to cross their lands, an alternative route must be found, even if longer and more expensive.

    I want governments that try to do what’s best for Canada, rather than what’s best for the ridings that voted them in. I see the pipelines in that light.

    Pretty much, we're not leaving that money in the ground, sorry Elizabeth May! I am super curious to see how Alberta bands who want to buy the pipeline work out versus BC bands who don't want it at all.

    edit: unless Liz can find that much in her couch and give it to Canada, then we can leave it in the ground. I have some doubts though.

    Sorry "entire planet" you mean. But enjoy the money now, I'm sure the bills for the damage climate change will cause won't be several orders of magnitude higher than the money you make or anything.

    Unless the world is suddenly not using oil then you have a choice to make.

    Let countries like the UAE and Iran produce our oil (and live with the moral and environmental consequences ) or we develop ours (and live with the moral and environmental consequences + $$$). My conscious is pretty clear on the choice I personally will make.

    That being said I want it done in as safe and clean a way as possible with a clear plan to start transitioning away from it.

    Removing a source of production makes oil more expensive which makes alternatives more attractive. And yes, Alberta stopping production tomorrow *would* make a difference. It's not an on/off switch.

    I love the way that we speak about stuff like this in a vacuum. If oil went up to 2$/L tomorrow the Canadian economy would take a massive hit as well as the average joe.

    We do need to phase away from it but that's a 30+ year process.

    Taking 30 years means the Canadian economy will likely collapse entirety. Not acting now is more expensive and the longer the wait the worse it gets

    How will it collapse entirely?
    Pretty sure it's not a complicated notion to suggest that if switching now would break us, we're therefore even more broke in the future given that the damage done could cost more to clean up than is gained by actually causing the damage. You can disagree, but it's a very easy argument to follow. <_<

    It's really not. I'm still unclear wtf this is supposed to mean.

    If switching now would be bad, switching later after we've had more time to prepare would be better. That's an actual argument that makes sense. I have no idea where this "collapse of the Canadian economy" is coming from if we "take 30 years".

    shryke on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    It really depends what we do over the next 30 years.

    If Trudeau holds his promise and successive governments follow suit, then the proceeds from oil exploitation are invested into green technologies and industries, and 30 years from now we have a diversified and green economy that can easily withstand the elimination of the oil sector.

    If we have conservative-style governments, then the proceeds from oil exploitation are given the foreign companies and to the 1% and other sectors of our economy are ignored or actively hindered. In 30 years we'll have a dieing oil sector and dwindling resources, and no other strong economic sector to rely on.

    sig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Really though, the math's not there.

    Trans-mountain cost us $4.4B to purchase. The expansion of it is expected to cost anywhere between $9B and $12B. It is expected to generate $500M in revenues a year. Which means that just getting back the money we invested in it will take 26 years minimum, and that's in a best-case scenario where construction has no cost overruns, land treaty challenges are solved free of cost, the price per barrel holds, no trade disputes erupt, no environmental disasters need to be cleaned up, and the CPC is never elected to gift the pipeline to party loyalists for a pittance.

    sig.gif
  • Romantic UndeadRomantic Undead Registered User regular
    Is it time for us to begin talking about Canada's role in the near future regarding the expected rise in natural disasters related to climate change?

    Projections I've seen seem to suggest that, while climate change will absolutely have a deleterious effect on most of the world, Canada, climate-wise, actually stands to weather this crisis (pun not intended... or is it?) to an extent, as it is expected that our climate will get more temperate, without an extreme rise in accompanying disasters.

    This may put us in a position to benefit from, as well as be a benefit to, the rest of the world during a period where some, including our neighbours to the south, may be faced with society-changing disasters.

    How do we prepare? Is it possible that Canada may be looked upon to become the new breadbasket of the world? Do we need to prepare for a climate refugee crisis? Should we take steps now to start building towards a more robust infrastructure in anticipation of a population boom due to an influx of refugees/immigrants?

    Have any credible studies been done speculating on Canada's role in the near future?

    3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    I'd be interested to see any data, but it's going to be extremely speculative right now, I'd bet.

    I think we will have a profound moral obligation to dramatically increase our intake of refugees as climate crises drive more and more people out of unlivable or dangerous places. Every country will have such an obligation, according to their means, because refugees are desperate human beings who need our help, but also because the pressure of handling refugees can cause dangerous political backlash that leads to authoritarian xenophobia if it isn't distributed.

    But it will lead to a backlash anyway. It may
    not be possible to prevent it. I don't think we'll prepare, and I think we will minimize our responsibilities in future crises, as usual. I expect an enormous failure. The world history of refugee crises is not a proud one.

    We should be building infrastructure now, building a legislative framework now, and scaling up our refugee intake now, because it's only going to get worse, and emissions are not dropping.

  • Romantic UndeadRomantic Undead Registered User regular
    I'd be interested to see any data, but it's going to be extremely speculative right now, I'd bet.

    I think we will have a profound moral obligation to dramatically increase our intake of refugees as climate crises drive more and more people out of unlivable or dangerous places. Every country will have such an obligation, according to their means, because refugees are desperate human beings who need our help, but also because the pressure of handling refugees can cause dangerous political backlash that leads to authoritarian xenophobia if it isn't distributed.

    But it will lead to a backlash anyway. It may
    not be possible to prevent it. I don't think we'll prepare, and I think we will minimize our responsibilities in future crises, as usual. I expect an enormous failure. The world history of refugee crises is not a proud one.

    We should be building infrastructure now, building a legislative framework now, and scaling up our refugee intake now, because it's only going to get worse, and emissions are not dropping.

    Agreed. I'm wondering if this is something worth starting a grassroots letter-writing campaign over. Heck, you could build an advocacy/lobbying group around this cause if it turns out there's enough support for it.

    3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I'd be interested to see any data, but it's going to be extremely speculative right now, I'd bet.

    I think we will have a profound moral obligation to dramatically increase our intake of refugees as climate crises drive more and more people out of unlivable or dangerous places. Every country will have such an obligation, according to their means, because refugees are desperate human beings who need our help, but also because the pressure of handling refugees can cause dangerous political backlash that leads to authoritarian xenophobia if it isn't distributed.

    But it will lead to a backlash anyway. It may
    not be possible to prevent it. I don't think we'll prepare, and I think we will minimize our responsibilities in future crises, as usual. I expect an enormous failure. The world history of refugee crises is not a proud one.

    We should be building infrastructure now, building a legislative framework now, and scaling up our refugee intake now, because it's only going to get worse, and emissions are not dropping.

    Definitely. Just the refugee intake resulting from Trump taking power brought our system to its knees. We seriously need to strengthen it.

    I really wish the Liberals had campaigned on some version of the "green new deal" that includes more serious environmental protection, transitioning our economy to green sectors, and reforming our refugee system. Having a campaign based on a positive and comprehensive vision for Canada's future. Instead of the pathetic display of half-assed fear-mongering we got last month.

    sig.gif
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    I'd be interested to see any data, but it's going to be extremely speculative right now, I'd bet.

    I think we will have a profound moral obligation to dramatically increase our intake of refugees as climate crises drive more and more people out of unlivable or dangerous places. Every country will have such an obligation, according to their means, because refugees are desperate human beings who need our help, but also because the pressure of handling refugees can cause dangerous political backlash that leads to authoritarian xenophobia if it isn't distributed.

    But it will lead to a backlash anyway. It may
    not be possible to prevent it. I don't think we'll prepare, and I think we will minimize our responsibilities in future crises, as usual. I expect an enormous failure. The world history of refugee crises is not a proud one.

    We should be building infrastructure now, building a legislative framework now, and scaling up our refugee intake now, because it's only going to get worse, and emissions are not dropping.

    Agreed. I'm wondering if this is something worth starting a grassroots letter-writing campaign over. Heck, you could build an advocacy/lobbying group around this cause if it turns out there's enough support for it.

    Maybe there will be a change when we see more dead refugee children. It doesn't seem to have moved the needle yet.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5192769

    57% of Canadians don't want to see more refugees coming in, is what this article reports. The world at large is radicalizing against immigrants and refugees, turning boats full of desperate people away, and building fences and checkpoints and guard towers, so this isn't unusual.

    I desperately hope that we will be able to turn refugee crises into a moral rallying point, but I doubt it. If the climate migration crises are as bad as projected — millions and millions of people fleeing collapsing states and unlivable countries — it seems much more likely that we'll see concentration camps on borders and mass death, which many will find a secret relief. Our country struggles to raise taxes to pay for services for ourselves, let alone to marshal the resources for a difficult sacrifice of comfort or security for humanitarian purposes.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I'd be interested to see any data, but it's going to be extremely speculative right now, I'd bet.

    I think we will have a profound moral obligation to dramatically increase our intake of refugees as climate crises drive more and more people out of unlivable or dangerous places. Every country will have such an obligation, according to their means, because refugees are desperate human beings who need our help, but also because the pressure of handling refugees can cause dangerous political backlash that leads to authoritarian xenophobia if it isn't distributed.

    But it will lead to a backlash anyway. It may
    not be possible to prevent it. I don't think we'll prepare, and I think we will minimize our responsibilities in future crises, as usual. I expect an enormous failure. The world history of refugee crises is not a proud one.

    We should be building infrastructure now, building a legislative framework now, and scaling up our refugee intake now, because it's only going to get worse, and emissions are not dropping.

    Agreed. I'm wondering if this is something worth starting a grassroots letter-writing campaign over. Heck, you could build an advocacy/lobbying group around this cause if it turns out there's enough support for it.

    Maybe there will be a change when we see more dead refugee children. It doesn't seem to have moved the needle yet.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5192769

    57% of Canadians don't want to see more refugees coming in, is what this article reports. The world at large is radicalizing against immigrants and refugees, turning boats full of desperate people away, and building fences and checkpoints and guard towers, so this isn't unusual.

    I desperately hope that we will be able to turn refugee crises into a moral rallying point, but I doubt it. If the climate migration crises are as bad as projected — millions and millions of people fleeing collapsing states and unlivable countries — it seems much more likely that we'll see concentration camps on borders and mass death, which many will find a secret relief. Our country struggles to raise taxes to pay for services for ourselves, let alone to marshal the resources for a difficult sacrifice of comfort or security for humanitarian purposes.

    That's because the right and alt-right have been running anti-immigrant nazi propaganda campaigns for years while the left has been quiet on the issue. Of course if you have a one-sided hate campaign, people will learn to hate the victims. We need to run a pro-immigrant campaign, and setup hate speech laws to fight back against the right.

    sig.gif
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    I absolutely agree that we need to work to shift values and opinions toward support for refugees, but I don't agree with blaming the alt-right for opinions on refugees. If anything, I'd say the causal relationship is the opposite: refugee crises and an influx of new groups makes countries more xenophobic, leading to racist, isolationist movements gaining more power and momentum. The fear is already there, waiting to be activated.

    People being afraid of refugees and immigrants is not new or recent. It's not a problem of current political trends. This is a problem that has led to millions (billions?) of deaths throughout human history. Our record is abysmal. When you try to make people accept and welcome refugees, you're fighting against thousands of years of nativist social programming, and arguably human nature, if such a thing exists. The centre and the left are entirely vulnerable to it, as well, I think.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    I have a much simpler theory on why people don't want refugee's.

    Canadians as a whole are getting poorer, year by year, and have for a long time now. We are living on credit and a hope things will get better.

    https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canadians-drowning-in-debt-as-47-struggle-to-cover-costs-mnp-1.1338497

    It's impossible in most major cities for young people to purchase a house. Our parents are not leaving inheritances like the generations past.... To the point that reverse mortgages are the #1 financial service for 55+. People ar emaking it to 65 with no retirement and working way past when they imagined they would be.

    All this while we are being fleeced by large corporations that are making record profits while taxes on the average person in various forms are going up every year.

    If things were not as tight for most people or the economic outlook was rosier I truly believe people would be much more receptive. This does ignore the percentage of those opposed that are just flat out racist/xenophobic. Some People are afraid to be hit harder than they are now if we need to support refugee's.

    Essentially, eat the rich and our problems would be lessened IMO.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
Sign In or Register to comment.