I got 99 problems and INFLATION makes it 107.415

[ciaban2.0]

You said:

A)Stop supporting Ukraine. Let's face it, they can't sustain against Russia without our constant and overwhelming help.
B)Get directly involved.


Your first preference was stop supporting Ukraine, your B option was get directly involved. Someone who is advocating getting directly involved generally would not list that as the second option.

You also essentially advocated for the first option by saying Ukraine cannot win without us. There was no such rationale or advocacy for your purported desire.

That is odd.

NO NO NO NO NO.

Those aren't preferences. I'm not ranking options, I'm listing options. Those are two different things.
My preference is to invade.

I'm not advocating for that, I'm stating a fact. Ukraine can't sustain its fight without the amount of support that was given to them.
If the west hadn't sent them any supplies do you thnik they would still be fighting this hard?

[dbroncos78087]

Sorry but you are wrong about the investments already made in renewable energy. California sure has done it at a very significant cost and so has the federal government in terms of tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy. The Keystone pipeline was almost completed. It still could be completed in less than a year. Biden is an idiot for stopping it because right now the US could be shipping all of that energy to La. to be shipped to Europe.

We also don't know what in the hell to do with global warming. There is no certainty figured out that we can even dent the effect on climate of removing all fossil fuels from the energy equation. That is the truth of things. It still is the sun that heats the planet. What happens with the sun is also not predictable and is not stable whatsoever.

Wait until you find out about the costs that our government and businesses paid when gasoline was becoming a new power source.

[Bird of Prey]

Wait until you find out about the costs that our government and businesses paid when gasoline was becoming a new power source.

What is your point? Oil and the refining process came about after discovering that we could burn it as a fuel and industry evolved after it when different scientists found that it existed in plenty and could fuel engines and could be used in many other chemical and mechanical applications that are still being developed. Transportation had begun initially using coal as the energy source. but that was limited by the weight of the fuel required to power transportation vehicles.

What I am talking about though are fuel sources that are right now not adequate to replace oil and gasoline and coal as energy sources necessary for industry and civil use. For me,I think that hydrogen will probably be the fuel for industry going forward as well as nuclear and not electric batteries and solar energy.

[dbroncos78087]

What is your point? Oil and the refining process came about after discovering that we could burn it as a fuel and industry evolved after it when different scientists found that it existed in plenty and could fuel engines and could be used in many other chemical and mechanical applications that are still being developed. Transportation had begun initially using coal as the energy source. but that was limited by the weight of the fuel required to power transportation vehicles.

What I am talking about though are fuel sources that are right now not adequate to replace oil and gasoline and coal as energy sources necessary for industry and civil use. For me,I think that hydrogen will probably be the fuel for industry going forward as well as nuclear and not electric batteries and solar energy.

My point is you complaining about the costs of moving to newer/better energy production is a reminder of how people sounded prior to moving from older energy sources to gasoline and oil. Had we listened to people that said things like what you do, we never would have started doing so just like we are being held back from moving to the next source.

[valade16]

The problem is what some states like California and NY want to do is a transition to things like solar while cutting off Nuclear plants, and going back to Natural Gas to make up the difference.

Which do you think is more harmful from a CO2 standpoint, N.Gas or Nukes?

I don't want to be a dick...but **** future generations and their opinions.

The way I see it is when you're dead you're dead. If there is an afterlife you will either be too busy enjoying it to care about the opinions of the living, or you'll be too busy suffering to care about the opinions of the living.

If there is no afterlife...then you CAN'T care about the opinions of the living. The opinions of the living don't ****ing matter when you are dead.

Raps: American politics' view of Global Warming: Exhibit C.

[valade16]

NO NO NO NO NO.

Those aren't preferences. I'm not ranking options, I'm listing options. Those are two different things.
My preference is to invade.

I'm not advocating for that, I'm stating a fact. Ukraine can't sustain its fight without the amount of support that was given to them.
If the west hadn't sent them any supplies do you thnik they would still be fighting this hard?

Ok, so to be clear: your #1 option, what you want us to do, is declare war on Russian and engage in a large scale conflict against them?

What do you think the repercussions will be globally from such a move?

[valade16]

I dont agree with thay my ideas doing the bare minimum considering I am in line with the 2050 net carbon zero timeline established. I am in favour of both building a pipeline and using the money to transition so that we can support infrastructure when banning sale of new gas powered cars by 2035. I am in favour of giving rebates for electric vehicles and tax reduction for car manufacturers who focus on electric car production. Not only is it in line with 2050 net zero emmision, its alos in line with Elon Musk (the man probably doing more than anyone on the fight on climate change) who says rapidly building the infrastructure for baterry plants is like 20-25 years away

Sure, maybe 2050 is too far for you but what exactly do you want to happen? I ban them by 2025 instead?

What are you talking about? My government invests heavily in renewable projects. We have some of the highest carbon taxes in the world. Our gas here is well over $2 per leter (significantly higher than what America pays per litre) because we pay a big chunk for taxes.

The Canadian government, like most, operates on a budget. So yes, our government may not have extra money after they already exhausted X amount. if we already dedicate $x billion to renewable energy, then yes, we may not have an extra $100 million to spend unless we take from healthcare, education, etc.

I dont agree with this. Governments taxes are used to help different areas all the time. Like Canada carbon taxes is sometimes used to offer rebates for energy efficient electronics, (ie we have various revates to buying electric vehicles). We incentivice companies here with tax reduction for expenditures (including energy efficient ones), etc.

Well what exactly should we do according to your policies.l then. Its easy to say xyz osnt doing enough on climate change but I havent seen you state any deadlines, how we reduce oil productions (while justifying significant inflation, etc).

Then why say Canada needs the Keystone Pipeline money to transition to renewable energy? They are already spending (according to you)... so ... is what they're spending not enough?

As for policies, to be clear: none are mine. I think we should be listening to the experts (crazy notion, I know). Net carbon neutrality by 2050 is good (but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to wait until then to achieve it. If it can be achieved beforehand, we should push for that). Same with no gas powered cars by 2035.

But you seem to be adding the Keystone Pipeline into all these initiatives. It's not part of the comprehensive 2050 net neutrality plan, and many scientific organizations oppose the pipeline specifically because of its impact on global warming:

https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-k...climate-change

There's also the fact that the tar sands oil which the keystone pipeline delivers actually emits 17-20% more CO2 in the air than other oils, so the idea that it's somehow lessening the environmental impact is tenuous, at best.

Put best:

Leading climate scientist and former NASA researcher James Hansen has warned that fully exploiting Canada’s tar sands reserves by moving forward with these projects would mean “game over” for our climate.


But the next major point of contention is the idea that the profits from the Keystone XL Pipeline will go to investment in renewable energy:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN15A36Y

If built, TransCanada’s Keystone XL from Alberta to Nebraska would yield about $2.4 billion (C$3.2 billion) a year for Canada, split between government revenues, shareholder profits and re-investment into the still-recovering Canadian oil patch

This is probably because:

Canada’s oil industry makes up one-sixth of the nation’s economy


I have seen nothing that says Canada plans to use the profits for renewable energy. Where are you getting this? Considering oil is such a big party of Canada's economy, I am skeptical.

So to go to your earlier comments: of course Canada was pushing for the pipeline. They stand to make a lot of money in one of their primary economic industries.

They don't want to the Keystone Pipeline because they think somehow drastically increasing oil production and consumption will somehow reduce oil production and consumption...

[ciaban2.0]

Raps: American politics' view of Global Warming: Exhibit C.

I think pushing for cleaner air quality and less reliance on foreign energy are reasonable goals on their own.

Why do you care about the opinions of people you will never live to meet?

[ciaban2.0]

Ok, so to be clear: your #1 option, what you want us to do, is declare war on Russian and engage in a large scale conflict against them?

What do you think the repercussions will be globally from such a move?

A collapse of the Russian Federation after their total defeat, most likely the death of Putin, and an end to Russian interferance in our elections.

[valade16]

I think pushing for cleaner air quality and less reliance on foreign energy are reasonable goals on their own.

Why do you care about the opinions of people you will never live to meet?

It’s not their opinions I care about, it’s their well-being. I have this thing, maybe you’ve heard of it, empathy.

[valade16]

A collapse of the Russian Federation after their total defeat, most likely the death of Putin, and an end to Russian interferance in our elections.

And what do you think that will cost in terms of lives lost, economic impact, etc. globally?

[catman]

Valade, I read elsewhere that gasoline fuel dispensers are being reprogrammed in Washington state to accommodate $10/gallon gasoline. Is this true or just propaganda? I figured you would know, living in Washington and keeping up on things like this.

[natepro]

A collapse of the Russian Federation after their total defeat, most likely the death of Putin, and an end to Russian interferance in our elections.

Of course, having those elections will be more difficult as we deal with the effects of our major cities having nukes dropped on them but, you know.. details.

[valade16]

Valade, I read elsewhere that gasoline fuel dispensers are being reprogrammed in Washington state to accommodate $10/gallon gasoline. Is this true or just propaganda? I figured you would know, living in Washington and keeping up on things like this.

What do you mean by fuel dispensers? I’ve heard nothing about this, but I haven’t been looking.

I can say gas here is just over $5 a gallon.

[natepro]

Valade, I read elsewhere that gasoline fuel dispensers are being reprogrammed in Washington state to accommodate $10/gallon gasoline. Is this true or just propaganda? I figured you would know, living in Washington and keeping up on things like this.

This story seems to have originated here, but looking at the other things they've... well, "reported" might be a strong term for it... I'd take it with a grain of salt.

Edit: A CBC article about that site.