|
So when John Baird actively criticized Russian, Uganada and Kenya for anti-gay legislation when he was foreign minister and funnelled money to gay rights groups in those countries, or in every major vote in the house regarding gay rights voting in line with them even if it was against party lines was not actually supporting them? Sure, he didn't often go out of his way to defend them, and harboured any number of lovely political positions on other domains, but to make the claim that he wasn't doing anything for gay rights seems more than a stretch.
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Nuance is nothing Ideology is everything Obey your ideology Canpol
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:A man who's party was accusing Trudeau of wanting to open brothels and drug dens on every street corner gets upset about negative spin on dead refugees. To be fair, He didn't directly deny the immigration claim that resulted in the death of Alan, he just denied the one for his brother which in turn made the family give up, and sponsored the bill that increased the difficulty in applying. Totally unfair to criticize him, unlike the clear plan by the liberals to make weed lord brothels.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Even the rebel media commenters are seeing through Ezra's bullshit (emphasis mine):quote:I did vote conservative and not for Trudeau, but (just for accurate information) if you google this you’ll find that this 10M in repairs has nothing to do with Trudeau wanting his house renovated. When Harper first became PM in 2006, the National Capital Commission (which is responsible for this house, the Opposition Leaders house and the GG’s house) reported that 24 Sussex needed 10M in renovations. There are plenty of news articles to be found that tell the story: the 10M was for repairs to heating, plumbing, central air, windows, and other things deemed by the inspection to be in poor to critical condition, as well as the entire house needed asbestos removed. This was in 2006. Harper refused to wait for repairs to be completed and moved in anyway. In 2008, the same findings were brought forward again and the NCC strongly suggested the Harpers move out for 10 months for repairs to be completed. At that time Harper refused to vacate the house and stated he would not move out till he was no longer PM. I don’t think anything has been said about it since 2008. Fast forward to now…. the National Capital Commission has pulled out their 2008 report and told the Trudeaus they cannot move in until these repairs are completed. The price tag was 10M back in 2006…. Trudeau has nothing to do with it. I will say though, it’s a shrewd move on Harper’s part making sure this expenditure will be remembered for years to come as Liberal waste!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:she's banking on oil prices going back up Well if they're anything like housing prices that's the only way they can go!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Actual progressive taxation of personal income. Look at what they are proposing, granted it is a toe into socialism. The revenue shortfall was forecast at 5b , but will likely be higher at 6-6.5b. The personal income tax revenue was 11b out of a 50b. http://finance.alberta.ca/publications/budget/budget2015-october/fiscal-plan-revenue.pdf But the job creators? What about the poor job creators? How can the ANDP treat them like this  Dammit, now this has got me heated about Doris Day and the Flat Tax rate again. While Alberta for a very long time has had very low top tax rates, the move to a flat tax was a dumb, overt tax break for the rich that was marketed as being more beneficial to poorer people . Meanwhile the provincial government centred its economy around a single resource because times were good(increasing oil prices), and now that times are bad people are still loving upset that they're going to try to fix this, despite the initial drops only being possible because times were good. I mean look at this dumb poo poo:  Almost every province did this, and has continued to justify it out of a rallied fear by supply-side economists that if they raise them at all the economy will fail (plus the changes in federal tax rate that were predominantly a tax cut for almost everyone making less than $100k). I really would like to know on what basis they continue to spout this nonsense, given that they have little to no proof that it does as they claim.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Seppuku, or just accept the same offer as the other teachers. Without unity you have no leverage. Right, except you can't have unity without, you know, unity. If there are major differences in bargaining positions between the different unions (such as the class size issue mentioned above) that one group might be willing to sacrifice for other things but another doesn't, some group within is going to be unhappy about whatever choice is made and made the outward projection of solidarity weaker, which entirely defeats the purpose of doing that to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:smart taxation schemes tax all that poo poo But at least we get those sweet sweet PST exemptions! We really got our moneys worth. Jordan7hm posted:drat right. Eliminate corporate tax, massively increase personal income tax for those above the median. This only works if you also make changes to stop wages being paid via means that are not as taxable (i.e. capital gains).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:So, their stated goal is to fund infrastructure by.... selling off infrastructure? Profitable infrastructure at that? Short term revenue generation to have projects to cut ribbons in front of. Old infrastructure is not exciting to the public, especially electrical transmission, while new transport infrastructure is highly marketable. This is worsened by the fact that the negative consequences of such a sale will likely not occur or be obvious during the period of whichever government does this. In this particular case, there is also the whole "private management improves efficiency" line, which is trying to position around increasing electricity costs. I think what's happening here is that Wynne is so convinced of the necessity these projects (and believes them to be ultimately more profitable), and afraid of increasing the provinces debt to fund them. Note that the increased interest from a ~10 billion loan for these projects is 3-400 million, which makes it nearly equivalent if we assume that the 60% sale results in a similar cut of the revenue being removed. There in theory will be some return of this in the form of corporate taxes and capital gains, but not a ton. In the debt case it is felt quickly and can be seen as "reckless borrowing", the corporation sale can be positioned as "necessary and fiscally responsible". This document outlines the reasoning for this plan and some of the rather absurd assumptions that underlie it: http://www.ontario.ca/document/improving-performance-and-unlocking-value-electricity-sector Some choice quotes: quote:The issue of lost income to the Province hasn’t changed from our Initial Report – there will indeed be some lost income. However, there is, of course, the broader question: if governments have a lower cost of borrowing than business enterprises earn, should they own many of them to earn revenue for the province? quote:The government’s view, and one which we accept, is that the return on well-conceived projects will be higher than the return that the government would forego by selling Hydro One today, in the context of today’s market and interest rates. quote:We said in our Initial Report that we would favour selling the distribution business of Hydro One Networks whether or not the government needed the revenue to finance infrastructure investments. It just made good energy policy sense. Indeed these views have been strengthened by our consultation process, as almost all stakeholders urged us to find a way to spur further consolidation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The FAO calculated the corp tax returns into his report today. lmfao e: Jesus christ why even bother. Coolwhoami fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:Gonna go out on a limb and guess he's Christian. A lot of them hate Halloween. Usually references to it being a pagan holiday, celebrating witchcraft, etc. The bigger target has become (in my experience) alcohol consumption and sex, wagging fingers at the lack of moral character in "today's youth", etc.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:haha that retard, that was exactly what he said last time. http://www.threehundredeight.com/2011/05/threehundredeights-track-record.html http://www.threehundredeight.com/2011/05/projection-vs-results.html It's kind of absurd how wilfully he blames factors that were not predicted by the model (quick changes in popularity, increased voter turnout) for why his model wasn't accurate, or alternatively the inaccuracy of polling data. Dude, if you're going to do this and put yourself as an expert, you have to make extremely clear what your model cannot account for ahead of time, not as a post-hoc explanation for your failures. Does he seriously believe that his model will somehow, someday, be usefully accurate, given his readiness to blame poo poo his model either wasn't responsive to or couldn't predict? Ughhh
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:lmao, the greens bribed hyer to cross the floor EMay wouldn't be making the extra cash from being party leader because the Greens don't have party standing. So while yes, other parties do get these sorts of stipends, the fact that Emay doesn't get special Green Party cash while he does makes this pretty much a loving bribe, extra work needed to be done aside. Given that he was almost immediately appointed deputy leader also makes that entire process shady. It should be pointed out though that any such crossings to a party that can appoint MPs to positions where they get paid more can also effectively bribe with public cash, but at best you can assign them as committee chair (11.7K) without getting other members pissed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Incidentally I think he's the guy who was imprisoned and tortured during his student activist days in India, so he might qualify as a literal Social Justice Warrior. But whatevs keep beating that dead horse CI. Yup! http://www.edmontonjournal.com/City+councillor+Amarjeet+Sohi+recalls+imprisonment+India+1980s/10814912/story.html Jailed for 21 months, 18 of them solitary. The story is worth a read, as it is a bit difficult to summarize. PT6A posted:At one point, the CBC coverage addressed this, saying due to JT's limited political career compared to most Prime Ministers in the past, he doesn't have as many favours to repay, giving him a much freer hand in choosing his cabinet than ever before. If only we had given him more time to get ready!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
I think part of the problem with ministerial appointments (this has been touched on but not made explicit) is that when people say that the "most qualified" or "best" person should be put in the role, they aren't actually thinking hard about what that means for such a position. We need to ask first: What is it that a Minister does? What things are required of someone to perform that role best? One of the immediate problems here is that the role of a minister is highly conditional to the way a prime minister operates. As far as I understand it, a Minister's role is to oversee, create and implement policy within their given domain. Experience in management or policy in any sort of role will help regardless of the ministry at hand, and experience in the relevant field is also important. However, there are other things to consider. The more experience someone has performing such a role, the less likely you are to be flexible to changes in it. As has been mentioned before, someones general background provides a significant impact on their perspective on the particular ministry, which is also important if you're wanting to steer a ministry in a particular direction. You have to balance options, which is why Dion, a person that while clearly ideal for an environment role also has an large amount of experience in government affairs generally, was instead put into foreign policy (while also being appointed as chair of the environment and climate change committee). A minister (at least outside of the Harper era) typically is also speaking to the public a great deal about policy changes, so being able to communicate effectively there, as well is in the ministry you're responsible for is important. These people hand-wringing about "affirmative action" are not considering that having a representative cabinet is crucial to getting a balanced perspective on things. These same people would likely take no issue doing this with regard to appointments based on geographic location, so why is it suddenly an issue when it comes to gender or race? I think if you're gonna make such a criticism, you'd best have your own list of appointments and some good arguments as to why yours is better.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Here I am defining neoliberalism as: How many of these do you have to accord with in order to be a neoliberal? All? One? Is this a scale thing, where being really anti-labor means you're neoliberal unless you're also really positive in other categories? What is the scale, or are they just dichotomous? Without those established, it's pretty easy to put everyone into that definition. You can have it be restrictive if you want, but you probably ought to make that clear to also clarify the level of ideological purity required to pass the bar. Otherwise setting down this list isn't really helpful to anyone. Especially since, for example, the arisement of labour disputes could be classed anti-labour because the leading party did things that were not to the benefit of the union. Possibly an absurd distinction, but possibly not either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Too difficult to assess policy? Here are some helpful examples. This doesn't actually resolve my inquiry (I also think there are issues with linkage to neoliberalism, but i'm not concerned with them at this moment). Are you saying that engaging in any of these activities makes one a neoliberal? Does failing to eliminate these things make one a neoliberal? The fact that you state "Until I see otherwise" indicates there is a region in which a party can operate outside of this activity, so what is it? Note that I do not take issue with most of these being lovely things, but while these are nice prototypical examples, my concerns line more in the sort of issues where the application of your definition is conditional to the voracity in which you apply it. To reiterate, this matters mostly because without some sort of standard, the criteria becomes useless because it is not the criteria that matter, but how well one feels a government (or a person or a party) is in accord with them, which is a pretty arbitrary thing and makes the criteria themselves unimportant. This stuff is easy to apply when there is a nice dichotomy of action, but the world is most frequently not forthcoming with such things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:Apparently Brad Wall is being Canada's Bobby Jindal and asking JT to suspend the refugee program until he can get assurances that no terrorists will be let in I wonder to what extent such assurances would have to be made. Does Brad Wall require that refugees don't also become terrorists later, a move partially motivated by extreme prejudice levelled toward them by people like Brad Wall? CLAM DOWN posted:Banh mi are the best sandwich and I can't find a good one in New Westminster I'm not Banh mi connoisseur, but there's a place by lougheed called pho capital that is pretty good imo. Coolwhoami fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Number19 posted:If you want interesting, creative beers then stop by Storm Brewing in East Van. They also produce one of my favorite beers, the Imperial Flanders red sour ale. They aren't just good for wacky beers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
I get the impression that there is a dearth of information of voting behaviours. There are obviously people that will vote for one party in nearly all scenarios, and others that are highly variable. Similarly, there are a bunch of people that may or may not actually bother going out to vote, depending on the situation. It seems like political campaigns (and by extension, policy) has been shaped around a strategy of having some platform elements to cater to a supposed base, and others to attract supposed swing voters. I think the felt "right ward lean" of the NDP indicates that campaigners believe swing voters are responsive to fiscal responsibility issues, of which conservative leaning policy has some unearned legitimacy. The impact of base turnout versus swing movement is important to consider. There seems to be a general apprehension by all parties to fully embrace their ideology for fear of driving away swing votes, which seems to be founded on the idea that if you ignore this then you'll lose power. Obviously the bigger problem here is that policy is being created more to maintain power rather than to maximally benefit the country, but that's the consequence of a democratic system. I'm not the biggest fan of ideologically founded problem solving, but given that is what dominates matters at the moment, why bother having an ideology if you're not going to usefully apply it? I honestly think this is why the Liberals have been so successful over history, because they aren't seen as having any particular ideology and thus are more adaptable to the current political climate. That it feels like half of people get upset at them for being too right wing while the other half get upset at them for being too left is a good indication of this. While it has been put forth earlier that conservative ideology is impacting matters despite them not being power in most of the country, consider that for all of Harper's term he spent a great deal of effort suppressing large-scale appearances to be trending toward socially conservative policies for fear of that destabilizing his power. I say this because the most prevalent negative activity in this domain was not allowing more socially progressing legislation to pass. C-51, and the apprehension many of you show towards the liberal party for voting for it, is a pretty good example of them screwing up in this domain. It seems like in an ideological tug-o-war, both sides believe themselves losing unless they have dragged the other side completely over. This kind of thinking leads to pessimism and disenfranchisement with your team, because things almost never go that way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Unironically posted by a family member:Rebel Media posted:Rachel Notley and the Alberta NDP are attacking Albertans again. This time it's called Bill 6 and its victims are family farmers and ranchers. Ah yes, the only province in which these laws do not apply, and by trying to shove through they mean "consult with farmers during the only time of the year they can actually be there".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Oh wow what a nightmare situation. The "outrage" is that this might "hurt the poor family farmers" because they are asserting this will somehow prevent people who are self-employed from working extended hours, despite this being absurd. Also they are claiming that having to follow health and safety regulations is "bad" and "interferes with hard working Albertans". The family member that posted it regularly posts things about Notley being the worst and or the NDP ruining the economy, so I am hardly surprised to see this response from them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
peter banana posted:There will be 9 input sessions all over Alberta in the coming weeks, as well as an online poll. This time of year is the best time to reach out to farmers because there's not too much day-to-day labour to be done on most farms when the crops/pasture are under snow. Additionally the technical requirements for each farm business won't be rolled out until early 2017. The online poll will admittedly not be very good at reaching many farmers, as less than half have access to high speed internet (at least on their farms). However, same goes for Rebel Media's "poll" (which is itself idiotic to request funding for given that the government is already gathering such information). There were 62,050 farm operators on 43,234 farms as of 2011, and even including farm workers this is an incredibly small demographic in Alberta, so the notion that "Albertans" should get their say (As Ezra and co are demanding) is absurd. Farmers should absolutely provide input, and holding town hall meetings is an appropriate way to do this, but to demand large scale and longer term consultation when there aren't really that many people to consult is not going to improve the bill more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I think the court's point was that being clinically diagnosed with PTSD by an actual medical doctor doesn't give you free rein to murder your wife, especially under circumstances that'd lead someone to want to murder her and then cover it up with a series of absurd lies. That would have been a shitfest to sift through. There was clear evidence of prior violent episodes with some dissociation in response to triggers (punching walls and saying names), but to determine if that had happened in that case, and whether that has bearing on whether he ought to have been aware of that is no small thing. I can't say I am surprised at the result, nor would I care for the precedent set by the case being found NCRMD. If he was found NCRMD I doubt he would ever be released, as I don't think his PTSD is in question and in order to be released that would have to be found managed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/11/26/ontario-budget-deficit-dips-to-75-billion-says-sousa.html Wait, didn't they have the Hydro One sale plan in mind awhile ago? If so, why the hell didn't they project that in the budget to begin with? I mean sure, they could have not been confident enough to project it, but then they certainly shouldn't be trumpeting like this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The NDP then have this backwards, seemingly (to me at least) because they care more about the optics of their proposals than they do about their actual effects. The optics of the Nordic taxation system seem backwards to people who don't know how the system works: "They're taking money out of my pocket but letting the corporations get rich" etc. But it works better than our system. And, seemingly, either the NDP doesn't recognize that their tax policies are the inverse of successful social democracies, or they're more concerned about seeming like they're taxing corporations while giving the *~middle class~* a tax break than they are about proposing effective policies. I think that fear comes from a general distrust in the government's ability to efficiently spend tax funds, and this being a response to it. They also care about optics because the burden is upon them to first rise to power in order to implement such policies, and if there is no readily visible path to do this they shift toward avenues that do, but in doing so let certain aspects of the ideal fall away. To actually rise up, circumstances need to be ideal for it. This past elections was such an opportunity, but the NDP failed to differentiate themselves well from the Liberal party and relied heavily on their ideology coming from their brand. That was a massive mistake, and the choice of Mulcair as leader was the first step toward this, as I feel he was chosen primarily to hold seats that were extremely unlikely to remain held.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Baudin posted:I don't think it's apt to compare a province's farming regulations with Australia. Regardless actually having laws around safety in a farming environment is a good thing, especially when your talking about youngsters who die in accidents. A young man died, buried under steel fencing not long ago in my home town. Perhaps there should be greater scrutiny on health and safety and actual labor laws. Not to mention, there isn't any path to increased scrutiny if the law doesn't even apply.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
jsoh posted:obviously we just burn some holes in the ozone Good thing we know how to do that real quick! Too bad about the skin cancer though. Re: Bigot chat, I think that shaming is exceedingly poor tactic for effectively reducing lovely views, because it now far too easy to retreat to regions of the internet free of that shaming and continue to hold whatever bad position you have. This is worsened by this idea that "the other side can't be reasoned with and thus it is not worthwhile to engage with them beyond telling them they are awful and using whatever systems you have at hand to suppress this awfulness", because it perpetuates a lazy ideology where you are no longer necessary to consider why your position is righteous enough to do this, as you are never in a position where someone both disagrees with you and you are obliged to respond to their arguments. At best you might write some lovely bullet point article about how mansplaining/sjws is/are bad which can then be linked en-masse as support for whichever position someone holds. Twitter is the worst for this and invites this sort of behaviour by inherently limiting the ability to articulate arguments well. There are absolutely people who will hold a bad position regardless of argumentation, but that should not mean the best way to address this is to try to ensure they cannot say their ideas, because that at best is unrealistic, and at worse works against you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Yeah, I've done the 5 years at once thing before without penalty. I'm wondering what will happen if I just never file until I have other income to declare. Unless you get audited or file, nothing. If you have over or underpaid and on of those happens, then depending on which direction things lie there are different issues. If you've underpaid, then there are late fees that get added and the whole thing is subject to interest. If you've overpaid, I believe the time between when a given year's filing and the time you file does not accrue interest on that sum. Because this reminded me of it: Is/Was there an issue where corporations were deliberately overpaying taxes, then refusing refunds because the money was accruing interest? I seem to remember this being a thing that came up several years back but I cannot find any relevant articles about it, so I could very well be misremembering.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Maybe it's time you all came to terms with the truth that all C'mon CI, lets be fair here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
THC posted:I had some really pretty good profs but that guy was something else. He was obsessed with conspiracy theories, said we shouldn't take climate science seriously because computer models are sometimes bad, claimed to have worked for the JPL and that he once met Ronald Reagan. Entertaining but generally pretty unpleasant. I am 95% confident you are referring to Pearce.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
THC posted:Yeah, him. I had some v good profs though, one of them made us work in a team for the whole semester because being able to communicate and work with others is way more important IRL than "beep boop best algorithm". He strongly encouraged people to take non-STEM electives. The week Jobs died he gave us a big rant about how labour built those products and gets almost no credit (or monetary compensation for that matter) Heh. He's changed his mind on the climate change thing, and if you get to know him you learn quickly he likes conspiracy stuff because how far out they can go. Great guy to get beers with. Ikantski posted:He's all worked up about Bill 109. I'm with Wynne on this one. You can pick your nose, you can pick your friends but you can't pick your union. This can't be abused at all!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
THC posted:Is he still concerned about the "feminization of education" Dunno, never came up, but that sounds like a thing he would be concerned about. JawKnee posted:
 (I'm going to be here forever) Gus Hobbleton posted:Wait, which Pearce? I think I have him next semester. If you're taking 320, that's the one. Talk in class, and don't be afraid to argue with him, he seems a lot angrier than he actually is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 02:14
|
|
sup fellow SFU goer
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:Oh right that Pearce. He's retired now and the guy they have teaching 320 in his place is a tool. Never got to take any classes with him. Nah he was just on leave, he'll be back. Ikantski posted:So apparently Justin Trudeau is stereotyping natives with the ol' noble savage trope, lovely. Could this fuckin' guy be any more sheltered? This has been part of climate activism for awhile, most climate change activists are quick to point to first nations people as having a greater interest/investment in the impacts of climate change on their (unceded) territory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It is true that in Canada First Nations have spearheaded a lot of environmental fights. This, though, is not due to their status as better stewards of the environment or history of noble savagery. It's because a lot of Canadian environmental concerns, like pipelines or spills, for example, directly affect land that is currently part of First Nations reserves in isolated rural areas that nobody else cares about. I agree, although I also find that many activists tend to emphasize land connectivity in a spiritual way that indeed can be interpreted as seeing first nations people as "noble savages". I am generally incredulous that suddenly a bunch of people who previously didn't care all that much about indigenous issues suddenly care about them a great deal because their goals align. I don't think it's a deliberate act for the most part but it's still a bit worrisome.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
The impact of a minimum income would have a pretty regional specific impact, as I imagine it would be the same for everyone, else people get mad at others for "getting more". That income is gonna be enough to pay for cost of living and then some if you're somewhere where rent/food is low, while somewhere like Vancouver it's just gonna be enough to survive (assuming that the income is set to ensure people can cover basic expensive is the most expensive cities to live in). The impact on the labour market in one versus the other would be extremely variable, and while I do not particularly have much sympathy for some lovely franchise owner not being able to find employees, a lot everyday work is handled by people who are being paid poorly and are the most inclined to leave under such a system, which would make transitioning a bit hectic. I don't oppose it, but all existing research as far as I can find has been done at a city level, not a national level (and certainly not for a country as large as ours), so I am not sure if pointing to a temporary city study is necessarily going to be accurate for larger scale implementation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Funny how this comes out the same day as a Guardian article about how Uruguay has shifted to 95% renewable energy while also reducing electricity costs. 63% of their capacity is hydro, which they have had for awhile, and while they have indeed been increasing solar/wind, they also import a large amount of energy from Argentina and Brazil, and in 2006 was nearly half their consumption, making the cost aspects of building solar/wind generation a lot more attractive (in addition to good conditions). Per capita consumption is 2,729, versus 12,750 in Ontario (Also 3.4 million vs 13.6 million people), which means the scale of things is much much lower. This ain't to defend Ontario on this (it is quite clear they're bungling things quite badly), but to point out that even without the corruption i'm not confident that things would be exceptionally better. The problem is the idea and conditions, the implementation being complete crap just makes it worse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:No offence man but you clearly didn't read the article. First of all, it talks about how this is a development since a cross-party consensus on Uruguay's energy future was reached in 2008, so figures from 2006 are no longer relevant. Second, the article clearly addresses the issue of importing electricity: I missed the past tence on import (imported), which to be fair does change the tone of that sentence. My point was that it was because they were massively importing energy that higher cost alternative sources would become more viable, especially since their needs are substantially lower than Ontario (both in overall capacity and per capita capacity). I absolutely understood their consensus, and was trying to establish that their reasoning was significantly influenced by their dependence on other countries for electricity. It also means that comparing electricity costs from the present to the past needs to take into account that imported electricity usually costs more than it would to produce; If they were higher as a result of this, then it's not hard to see why the costs have gone down. I don't know if this is the case because I don't have those figures, but I don't feel it is unreasonable to assume that the importation issue was certainly at play. The rest of this just reinforces my point, Ontario will likely never have a political consensus with respect energy policy, thus making long term planning and implementation more difficult. quote:Considering that a country most Canadians would consider developing or "third world" looks on track to achieve an 88% cut in carbon emission from their 2009-13 average by 2018 while simultaneously decreasing electricity costs and stopping energy imports, we in Canada should be ashamed of ourselves. I'm going to use numbers from here to talk about this, so we're on the same page: http://cait.wri.org/profile/Uruguay According to this (and it could very well be wrong, inaccurate, etc), Uruguay produced on average 34.44 Mt of GHG gross, 14.68 net after carbon sinks between 2009-2012(in this period the total fell about 1Mt). While this source does not provide year to year on other data, their agricultural sector produced 23.94 Mt of that in 2012. Their energy sector is responsible for 8.58 Mt in the same year, of which more than half is non-electric based (mostly transportation). This means that in order to accomplish their stated goal, they must also overhaul their agricultural industry and reduce other energy-sourced GHG emissions in addition to what they have done to get to that reduction target. This is for a country that has the benefit of low diversity in industry, plus land-use that is substantially reducing their impact. I could bring Canada's numbers out, (and they are readily available there for comparison) but suffice to say we are at a net loss for land use and have extremely diverse sources of GHG production. That isn't to say we shouldn't strive to reduce these numbers but that there are many more things to deal with, and pointing to a country that was in an excellent position to make such changes doesn't say much about our own situation and needs. quote:e: also looks like the figure you found for p/c electricity consumption was from 2008, so that may have changed since then as well. The Ontario figure is from 2005, so it too may have changed (I typically send a bit more time backgrounding this but I felt they were reasonably comparative for my point, but my point was not clear so).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Marijuana Nihilist posted:doesnt even make sense why wouldnt you want a turbine that turns wind into money poo poo, it's turning excuses into money, that's god drat alchemy right there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Aren't the numbers fairly accurate here? They are, but given the number of predictions made by pollsters that are not, I don't know how much can be taken from it. Interesting, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 18:46
|
|