2023 Canadian Political Thread

[rlock]

I'm not going to bother breaking down your response because it looks like you have pretty much everything figured out.

This is what happens when someone knows a little bit about everything, but not much about anything in particular.

In other news, It was interesting to see that the Waffen SS can still get a standing ovation in our House of Commons.

I thought that the only Nazis in Canada were long haul truckers.

Apparently I was mistaken.

Well, yeah, that's hilariously fucked up:

The Speaker was so eager to jump on the "praise Ukraine" bandwagon for the Zelensky visit, he took a request on behalf of a Ukrainian veteran who "fought against the USSR in WW2", without thinking for even one second what that meant.
Then of course all the MPs from all the parties also wanted to show off how pro-NATO/Ukraine/Zelensky they were, so they all just stood up and clapped for this guy - again, never considering what that meant. (Yes, even MP's who have been to Remembrance Day ceremonies where it's pretty clear the USSR was Canada's WW2 ally.)

Would Canada have been better off if we had MPs who were not mugging for the cameras regarding "the cause du jour" ? Yes. Do I buy that this is on Trudeau's head? No. The Speaker did this for someone in his riding, and ALL the other parties played along. Now they have to explain to their jewish members how the fuck this happened, and "it was the other party" simply does not wash.
Hell they have to explain it to Zelensky, because they pulled him into a standing ovation as well, and he is jewish - the guy they were all applauding might have sent some of Zelensky's ancestors to the death camps!

(As for the "truckers" - most of the convoy were not real truckers., and some of them, especially the leaders, are clear neo-nazis - posting their own videos about white nationalism is a big hint. And 95% of actual truckers were vaxxed & not protesting.)

Prove that those MPs knew he was an SS veteran.
They were misled by his kid. And the kid was likely misled by the father.
Do you really think any member of any party would knowingly applaud a former SS soldier?

They trusted the Speaker (whose office controls parliamentary security), the Speaker did not check and was rushing (like all of them) to do something to support Zelensky and his cause.
So you can say they played themselves - all of them.

It only would have taken only one of them to know anything about the eastern front of WW2, to stop this thing before the old guy (he's 98) got applauded. He could have just sat there as a silent observer and nobody would have been the wiser. But no, they had to applaud his Unranian "patriotism".

Putin is laughing his ass off at them. This story probably cheered him up after the bad news about Sevastopol.

 

[rlock]

Man are you some kind of mystic? Sitting here in Canada you know what Modi is thinking, when did he lose his shit, why is he behaving in a certain manner 😂.

You just have to pay attention to international news & geopolitics. Observe multiple sources of information, and remember what you see there.
Few Canadians do. Most are foolishly unaware of the world around them.

 

[marsvolta]

What do you mean by "voting block"? There are about 10-11 million boomers in Canada, that is a minority of the voting age population (of which there are something like 30 million). Do boomers vote more than "younger" people? Probably. But you can't blame that on boomers if non-boomers vote less. Saying nothing for the fact that you imply that all boomers vote as a block. Not all boomers vote the same. Just like not all men or not all women or not all Asian Canadians or not all left handed Canadians or not all brunette Canadians or not all non-boomer Canadians vote the same. I mean heck, if you want to blame boomers for everything AND you believe boomers control elections - well, I guess you can blame boomers for electing a non-boomer? Some of our most powerful elected politicians are non-boomers: like the PM or our Finance Minister. If you want to blame boomers for voting in the "wrong" people (because apparently boomers control elections), I mean, boomers generally don't even vote in boomers - the only two boomer PM's I can think of are Harper and Campbell. And Campbell barely counts as a PM. So apparently accordingly to your line of thinking, boomers control elections (which they don't) and they are also to blame for the non-boomer PM's they apparently elect all on their own (which they don't) - based on your erroneous thinking, maybe boomer's should've voted in more boomer PM's, because apparently all the non-boomer PM's have created such a mess. Here's a little thought experiment for you - do you honestly believe if there was a means to prevent boomers from voting in, let's say 2015 or 2021, that we would've had a different PM and all the issues we have would not exist? The answer would be "no", JT would still have most likely won the last three elections absent any boomers voting - and everything that has happened since would still be the case. And since you previously mentioned never ending national debt - PET was not a boomer, Mulroney was not a boomer, Chretien/Martin (they eventually paid down some debt) were not boomers - again, the only PM's that were boomers are Harper and Campbell. You can't blame Harper for "never ending national debt - and you can't blame Campbell for anything because she was PM for less than a year. I guess it begs the question, do you even have a clue as to what constitutes a boomer - or do you just think boomers are non-millenials or simply "old people"? I'm guessing, like alot of younger folk, you simply pick an arbitrary age and think anyone older than X years old is a boomer - which is actually not true. I guess boomers, to you, are low hanging fruit. Kind of like you looking at your neighbour with 3 luxury cars, you struggling with your own one non-luxury car payments and think "yah, that guy is the reason I have less, because they have so much" - and if you are prone to that type of thinking (which it sounds like you are), you would also be wrong on that front as well.

wow, hey! hit a nerve there.

sorry man but this is KNOWN thing in the study of our society. and one in three IS a voting block even now... especially when the other two have many conflicting concerns. your argument appears to hinge on boomers not voting for other boomers? i mean, its pretty well the whole dialogue... rational voters don't care what age you are, as long as you maintain their economic and political power. you could be 12 years old, if you promise to keep estate taxes low and pump tonnes of borrowed money into elderly care while bankrupting education then... you're in! prop up CPP and bail out private pensions that subsequent generations could never dream of... you're in! push the cost of direly needed infrastructure problems to the future... you're in! and on and on.

its unavoidable... it would happen in any democratic society that has a bulge in demographics.

the boomers are the richest society in the history of mankind... and they are doing whatever they can to ensure they keep it! and push paying for the infrastructure and services that they enjoyed most of their lives to future generations!

and you know how my personal experience supports this? because I AM A BOOMER!

 

[appleomac]

and one in three IS a voting block even now...

The definition of voting bloc includes the concept/idea that the bloc vote in tandem/together/the same. Again, all boomers do not vote the same.

...your argument appears to hinge on boomers not voting for other boomers?

No. You completely missed the point. That was based on the logic of the poster I was replying to.

and you know how my personal experience supports this? because I AM A BOOMER!

Your experience is merely evidence of your experience. Your experience does not equate to a fact, other than what you experienced. My experience is that I suck at basketball. That experience does not provide evidence that other people like me (i.e. similar height, age, hair colour, ethnicity or whatever) also suck at basketball. Your incessant need to generalize groups of people is both sad and laughable.

 

[marsvolta]

The definition of voting bloc includes the concept/idea that the bloc vote in tandem/together/the same. Again, all boomers do not vote the same.

again, read the relevant sociology literature.

No. You completely missed the point. That was based on the logic of the poster I was replying to.

i was the poster. i said nothing about the age of those being voted into office.

Your experience is merely evidence of your experience. Your experience does not equate to a fact, other than what you experienced. My experience is that I suck at basketball. That experience does not provide evidence that other people like me (i.e. similar height, age, hair colour, ethnicity or whatever) also suck at basketball. Your incessant need to generalize groups of people is both sad and laughable.

i only state my age as you inferred that i was someone younger. i only LOOK MUCH YOUNGER! it makes no difference what age either of us are.

feel free to directly argue my original post! that boomers are responsible for the national debt! since... they were the only ones voting at the time (as their numbers swamped the "great generation" that preceded them). pretty hard to argue... since no one else was around. maybe your issue is that i lump all boomers together? all people are not the same and many boomers vote for different things... it doesn't matter, its what the majority wants and the majority supported DEBT to support their lifestyle. a DEBT that would survive them!

if the boomers were altruistic then they would vote to tax themselves the $60k they owe for every Canadian and not pass it on to others! hahahha!

 

[Gagan]

You just have to pay attention to international news & geopolitics. Observe multiple sources of information, and remember what you see there.
Few Canadians do. Most are foolishly unaware of the world around them.

Lol. You seem to put yourself above most Canadians. What you are fed in news is totally bullshit, your understanding of India and Modi is 100 percent wrong, you are not even close and how I am sure of this you ask. I was born and brought up in India. I have seen the rise of Modi, I was actually around when he was voted in power. I used to live in the state he ruled for 12 years.

 

[overdone]

I'll just go all-caps for the point by point, on your points:



You say facts do not care about feelings, but you offer ZERO facts. Just the typical butthurt from the right whenever they are not in power. "How dare they govern in a different way than we would !"


So I will do my own pro and con list. Much more factual, because I actually pay attention and make up my own mind without leaning on any party's scripted talking points.


Here's what the Libs did manage to do that was positive:

Carbon tax, other attempts to reduce GHG emissions. Not strong enough, but unlike the Conservatives, they are not climate deniers and actually believe in the scientific facts, instead of trying to deny them. Keep the carbon tax; reduce some other taxes if you must.

Managed COVID far better than the USA, far better than the Convoy clowns in the CPC would have done. Got PPE pretty damn fast, got COVID vaccines out to Canadians faster than the US did even when we have no suppliers and they did.
If the CPC were in charge, Canada would have had 2x as many unvaccinated, and 5x as many deaths.
Got CERB relief to workers and businesses - sloppy, yes, but also designed in a few weeks not a few years. Pollievre opposed relief of any kind.

Gun control - yes, it's popular and necessary. (Not with militia clowns, but those are paranoid clowns so fuck em.)

Infrastructure upgrades (lots of them) - par for the course for many governments, but the BC government has not had too many rejections when they asked them to build stuff in BC.

Calling down the Emergencies Act upon those Convoy conspiracy fuckheads.

Raised the interest rate? (Not actually them; the BoC did that, but strangling the real estate market to curb inflation is necessary.)

Trying to make better trade and strategic connections overseas, with countries that can help contain China. (yes, it is not just the US and Aussies doing this.)

Standing up for women's right to choose. People who want to end that keep claiming that is not their intention if elected, but it is. What is happening in the US would happen here if they had their way. Fuck that - we are not Gilead Jr.

Defending public health care.

Supporting the CBC - yeah, keep it alive. The private broadcasters are a fucking joke, especially when it comes to news, most of all international news (where they just borrow US news feeds).

Managing to make certain belligerent idiot premiers look like idiots - well, that they actually do that to themselves, just trying to pick fights with Ottawa instead of doing their own job.

hahaha

facts don't agree with you

the carbon tax hasn't reduced emissions

the only thing that has is downturns in the economy, otherwise, emissions are rising every year

mostly due to moronic immigration policy, more people=more emissions

plus unless you're going to go after China/India/Russia, mainly the first 2, nothing is going to make a difference, emissions don't stay in the country's borders that emit them

China has more emission now than the developed world combined

so while you piss in the pool, there are 40 Chinese shitting in it, along with 45 Indians

you pissing in the pool isn't going to matter, you're still going to suffer the affects

and our emissions would be going down, due to tech, not taxes, if we'd stop bringing in 1,000,000 a year, which is closer to what we actually do bring in yearly, not the "official" number


gun control necessary, lol

sorry, facts don't support that, our murder rate, isn't worth talking about, it's an emotional cripple issue, not based on actual facts

we don't have a high gun death, never have, it fluctuates, based on mostly demographics, economics, not gun control



the only clowns with covid were the Politicians

wear a mask into the restaurant, take it off when you go to take a shit, take it off again when seated

kinda like the emissions, your breath doesn't move from your table, haha

just like we travelled on planes for what 2? 2 and 1/2 yrs before the POS Trudeau stopped the unvaxxed, even when SCIENCE proved that being vaxxed didn't matter in catching, spread

kinda like the NDP in BC still are SCIENCE DENIERS ON THE SUBJECT and won't let badly needed healthcare workers go back to work


raise interest rates when they are part of the problem, by causing the cost of everything to go up for 8 years, raising taxes on most things for 8 years




trade? lol

seeking praise about his socks? that's an accomplishment or was it the caving to a Orangutan from the US?


infrastructure?

if you mean making announcements over and over, sure, actually building anything, then no, they haven't spent hardly any of the budgeted money

all they do is have press releases

they're all talk no action, pretty much their only real talent, besides handing out welfare to anyone and everyone they want to try to get a vote from




standing up for women's rights, while throwing how many? 4 under the bus to protect himself? sure

or did you mean the men who think/feel like women?

CBC, that's not even worth mentioning, only complete fool thinks the CBC has any value anymore, they're irrelevant, they're so woke now it's just sad, not just the news


politicans look like idiots, no one is even close to the LIberals under Turdeau

except all the Nazis

unless you invite one to tea

or live in Que

cause he's a QUEBECOIS WHICH HE ISN'T, HE WAS BORN IN ONTARIO, HE WENT TO SCHOOL IN ONTARIO, HAS LIVE ALMOST ALL HIS LIFE IN ONTARIO, HIS MOTHER WAS FROM BC

JUST BECAUSE HIS OLD MAN WAS FROM MONTREAL DOESN'T MAKE HIM A QUEBECOIS

HE'S SPENT LESS TIME THERE THAN HE'S BEEN IN OTTAWA

JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE LIBERALS

THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE TO THEM, NONE

THEY HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING, EXCEPT MAKE EVERYONE, EVERYONE POORER

LOOK AT ACTUAL FACTS, NUMBERS, OUR ECONOMY, OUR GDP OUR REAL GDP ADJUSTED FOR POPULATION ECT....., OUR STANDARD OF LIVING HAS GONE TO SHIT UNDER THEM

COMPARE IT TO THE USA, LIKE YOU DID WITH COVID, OTHERS HAVE, IT'S EASY TO FIND, YOU KNOW FACTS, NUMBERS, REAL NUMBERS

BORROWING, DOUBLING THE DEBT WITH NO REAL BENEFIT IN LESS THEN 8 YEARS ISN'T AN ACCOMPLISHMENT

 

[marsvolta]

hahaha

facts don't agree with you

the carbon tax hasn't reduced emissions

the only thing that has is downturns in the economy, otherwise, emissions are rising every year

mostly due to moronic immigration policy, more people=more emissions

plus unless you're going to go after China/India/Russia, mainly the first 2, nothing is going to make a difference, emissions don't stay in the country's borders that emit them

China has more emission now than the developed world combined

so while you piss in the pool, there are 40 Chinese shitting in it, along with 45 Indians

you pissing in the pool isn't going to matter, you're still going to suffer the affects

and our emissions would be going down, due to tech, not taxes, if we'd stop bringing in 1,000,000 a year, which is closer to what we actually do bring in yearly, not the "official" number

so the same old argument? if THEY don't do it then why should we? doing nothing begets.... NOTHING HAPPENING.

if rich western countries get on this and develop the alternative technologies further that drastically reduce carbon emissions then:
1) we have leverage to force carbon emission reductions in india/china/wherever like we do with other things we want... with restricting trade and capital. look at the push for democratic reforms in eastern Europe as a prime example. joining the money pot of the EU capitalist system drove these countries to reform. there are endless ways we can pressure other entities to move in a direction where SOMETHING IS HAPPENING.
2) our industry will have the technology/patents etc to profit big time when india/china/wherever need to cave

the cost of environmental changes that we are seeing make the lack of profit from carbon look like pennies in the pocket.

 

[rlock]

so the same old argument? if THEY don't do it then why should we? doing nothing begets.... NOTHING HAPPENING.

if rich western countries get on this and develop the alternative technologies further that drastically reduce carbon emissions then:
1) we have leverage to force carbon emission reductions in india/china/wherever like we do with other things we want... with restricting trade and capital. look at the push for democratic reforms in eastern Europe as a prime example. joining the money pot of the EU capitalist system drove these countries to reform. there are endless ways we can pressure other entities to move in a direction where SOMETHING IS HAPPENING.
2) our industry will have the technology/patents etc to profit big time when india/china/wherever need to cave

the cost of environmental changes that we are seeing make the lack of profit from carbon look like pennies in the pocket.

Yup. Harper made the same bullshit argument every year he was in power the "we'll act only after everyone else does first". At the same time as he gutted the actual scientific study of climate or emissions, and forbade civil servants from talking about the subject - even weather reports were being censored. (Oh, and let's not forget threatening to use drones to bomb environmentalists' houses. One of his inner circle said that.)

The "do nothing about it, ever" lobby has 100 false arguments they start dealing out like playing cards, any time someone challenges them with the truth about the state of the climate and what needs to be done to survive.
One is "it's done nothing" lie is one: BC added almost a million people and it's emissions only rose a tiny bit. Vehicle emissions would be going down, but emissions from industry are going up thanks to governments approving more fracking and LNG. The same goes Canada-wide - if you took the massively increased oil & gas production emissions out of the calculations, Canada's had much less emissions growth than you would expect from such a big growth in population.

That does not mean the carbon tax failed; it only means the people managing it are not committed enough. They still try to play both sides by still boosting a fossil fuel industry that does not deserve any more economic (taxpayer) support, as if they have to apologize to dirty industries for supporting the switch to clean ones. This is certainly not an argument in favour of killing the carbon tax & supporting oil & gas even more. It's the opposite: keep the carbon tax, and stop negating the effort by trying to support oil & gas at the same time. We do not need half measures, we need the whole thing.

As for China & India, well both countries have made clear their recent hostility towards Canada, so by all means let's hit them with carbon tariffs on the manufactured goods other nations send here. If that became common practice around the world, it will force those countries to clean up their dirty energy use immediately. Of course, the ones who gripe about Asian nations do not really give a fuck about emissions in China or India (or anywhere else). They do not want to solve the problem of emissions over there, just shut down all measures to reduce carbon emissions over here in Canada, and discredit the whole idea of doing anything about the problem. We do too little already, and they want to pull us back to doing nothing at all. If Canadians waste any more time following to the "do nothing" gang, and those other nations make the effort to clean up their dirty economies, we'll be economically destroyed - dead by our own hand after betting everything on making a product which nobody will want to buy anymore, backwards, isolate, and ruined.

 

[Mrmotorscooter]

The shame of it is Trudeau’s govt would be more than happy to shut the oil industry down, Canada is a cold weather country we need the gas. If they really cared about the global climate we would be exporting all the LNG we possibly could to the Asian markets, they are still bringing coal fired generation plants 2 per week on line over there our gas could help clean that up. Quebec gets its majority funding from Alberta fossil fuels yet wants no pipelines instead using tankers for Saudi Oil, how stupid. We should be self sufficient and sell our fuel to the globe we could be debt free in short order, something is amiss profits are being made at the country’s expense.
We are just a small player in the global game, I erased all the ships except for the tankers on the global shipping app, there are billions of barrels transiting the planet, Canada could do something positive in all this instead of shooting ourselves in both feet.

 

[marsvolta]

all great points being made here... i'm struck that this is doable, but complicated... and a big problem is Joe Sixpacks inability to handle complexity. Not blaming Joe Sixpack!

again, i'm amazed how Alberta's government may as well be a front for big oil propaganda as opposed to representing the desires of the people of Alberta. the whole Hydrogen Roadmap is a scam! the idea is to use fossil fuels and carbon capture to produce hydrogen.. thus making consumers THINK they are saving the planet! when in reality... its doing nothing. Not to mention that hydrogen fuel cells don't work well in cold weather!

Hydrogen Will Not Save Us. Here's Why.

 

[rlock]

all great points being made here... i'm struck that this is doable, but complicated... and a big problem is Joe Sixpacks inability to handle complexity. Not blaming Joe Sixpack!

again, i'm amazed how Alberta's government may as well be a front for big oil propaganda as opposed to representing the desires of the people of Alberta. the whole Hydrogen Roadmap is a scam! the idea is to use fossil fuels and carbon capture to produce hydrogen.. thus making consumers THINK they are saving the planet! when in reality... its doing nothing. Not to mention that hydrogen fuel cells don't work well in cold weather!

Hydrogen Will Not Save Us. Here's Why.

That's a good video.
It's hilarious how in that video about hydrogen the lady says "let's not give up that easily - certainly we can find something [about hydrogen] to complain about".


As far as I can see, Carbon capture is basically a scam, a PR stunt by Big Oil to pretend like they can be the solution to a problem they have caused.

It will capture less than the amount of methane and CO2 leaked into the air during the production process. Even if you could discount that, the basic problem is having to spend energy to re-inject (sequester) atmospheric carbon back into the ground. Well, where is that energy going to come from ? Burning more carbon fuel? Now you've created a process which is inefficient and just bleeds energy from the system. Burning carbon fuel to capture the byproducts of fuel is even more nuts than burning carbon fuel to make fuel.

So where else could you get the energy needed to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon? Using solar PV, wind turbines, or even nuclear, you just wonder why not use that electricity to power things electrically, because it is more efficient to just cut out that carbon fuel "middleman" altogether. Once again, we're back to how ditching carbon fuel is preferable to how much energy which carbon fuel generates lost to inefficiency anyway.

That brings us to the hydrogen fuel issue - CLEAN hydrogen comes from clean energy throughout the whole process. Solar PV or wind energy (or tidal or geothermal) provides the power needed to crack H2) into H2 and O - that means it produces zero carbon emissions. I would differ wit this video maker in one sense - intermittence is perhaps not the problem people make it out to be, as there are many industrial processes that do not have to be always running to be effective. Water purification, H20 cracking can perhaps be among those, if the issue of storage is properly addressed.

So how best to use hydrogen to avoid being either pointless PR stunt which still produces carbon emissions, or avoiding inefficiency problems?

Well I think it is using it not in everyday applications like commuter cars. I think it has better potential in special circumstances.

Hydrogen combustion has been used as an energy source for aircraft and rockets. Perhaps it could be used for powering airliners. Pure jets are not the only thought here. Imagine new airliners that can cruise on props, but which have hydrogen boost jets for takeoffs.

Hydrogen fuel cells to power trains was talked about, though you have to wonder if that's really only a though for areas where electrified trains and tracks are not a thing.

Hydrogen fuel cells might best be used on ships. There already exist some ships which use hydrogen fuel cells (the Germans have some well known attack subs that are whisper quiet because of it), but so far as I know, nobody has tried to create truly big ships (like container ships, cruise ships) that run from H2 fuel cells.

I think in the end, it will take some engineering smarts to create systems that can work out new ways to operate so hydrogen is not a weird anomaly, but like I said, not the energy storage & method used in most applications.

 

[80watts]

all great points being made here... i'm struck that this is doable, but complicated... and a big problem is Joe Sixpacks inability to handle complexity. Not blaming Joe Sixpack!

again, i'm amazed how Alberta's government may as well be a front for big oil propaganda as opposed to representing the desires of the people of Alberta. the whole Hydrogen Roadmap is a scam! the idea is to use fossil fuels and carbon capture to produce hydrogen.. thus making consumers THINK they are saving the planet! when in reality... its doing nothing. Not to mention that hydrogen fuel cells don't work well in cold weather!

Hydrogen Will Not Save Us. Here's Why.

The reality of using hydrocarbons to make hydrogen, produces more CO2. The better environmental way, is to make hydrogen from water using electricity.
Elon Musk went with battery technology because batteries ( electricity- battery-car ) is overall more efficient then the solar-electricity - hydrogen-fuel cell- electricity- car route.
Renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal, wave all have to be stored at some point in some type of battery. So right now there is not enough renewable to replace how electricity is generated now (coal, nuclear, hydro etc). And renewable energy sources don't always work at the peak hours of energy usage.
A thing today is to go off-grid with solar panels. The thing is most solar panels will need to be replaced in 20-25 years. If tied into your grid most electrical companies limit the amount of electricity you can sell back to them. It would be great if you could make enough money from solar to replace your solar panel in 20 years.

Hydrogen Fuel cells do work great in low temperatures - google it, the fuel cell actually produces heat and electricity. It is batteries that have a problem with the cold.

To replace gas cars and diesel trucks on the road, will require alot of infrastructure change and:
1. Production of electricity over what will be needed to replace the 90% of cars on road today
2. Batteries for electric cars, world is barely keeping up with lithium batteries now, let alone to replace the gas cars.

We are going to be on gas for some time. Unless someone invents a cheap readily available battery or the Fusion reactor becomes a reality. What I do find interesting is now that Tesla been around a bit, those cars now need battery replacement or recycling. How is that happening?

Recently I saw a video on Ammonia (NH3) fuel for internal combustion engines. The problem I see is with NOx emmissions which are way worse then CO2.

 

[80watts]

That's a good video.
It's hilarious how in that video about hydrogen the lady says "let's not give up that easily - certainly we can find something [about hydrogen] to complain about".


As far as I can see, Carbon capture is basically a scam, a PR stunt by Big Oil to pretend like they can be the solution to a problem they have caused.

It will capture less than the amount of methane and CO2 leaked into the air during the production process. Even if you could discount that, the basic problem is having to spend energy to re-inject (sequester) atmospheric carbon back into the ground. Well, where is that energy going to come from ? Burning more carbon fuel? Now you've created a process which is inefficient and just bleeds energy from the system. Burning carbon fuel to capture the byproducts of fuel is even more nuts than burning carbon fuel to make fuel.

So where else could you get the energy needed to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon? Using solar PV, wind turbines, or even nuclear, you just wonder why not use that electricity to power things electrically, because it is more efficient to just cut out that carbon fuel "middleman" altogether. Once again, we're back to how ditching carbon fuel is preferable to how much energy which carbon fuel generates lost to inefficiency anyway.

That brings us to the hydrogen fuel issue - CLEAN hydrogen comes from clean energy throughout the whole process. Solar PV or wind energy (or tidal or geothermal) provides the power needed to crack H2) into H2 and O - that means it produces zero carbon emissions. I would differ wit this video maker in one sense - intermittence is perhaps not the problem people make it out to be, as there are many industrial processes that do not have to be always running to be effective. Water purification, H20 cracking can perhaps be among those, if the issue of storage is properly addressed.

So how best to use hydrogen to avoid being either pointless PR stunt which still produces carbon emissions, or avoiding inefficiency problems?

Well I think it is using it not in everyday applications like commuter cars. I think it has better potential in special circumstances.

Hydrogen combustion has been used as an energy source for aircraft and rockets. Perhaps it could be used for powering airliners. Pure jets are not the only thought here. Imagine new airliners that can cruise on props, but which have hydrogen boost jets for takeoffs.

Hydrogen fuel cells to power trains was talked about, though you have to wonder if that's really only a though for areas where electrified trains and tracks are not a thing.

Hydrogen fuel cells might best be used on ships. There already exist some ships which use hydrogen fuel cells (the Germans have some well known attack subs that are whisper quiet because of it), but so far as I know, nobody has tried to create truly big ships (like container ships, cruise ships) that run from H2 fuel cells.

I think in the end, it will take some engineering smarts to create systems that can work out new ways to operate so hydrogen is not a weird anomaly, but like I said, not the energy storage & method used in most applications.

I think perhaps for trains will use electricity. In cities for electrical buses (back in the 1920/30s most major US cities had electric cable car systems), and between cities with electric high speed trains in a tube (vaccum). Electrical cars for cities. Hydrogen cars for the country side or long distance travel.

Hydrogen is the most environmental fuel. When used it produces water (either in a fuel cell or in an internal combustion engine). The water goes into the atmosphere, and more hydogen can be made from water over and over again. You just need a source of electricity.

Zepelins (hydrogen lift) were used up to 1937 until the Hindenburg went up in flames. But those flames were reddish, and hydrogen burns blue. There was an article on the cause of the fire in Popular Mechanics years ago. It had to do with the glue/epoxy that held the material (gas chamber of the zepelin) together.

 

[marsvolta]

small modular nuclear. nuclear has gotten a bad rap. past problems are associated with old behemoth technology and idiot or profit driven corner cutting operators. idiots were responsible for Chernobyl. behemoth non standard devices like Fukushima need to be fazed out for modular systems that can have components replaced in emergencies.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

small modular nuclear. nuclear has gotten a bad rap. past problems are associated with old behemoth technology and idiot or profit driven corner cutting operators. idiots were responsible for Chernobyl. behemoth non standard devices like Fukushima need to be fazed out for modular systems that can have components replaced in emergencies.

They also have fail safes in case power goes out. A plug melts at the bottom if it gets too hot, and the fissile material drains into a holding tank that is too spread out to allow critical mass to occur.

 

[80watts]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...S&cvid=113402b6f5a645f3aa5c26ac2843beda&ei=29
Anyways its seems Trudeau forgot to put on his thinking cap on again, and just went with the woke "not acceptable". This man is not capable of rational thought cause all he is doing is following woke mantras....

First China, then Russia, then India and now Israel. He wants to act big, all while hiding under the US umbrella. As far as I am concerned if you are going to talk big, you better have the muscle to back it up. Oops, Canada has for 50 years has downsized the Canadian Military in personnel and equipment. If Canada wants to deploy somewhere, they have to rent cargo planes to transport troops and equipment or ships to transport equipment a a snails pace for the really heavy stuff.
Its a long gone time since the Suez Crisis and Cypus as peacekeepers in the 1960s and 70s, where Canadian troops were considered one of the best forces in the world. Times have changed and its all piecemeal operations run on shoestring budgets since the 1980s. IMHO.
The reality is Canada does not have the muscle to back up Trudeau's shit talking. He is talking shit because its election time again. Canada is not doing so well economically, with high federal government debt due to Trudeau and Covid. It doesn't look like a good future for the economy of Canada because the supply chains from China and the far east are slowly drying up for cheap manufactured goods. When invention is taken to the US to thrive (okay its always been that way because of the small population of Canada vs US), and free speech is being taken away from people through the courts through professional colleges/associations, the individual is being squeezed out of society.

Canada needs to ensure food supply (especially in the winter season), as the US (mainly California) could have trouble with its crops due to the past 15-20 years of drought in the US.

Canada needs to up its Armed forces with newer equipment(Planes and ships and tanks and modern artillery) and supplies of ammunition. Canada needs to start to think like a country with a purpose. One of the things that has happened over the last 30 years is humanitarian aid. First thing would be medical aid and security. Canada has a DART team and its capability should be expanded to 3 or 4 DART teams.

Infrastructure and building codes for the future (Forrest fires areas) buildings, cause building out of wood just isn't practical despite that dipping in fire proofing liquid (sarcasm, its gonna burn). One type of building is ICF (cement ) that makes buildings pretty well bomb proof. Stone and cement can withstand the test of time and still be here in 100 years.

So if you gonna have a big mouth, back it up with a bigger military that can kick ass and not just kiss ass as it does now....

 

[Drjohn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...S&cvid=113402b6f5a645f3aa5c26ac2843beda&ei=29
Anyways its seems Trudeau forgot to put on his thinking cap on again, and just went with the woke "not acceptable". This man is not capable of rational thought cause all he is doing is following woke mantras....

First China, then Russia, then India and now Israel. He wants to act big, all while hiding under the US umbrella. As far as I am concerned if you are going to talk big, you better have the muscle to back it up. Oops, Canada has for 50 years has downsized the Canadian Military in personnel and equipment. If Canada wants to deploy somewhere, they have to rent cargo planes to transport troops and equipment or ships to transport equipment a a snails pace for the really heavy stuff.
Its a long gone time since the Suez Crisis and Cypus as peacekeepers in the 1960s and 70s, where Canadian troops were considered one of the best forces in the world. Times have changed and its all piecemeal operations run on shoestring budgets since the 1980s. IMHO.
The reality is Canada does not have the muscle to back up Trudeau's shit talking. He is talking shit because its election time again. Canada is not doing so well economically, with high federal government debt due to Trudeau and Covid. It doesn't look like a good future for the economy of Canada because the supply chains from China and the far east are slowly drying up for cheap manufactured goods. When invention is taken to the US to thrive (okay its always been that way because of the small population of Canada vs US), and free speech is being taken away from people through the courts through professional colleges/associations, the individual is being squeezed out of society.

Canada needs to ensure food supply (especially in the winter season), as the US (mainly California) could have trouble with its crops due to the past 15-20 years of drought in the US.

Canada needs to up its Armed forces with newer equipment(Planes and ships and tanks and modern artillery) and supplies of ammunition. Canada needs to start to think like a country with a purpose. One of the things that has happened over the last 30 years is humanitarian aid. First thing would be medical aid and security. Canada has a DART team and its capability should be expanded to 3 or 4 DART teams.

Infrastructure and building codes for the future (Forrest fires areas) buildings, cause building out of wood just isn't practical despite that dipping in fire proofing liquid (sarcasm, its gonna burn). One type of building is ICF (cement ) that makes buildings pretty well bomb proof. Stone and cement can withstand the test of time and still be here in 100 years.

So if you gonna have a big mouth, back it up with a bigger military that can kick ass and not just kiss ass as it does now....

Trudeau is the poster boy for foot in mouth disease.

Virtue signaling so hard.

Maybe think before you speak.

Embarrassing.

 

[rlock]

small modular nuclear. nuclear has gotten a bad rap. past problems are associated with old behemoth technology and idiot or profit driven corner cutting operators. idiots were responsible for Chernobyl. behemoth non standard devices like Fukushima need to be fazed out for modular systems that can have components replaced in emergencies.

That much is true. The nuclear industry discredited themselves for many years. Hiding accidents unless they were too big to shove under the rug. Deceiving people about waste. Resisting proper oversight.
Trust is not a word one associates with them, and the potential for disaster does not lend itself to people glossing over the usual failures of human nature. I'm still not convinced on SMR's thpough. The smaller operators might be less professional not more, and when people tout "cost savings" as a main selling point, makes me think they will cut corners. Exactly what one does not want. More modern larger plants wopuld also have more passive safety than old existing plants do.

However, if nuclear is used as an excuse to just not build renewable at all, then I think it against being misused. The idea should be to have both, and fill in the capability gaps in the grid.

People have very either/or thinking. It makes no sense. Would people say "I have a car, so I never need to walk anywhere ever again?" No.

 

[rlock]

As far as I am concerned if you are going to talk big, you better have the muscle to back it up. Oops, Canada has for 50 years has downsized the Canadian Military in personnel and equipment. If Canada wants to deploy somewhere, they have to rent cargo planes to transport troops and equipment or ships to transport equipment a a snails pace for the really heavy stuff.

The reality is Canada does not have the muscle to back up Trudeau's shit talking. He is talking shit because its election time again. Canada is not doing so well economically, with high federal government debt due to Trudeau and Covid. It doesn't look like a good future for the economy of Canada because the supply chains from China and the far east are slowly drying up for cheap manufactured goods. When invention is taken to the US to thrive (okay its always been that way because of the small population of Canada vs US), and free speech is being taken away from people through the courts through professional colleges/associations, the individual is being squeezed out of society.

Canada needs to ensure food supply (especially in the winter season), as the US (mainly California) could have trouble with its crops due to the past 15-20 years of drought in the US.

Canada needs to up its Armed forces with newer equipment(Planes and ships and tanks and modern artillery) and supplies of ammunition. Canada needs to start to think like a country with a purpose. One of the things that has happened over the last 30 years is humanitarian aid. First thing would be medical aid and security. Canada has a DART team and its capability should be expanded to 3 or 4 DART teams.

Infrastructure and building codes for the future (Forrest fires areas) buildings, cause building out of wood just isn't practical despite that dipping in fire proofing liquid (sarcasm, its gonna burn). One type of building is ICF (cement ) that makes buildings pretty well bomb proof. Stone and cement can withstand the test of time and still be here in 100 years.

So if you gonna have a big mouth, back it up with a bigger military that can kick ass and not just kiss ass as it does now....

The Liberals muddle through. Never too much substance behind the flowery words, but neither do they flake out completely. They get as many major procurements done in the end, but not before having some navel-gazing process first.

Conservatives would make Canada into America's bitch. Dems in charge down there? Demand lube and condom, and sulk about it (but still do it). GOP in charge? "Go in dry, daddy! Hurt me daddy, I love it" That's always been their problem. No sense of self-respect among them, so Canada acts that way when they are running things too. (And the world notices too: China, India, Russia - all just look at Canada as "if we wanted to hear you opinion, we'd ask Washington what it is".)

That's the flaw in Canada's defense politics - the ones who usually demand a larger military are the same ones who would have our foreign policy decided in Washington. They love to blind-buy whatever weapons platforms the defense lobbyists reccommend, but when it comes to fighting, we'd be bleeding ourselves to fight their many enemies, while our own sovereignty and independence gets corroded away to nothing.

The problem is not just whether we have a more capable military, but why. It has to be to guard our own nation, serve our own interests, which we decide for ourselves. If not, we've lost the very fight that our military exists for: prevent Canada's subjugation or annexation.

And ditto for safeguarding our strategic resources in the future - food, water, energy critical strategic minerals. To control them ourselves, supply our needs first, and adapt to a future where not paving over arable land will be a matter of life or death for us.

Again, I do see the Conservatives ever "seeing the light" on any of these issues. They prefer foreign (well, US) control, would trade away our strategic resources cheap, and when it comes to climate change or food scarcity, they do not even think this problem exists.

So could I, as a pro-military somewhat nationalistic Canadian put my support behind them, knowing that their plan for Canada's survival is to not bother with it at all? Nope, can't do it. Not under Mulroney, nor Harper, and not that malignant shit-weasel Poilievre.
They always want to play the tough guy, but inside they are all weakness and submission.

As for the NDP... LOL they still want to have the military do peacekeeping only, and they would defund cops, so forget about protecting Canada with anything more than a wagging finer and human rights tribunal. Might as well have the Hells Angels become our army & police if that is the case.

We really have a big problem in Canada's politics. The parties are all sick inside; their "leaders" are like cariacatures from some bad comedy routine.