HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 2:02 AM
Justanothermember Justanothermember is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Jayzus, where do the Libs get them?

Alan Fryer ������������������������������������
@alanfryermedia
Incredible. Minister admits capital gains increases could cause family doctors to leave Canada. Not to worry, though, she says, we’ll just bring in more foreign trained docs.


https://twitter.com/alanfryermedia/s...25859140055419
I now truly believe that the Liberals value foreigners more than born and bred Canadians. It seems like the Libbies want to create a country composed of purely fresh-off-the-boat people rather than investing in those born within Canada. They are literally trying to chase away as many Canadian-born citizens as they can and replace them with immigrants to create some sort of bizarro woke-immigrant utopia, the likes of which could be seen in some sort of futuristic Margaret Atwood novel.

PP is not what I call a prime candidate for PM, but man we need a change in Parliament and we need it ASAP.

Last edited by Justanothermember; Apr 25, 2024 at 2:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 12:49 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
Fossil fuel subsidies cost Canadians a lot more money than the carbon tax
Published: April 1, 2024 10.56am EDT Updated: April 2, 2024 2.22pm EDT



https://theconversation.com/fossil-f...n%20this%20tax.
Crickets from the usual loud crowd.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 1:56 PM
savevp savevp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Crickets from the usual loud crowd.
One could make the argument that if the regulatory environment wasn't so strangulatory, the subsidies wouldn't be as high. The big ticket item in that article is Trans Mountain, a largely self-inflicted red tape wound for the government.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 1:58 PM
suburbanite's Avatar
suburbanite suburbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto & NYC
Posts: 5,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
Fossil fuel subsidies cost Canadians a lot more money than the carbon tax
Published: April 1, 2024 10.56am EDT Updated: April 2, 2024 2.22pm EDT



https://theconversation.com/fossil-f...n%20this%20tax.
The source they link to notes that 80% of that cost is in the form of tax exemptions, essentially foregone tax revenue. Also, a number of those subsidies likely feed back to consumers in the cost of heating, travel, etc. Although not in such a transparent direct manner as the carbon tax achieves. Saying that a tax exemption simply "costs" a dollar amount assumes that that consumption or production is inelastic, and so the entire subsidized amount would be collected as government revenue in the absence of such an exemption. If that's the case than it goes against the entire logic of the carbon tax, since individuals/business would consume the same regardless of financial impact.

Obviously the reality is likely somewhere in the middle, where there are energy producers who are simply earning a higher profit margin due to tax breaks, and some whose profitability and ability to expand is contingent on receiving such a tax break.
__________________
Discontented suburbanite since 1994
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 2:08 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbanite View Post
The source they link to notes that 80% of that cost is in the form of tax exemptions, essentially foregone tax revenue. Also, a number of those subsidies likely feed back to consumers in the cost of heating, travel, etc. Although not in such a transparent direct manner as the carbon tax achieves. Saying that a tax exemption simply "costs" a dollar amount assumes that that consumption or production is inelastic, and so the entire subsidized amount would be collected as government revenue in the absence of such an exemption. If that's the case than it goes against the entire logic of the carbon tax, since individuals/business would consume the same regardless of financial impact.

Obviously the reality is likely somewhere in the middle, where there are energy producers who are simply earning a higher profit margin due to tax breaks, and some whose profitability and ability to expand is contingent on receiving such a tax break.
Yes it is mostly total nonsense. We set a royalty rate that tries to maximize production revenue and jobs. Sometimes we need to lower the rate as prices fall. Sure we leave some money on the table but that is a difficult needle to thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 2:13 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,494
A lot of the accounting for "fossil fuel subsidies" put out by these sorts of NGOs are also often quite ridiculous in inflating the numbers. Often they count tax credits or deductions available to all businesses as "fossil fuel subsidies" (when it should only count specific subsidies the O&G sector gets that no other sector gets). Years ago I even saw one with an eyepopping number (in the tens of billions) that literally counted the CPP & EI tax credits on salaries earned by O&G workers as a "fossil fuel subsidy".
__________________
"It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." - Friedrich Hayek
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 2:43 PM
thewave46 thewave46 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by savevp View Post
One could make the argument that if the regulatory environment wasn't so strangulatory, the subsidies wouldn't be as high. The big ticket item in that article is Trans Mountain, a largely self-inflicted red tape wound for the government.
The irony of the same government implementing a carbon tax and funding an oil pipeline that the private sector would not touch is not lost on me.

It's only bad when the other guy does it, though.

One can arrive at all sorts of numbers through fanciful accounting. I can claim that anything 'costs' $X billion per year. Here's a Maclean's article from 2013 that goes into depth using mental health as an example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 2:54 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,603
https://www.thestar.com/politics/pro...71f981f87.html

Honda EV plant is official.

4 plants - 2 in Alliston (battery production, vehicle assembly). 2 additional parts suppliers for batteries which will be located elsewhere in the province (to be announced).

$15 billion total, $5 billion of which is government subsidy ($2.5 each from the Feds and Province).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 2:58 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewave46 View Post
The irony of the same government implementing a carbon tax and funding an oil pipeline that the private sector would not touch is not lost on me.

It's only bad when the other guy does it, though.

One can arrive at all sorts of numbers through fanciful accounting. I can claim that anything 'costs' $X billion per year. Here's a Maclean's article from 2013 that goes into depth using mental health as an example.
It was meant to be a compromise. O&G projects were becoming impossible for the private sector to build because of social license and jurisdictional issues. It was the most environmentally safe option as it followed an existing route. The GBA+ and extreme environmental cautions has cost the government another $10 Billion to build it. We can call that a fossil fuel subsidy if we sell it back for less than our cost though that was a lot of choices to pay 10X rates so Indigenous companies can clear the trees or stopping everything for weeks because of a hummingbird.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 2:58 PM
suburbanite's Avatar
suburbanite suburbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto & NYC
Posts: 5,382
Honestly, it feels like getting $10 billion out of the private sector with $5 billion in incentives is pretty good in this environment. Also highly relevant to the previous conversation:

Quote:
Ottawa and Queen’s Park will each pony up $2.5 billion — the federal government in investment tax credits and the province in incentives and infrastructure improvements for the company.
Just like fossil fuel subsidies, the majority of the cost is not out-of-pocket to taxpayers. Curious as to what the "infrastructure improvements" funded by the province entail.

One thing I won't criticize the Trudeau government for is making significant commitments on this front. It would be a lot easier to stomach the current fiscal position if we saw more investment in long-term growth opportunities and less discretionary program spending.
__________________
Discontented suburbanite since 1994
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 3:04 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,603
Also for the province, it sounds like some of it is "infrastructure improvements".

This is likely going to be something like widening Highway 89 to 4 lanes and building a bypass of Cookstown to provide improved access to the plant. That is a cost of a couple hundred million which arguably is needed regardless of the plant. It's not a direct subsidy, per se.

They are doing a similar thing in St Thomas, upgrading Highway 3 through the city to a full freeway to support the plant. That kind of work benefits the wider community as well though, and isn't a direct subsidy.

There is also likely some direct infrastructure costs needed for the plant relating to electrical and water supply the province will help pay for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 4:33 PM
ToxiK ToxiK is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
Fossil fuel subsidies cost Canadians a lot more money than the carbon tax
Published: April 1, 2024 10.56am EDT Updated: April 2, 2024 2.22pm EDT



https://theconversation.com/fossil-f...n%20this%20tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Crickets from the usual loud crowd.
6 billion a year ! I suppose with that amount, fossil fuel producing provinces can afford to pay equalization...
__________________
"Monster," I shrieked, "be thou juggler, enchanter, dream, or devil, no more will I endure thy mockeries. Either thou or I must perish." And saying these words I precipitated myself upon him.
A. Square
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 6:22 PM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Crickets from the usual loud crowd.
Likely crickets cause that was posted only yesterday and the post was only first seen?

You just couldn’t wait to make your post…

The liberals are complete fools in having bought TMX, when the private sector was wanting to do it all on their own. Instead of working with the private sector, government and regulatory process completely got in the way and made the risk infinite for the private sector to proceed. So the feds pretty well wasted $35 billion when the private sector wanted to pick up the tab… example of the outstanding work of the government.

The ironic thing too is the BC provincial government at the time had the promise “use every tool in the toolbox” to block the pipeline… only to make its people far worse off if they didn’t try to use every damn tool. Another shining example of the tremendous work of the government looking out for the absolute best interest of the people.

Oh, and just from a quick google search I found this.

Who needs a windfall tax? Oil and gas companies poured $48 billion into government coffers this year, says RBC

https://financialpost.com/commoditie...-year-says-rbc


So,basically, the sector generates far more revenue for the government than its gets… but wutev

I personally welcome not getting any subsidies, the sector can easily stand on its own, just when the virtue signalling shitty leaders puts up so many barriers, investments flee, TMX case in point…. Eeekkk!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 7:12 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
Likely crickets cause that was posted only yesterday and the post was only first seen?

You just couldn’t wait to make your post…

The liberals are complete fools in having bought TMX, when the private sector was wanting to do it all on their own. Instead of working with the private sector, government and regulatory process completely got in the way and made the risk infinite for the private sector to proceed. So the feds pretty well wasted $35 billion when the private sector wanted to pick up the tab… example of the outstanding work of the government.

The ironic thing too is the BC provincial government at the time had the promise “use every tool in the toolbox” to block the pipeline… only to make its people far worse off if they didn’t try to use every damn tool. Another shining example of the tremendous work of the government looking out for the absolute best interest of the people.

Oh, and just from a quick google search I found this.

Who needs a windfall tax? Oil and gas companies poured $48 billion into government coffers this year, says RBC

https://financialpost.com/commoditie...-year-says-rbc


So,basically, the sector generates far more revenue for the government than its gets… but wutev

I personally welcome not getting any subsidies, the sector can easily stand on its own, just when the virtue signalling shitty leaders puts up so many barriers, investments flee, TMX case in point…. Eeekkk!
I think the industry should absolutely stand on its own, and have the hitherto hidden costs of fossil fuels built into the price (i.e., externalities). For now, the industry is enormously subsidized, both directly and indirectly. Even leaving aside the enormous costs of climate-related disasters such as flooding, drought and increasing water scarcity, and pollution-related health impacts and premature deaths, fossil fuel operations cost society more than they bring in. Owners and shareholders are raking in massive amounts of money — but at what cost to the rest of us?

Why does this always evoke such a strong response from you? They say that it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Oh, and just from a quick google search I found this.

https://natural-resources.canada.ca/...of_Energy2.pdf

and this
Quote:
What is the range and scope of externalities associated with electricity supply, energy efficiency, and transport? What research methods and techniques of valuation does the community use to monetize these externalities? What policy implications arise in terms of better governing energy and mobility systems? To answer these questions, this study offers a comprehensive and global research synthesis of externalities for energy and mobility. It synthesizes data from 139 studies with 704 distinct estimates to examine the hidden social and environmental costs. The mean external cost for electricity supply is 7.15¢/kWh. When correlating this with the actual amount of electricity generated per year, the amount is $11.644 trillion. This likely exceeds both the reported revenues for electricity sales, oil and gas production as well as the levelized costs of energy. The mean external cost for mobility is 17.8¢/km. Using differentiated estimations of the externalities associated with aviation, road travel for passengers and freight, rail, and coastal water/marine modes of travel, transport’s global externalities amount to another $13.018 trillion. When combined, this $24.662 trillion in externalities for energy and transport is equivalent to 28.7% of global Gross Domestic Product. Energy efficiency or demand response by contrast has net positive externalities of approximately 7.8¢/kWh. When put into the context of global efficiency and demand management efforts, this approaches an annual positive value of $312 billion. The fundamental policy question is whether we want global markets that manipulate the presence of externalities to their advantage, or a policy regime that attempts to internalize them.
Quote:
Using the mean numbers from our meta-analysis and research synthesis, the external costs associated with the global energy system could be $11.644 trillion and the global externalities associated with transport could amount to another $13.018 trillion. If this extra $24.662 trillion (or 28.7% of global GDP)[138] were included in the price of energy or mobility, it would become clear not only that we need to fundamentally change our systems and markets, but that it would actually be profitable to do so. If the maximum estimates of $169.43‬ trillion are taken into consideration, they surpass the entire annual GDP of the world (estimated at about $85.931 trillion in 2018).

And let us not forget exactly who it is paying these external costs. Under the present energy and mobility system, it is paid by those who can least afford it: islanders in Kiribati and Tuvalu faced with losing their homes under the sea; farmers in Africa struggling with drought and salinization; miners dying of lung cancer; children struggling to breathe; communities forced to relocate because their soil and water is contaminated; taxpayers responsible for a stretched health care system that has to cope with the health impacts of polluted air and water; and government agencies (and taxpayers again) charged with cleaning up oil spills, mine tailings, fly ash spills, and nuclear meltdowns.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...14629620304606
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 7:15 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,749
Well that's an awfully big investment from Honda. I must admit I was scared when I first heard the potential of Honda opening an EV plant in Ontario and the whopping amount of subsidies they would demand like VW in St.Thomas & Stellantis in Windsor. Those 2 plants could cost taxpayers nearly $30 billion over the next 25 years if the US IFA stays in effect. This $5 billion split between Ottawa & QP seems a lot more reasonable.

It is interesting that it will be a total investment of 4 plants but only the 2 in Alliston were confirmed today. Apparently, odds are on that one of the plants will definitely be going to St.Clair Township {Sarnia} but the other one is a bit more up in the air. Some have suggested it could end up going to Oxford country just east of London.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 7:31 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,749
In regard to all these EV plants going up in Ontario and the naysayers who say they won't be needed as EV sales are falling, that is very shortsighted and proceeds from the false assumption that these plants will only supply 100% electric vehicles.

We collectively have this idea that all EVs are 100% electric a la Telsa but that is not the case. An EV is exactly that, a vehicle that can run on electricity but that does NOT mean it can only run on electricity. PHEV and hybrid cars are also electric just not 100%. Hence these battery/car manufacturing plants will not only be supplying batteries for pure EVs but also PHEVs and crucially hybrids which are soaring in demand as Toyota can attest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 10:06 PM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
I think the industry should absolutely stand on its own, and have the hitherto hidden costs of fossil fuels built into the price (i.e., externalities). For now, the industry is enormously subsidized, both directly and indirectly. Even leaving aside the enormous costs of climate-related disasters such as flooding, drought and increasing water scarcity, and pollution-related health impacts and premature deaths, fossil fuel operations cost society more than they bring in. Owners and shareholders are raking in massive amounts of money — but at what cost to the rest of us?

Why does this always evoke such a strong response from you? They say that it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Oh, and just from a quick google search I found this.

https://natural-resources.canada.ca/...of_Energy2.pdf

and this




https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...14629620304606
Why does it provoke such a strong response? Cause you baited me in to replying to nonesense that only looks at one side. Crickets, anyone?

I didn’t read in that original story a figure of how much revenue the industry produces for the government, so I thought I’d respond.

Anywhooo, thank your Liberal government for subsidizing TMX for $35 billion, even when the private sector wanted to pay!

What are externalities of green energy, environmental destruction sourcing valuable minerals for batteries, human cost for mining valuable minerals..

Oh, and a quick google search and I found this.

https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings...%20degradation.

Quote:
Mining of cobalt is linked to grave human rights abuses, including the exposure of miners to unsafe worksites and reliance on child and forced Congolese labor, as well as environmental degradation. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that at least 25,000 children are working in cobalt mines in the DRC.
Come on professor, I completely understand that the oil and gas industry generates more revenue for the government that it receives, no matter if I work in the industry. That’s why I responded with evidence… I completely understand that externalities exist as well, just like the other energy industries as well…. So please enlighten me, what is it you think I don’t understand?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 11:00 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,981
Quote:
Why does it provoke such a strong response? Cause you baited me in to replying to nonesense that only looks at one side. Crickets, anyone?
Nope. I most certainly did not bait you personally. I didn't even cast out the usual "bait" (as you call it), which would have been to merely type in the word "Pipelines", but I am through doing that.

It is not "my liberal government" as I am most certainly not a Trudeau supporter.

I am not getting involved in discussion with someone who relies on red herrings, false dichotomies and false equivalencies to make their point.

Your posts come across as someone apoplectic with rage.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 11:18 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,166
wood pellets are making the news here in BC

Demand for wood pellets fuelling B.C. forest loss, report claims
Forests Minister says source materials are actually sawmills, shavings, chips, forest residues
Lauren Collins
April 25, 2024


A new report claims a sharp increase in wood-pellet exports is fuelling the loss of primary forests in B.C., but Forests Minister Bruce Ralston says that is not the case.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a 40-page report Tuesday (April 23), which tracks the surge in B.C. wood-pellet exports. It says B.C.’s forests are in crisis after decades of “intense logging” that has “depleted and fragmented” the forest industry, and now the demand of wood pellets is adding to the loss of B.C.’s primary forests.

Authored by Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst and former journalist, it includes six policy reforms from “dramatically” increasing the protection of remaining and primary old-growth forests to zoning the province’s forests and existing plantations into three broad categories to requiring by law that all timber-processing – includin g wood-pellet mills – must submit annual reports.

In the report, Parfitt says that unless there are significant changes in forest policy, “the likelihood is that even more of the shrinking stock of primary forests in BC and Canada will be logged to supply bioenergy companies with wood pellets.”

However, Ralston told reporters Wednesday (April 24) that “forests are not being turned into pellets,” adding that the source material for making pellets is sawmills, shavings, chips and forest residues.

He said all of those materials, which are taken to the Drax mills and made into pellets, would otherwise be burned in slash piles that “releases a lot of carbon and it wastes a lot of valuable forest products.”

The report notes that B.C. produces more wood pellets than any other Canadian province, and production is “dominated” by U.K.-based company Drax, which owns the world’s single-largest wood-burning facility. Drax also owns, or partially owns, eight of B.C’s 12 pellet mills and is responsible for 80 per cent of the province’s exports.

B.C.’s wood-pellet exports are mainly driven by Japan and the U.K. which both burn millions of tonnes of pellets each year in thermal plants to generate electricity.

The report says B.C.’s trade in wood pellets has doubled in the past decade, led by massive increases to Japan following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The country switched to increase energy production from other sources, including thermal electricity plants that burn wood pellets after being faced with the loss of nuclear reactors that were damaged by the tsunami.

In the last decade, Japan has imported nearly 1.7 million tonnes of wood pellets, up from 61,700 tonnes in 2014, the report says.

But the report adds that in the same decade that Japan’s demand for wood pellets soared, logging rates in B.C. fell by 38 per cent – and are expected to decline further.

...

https://www.revelstokereview.com/new...claims-7349842
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2024, 12:02 AM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Nope. I most certainly did not bait you personally. I didn't even cast out the usual "bait" (as you call it), which would have been to merely type in the word "Pipelines", but I am through doing that.

It is not "my liberal government" as I am most certainly not a Trudeau supporter.

I am not getting involved in discussion with someone who relies on red herrings, false dichotomies and false equivalencies to make their point.

Your posts come across as someone apoplectic with rage.
K. Maybe “bait” was the wrong word. Perhaps “trolling” is a better one. The post which you originally responded to was about how much the O&G sector is subsidized, which was posted less than 24 hrs ago, and you responded to that post with this, and only this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Crickets from the usual loud crowd.

If you posted about pipelines that false or misleading information, yes, I would respond to help educate.

Sorry, I meant “your liberal government “ as in your government who are the liberals that formed government, in the same way they are my government, whether I am a supporter or not.

My intention wasn’t to rely on red herrings, false dichotomies, and false equivalencies, my point was that while yes it is not debatable there are externalities with the O&G sector, there are serious externalities with other sources of power within the energy sector.

I’m sorry that in your opinion my posts come across as “someone apoplectic with rage”, stating facts, counterpoints, and full on differing opinion. But god forbid, is that not what a forum is all about? In my opinion your posts come across as someone who is condescending and arrogant… but, I suppose that is a downfall with these types of forums, context can easily be lost.

Anyway, look forward to the gif or picture I hope you post as a response!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:05 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.