[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Savonarola]

Reason #532764 for continued Quebec separatism sentiment:

The Liberal party of Canada rolled out their campaign song, in French and English. The French is gibberish. You can tell some intern just plugged it in google translate or something similar.

For the few of you that speak:
« [On lève] une main haute/Pour tout main/ [On lève] une main haute/Osé toi/ »

So the Liberal Campaign song is "The Hokey-Pokey?"

[crazy canuck]

Doesn't Trudeau speak French? Maybe he should have glanced at it for a second.

His mother tongue is clearly English, and he often sounds like Google translate himself. I doubt he would have picked it up. He never was very eloquent in French: his spontaneity is all in English.

Really? Huh. I guess I just presumed his first language was French.

It is something I wondered about when I heard the press conference right after came out of the GG's residence.  He was asked questions in English about SNC which he handled with a scripted answer and then he was about to move on to the next question when he was asked to repeat his answer in French.  At first I thought the translator was doing a poor job.  But then as he was asked to repeat each of his subsequent answers in French I wondered whether the problem might be at the source. 

[crazy canuck]

Reason #532764 for continued Quebec separatism sentiment:

The Liberal party of Canada rolled out their campaign song, in French and English. The French is gibberish. You can tell some intern just plugged it in google translate or something similar.

For the few of you that speak:
« [On lève] une main haute/Pour tout main/ [On lève] une main haute/Osé toi/ »

So the Liberal Campaign song is "The Hokey-Pokey?"

That's what it's all about

[Malthus]

So, here's the Green Party's climate plan:

If Greens are elected in sufficient numbers to either form government or exert significant influence in a minority parliament, Green MPs will:

1. Declare a Climate Emergency
Accept, at every level of government, that climate is not an environmental issue. It is the gravest security threat the world has ever seen.

2. Establish an inner cabinet of all parties
Modelled on the war cabinets of Mackenzie King and Winston Churchill, parties will work together to ensure that climate is no longer treated like a political football. It requires all hands on deck.

3. Set stringent new targets
Establish our new target and file it as Canada's Nationally Determined Contribution with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: 60 per cent GHG reductions against 2005 levels by 2030; zero emissions by 2050.

4. Assume leadership
Attend the next climate negotiation in Chile this year and press other countries to also double their efforts.

5. Respect evidence
Restore funding of climate research within the Government of Canada and in the network of universities that received financial support before 2011.

6. Maintain carbon pricing
Revenue neutrality will be achieved through carbon fee and dividend and we will eliminate all subsidies to fossil fuels.

7. Ban fracking
No exceptions. It destroys ecosystems, contaminates ground and surface water, endangers our health and it's a major source of GHGs.

8. Green the grid
By 2030, remove all fossil fuel generation from our national east-west electricity grid.

9. And modernize the grid
By 2030, rebuild and revamp the east-west electricity grid to ensure that renewable energy can be transmitted from one province to another.

10. Plug in to EVs
By 2030 ensure all new cars are electric. By 2040, replace all internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles, working with car makers to develop EVs that can replace working vehicles for Canadians in rural areas. Build a cross-country electric vehicle charging system so that drivers can cruise from St. John's, NL to Prince Rupert, B.C. – with seamless ease.

11. Get Canada back on track
Modernize VIA Rail, expand service and ensure trans-modal connections across Canada to light rail and electric buses, so that no one in rural and remote areas of Canada lacks efficient, affordable and safe public transit.

12. Complete a national building retrofit
Create millions of new, well-paying jobs in the trades by retrofitting every building in Canada – residential, commercial, and institutional – to be carbon neutral by 2030.

13. Turn off the tap to oil imports
End all imports of foreign oil. As fossil fuel use declines, use only Canadian fossil fuels and allow investment in upgraders to turn Canadian solid bitumen into gas, diesel, propane and other products for the Canadian market, providing jobs in Alberta. By 2050, shift all Canadian bitumen from fuel to feedstock for the petrochemical industry.

14. Switch to bio-diesel
Promote the development of local, small scale bio-diesel production, primarily relying on used vegetable fat from restaurants. Mandate the switch to bio-diesel for agricultural, fishing and forestry equipment.

15. Create new partnerships for renewables
Form partnerships with Indigenous peoples, providing economic opportunities by ramping up renewables on their lands. Harness abandoned deep oil wells, wherever feasible, for geothermal energy, using workers who drilled the wells to manage the renewable energy generation.

16. Call for all hands on deck
Engage every municipality and community organization, as well as every school and university to step up and plant trees, install solar panels, heat pumps, assist in retrofitting buildings to maximize energy efficiency.

17. Prioritize adaptation
Invest significant resources in adaptation measures to protect Canadian resource sectors such as agriculture, fishing and forestry from the ravages of climate change. Review all infrastructure investments for adaptation to climate change. Map flood plains, tornado corridors and other areas of natural vulnerability and adjust land use plans accordingly.

18. Change planes
Cancel the purchase of F35s and buy more water bombers to protect communities from forest fires. Cut standing dead timber to establish fire breaks and save lives.

19. Curtail the "other" GHG sources
Address the fossil fuel use that falls outside the Paris Agreement – emissions from international shipping, aviation and the military.

20. Restore carbon sinks
Launch a global effort to restore carbon sinks, focusing on replanting forests and restoring the planet's mangrove forests as quickly as possible.

Sigh.

The first five items - fully a quarter of the entire plan, is pure "virtue signalling".  None of it actually does anything to reduce GHGs.  And by the way, is there anyone who seriously believes we can go to zero emissions?  There's still agriculture, industrial petrochemical use, air travel...

Item six is actually just maintaining the status quo.

7 - ban fracking.  Again this is pure virtue signalling.  Regulation of natural resources are within the jurisdiction of the provinces.  And in any event, I'm unaware of any way in which fracking produces any more GHGs than conventional production.

8 & 9 - "green the grid".  Move to 100% non-fossil fuel electrical generation.  Now this is an area we can do a lot more of, but within 10 years?  That's ludicrous.  Canada is blessed with lots of hydro power, and there might be some more room for expansion there (along with a national grid), but those projects take over a decade to complete.  Solar and wind can and will expand, but there's the issue of having a stable baseline.

10 electric vehicles.  Again great (if we move to carbon-free electricity - right now there's no environmental point to buiying an EV in Alberta), but within 10 years?  The lifespan of most vehicles is in excess of 10 years.

11 modernize VIA.  Umm isn't VIA still using diesel engines?  Another one where good idea, but suddenly having a national railway grid is wildly expensive.

12 retrofitting every building in Canada in 10 years.  That's just fantasy.

13 End foreign oil.  This is an interesting one.  It's the one time where they acknowledge we will be using oil for awhile, including in the petrochemical industry.  But does this mean the Green's support something like Energy East, to get Alberta oil to eastern Canada by pipeline?

14 bio-diesel.  Bio-diesel has just as much GHGs as regular diesel.

And I'm losing steam here, but the remaining points lack a ton of detail as well.

This just doesn't seem like a serious policy document to me.

I certainly don't agree with all of their points, but I disagree that first few is merely "virtue signalling". Compared with the US "Green New Deal", this is at least squarely focused on the environment and doesn't use it as a proxy to introduce a bunch of unrelated social issues.

We do need to take the issue seriously and treat it as a real emergency. They aren't wrong about that.

I do think they aren't being realistic in some of their points, in terms of achievable targets; also, that some of their goals are misguided.

[Barrister]

I disagree with much of what you have said.  But I will pick on one easy one for now. Point number 5 is not virtue signaling - it provides funding to research where it is most needed - You may have simply skimmed over the headings without actually reading the substance of what is proposed.  Here it is: "Restore funding of climate research within the Government of Canada and in the network of universities that received financial support before 2011"

I'll grant you that one point.  I think I may have just skimmed the headline.

I stand by 1 through 4 being virtue signalling.  "Declare an emergency"  - so what?  Establishing a unity war cabinet is never going to happen.  The opposition parties are not going to go along with that, in particular because fighting climate change is going to take a generation of work, not just one electoral mandate.  Set new targets - how about we try and meet the targets we've already set?  And as mentioned a target of zero is impossible at this time.  And pushing others to do more sounds good but will have no tangible benefits or results.

[crazy canuck]

I disagree with much of what you have said.  But I will pick on one easy one for now. Point number 5 is not virtue signaling - it provides funding to research where it is most needed - You may have simply skimmed over the headings without actually reading the substance of what is proposed.  Here it is: "Restore funding of climate research within the Government of Canada and in the network of universities that received financial support before 2011"

I'll grant you that one point.  I think I may have just skimmed the headline.

I stand by 1 through 4 being virtue signalling.  "Declare an emergency"  - so what?  Establishing a unity war cabinet is never going to happen.  The opposition parties are not going to go along with that, in particular because fighting climate change is going to take a generation of work, not just one electoral mandate.  Set new targets - how about we try and meet the targets we've already set?  And as mentioned a target of zero is impossible at this time.  And pushing others to do more sounds good but will have no tangible benefits or results.

I recommend you read the IPCC report, the Greens are essentially taking what the IPCC recommended needed to be done to avoid warming over 1.5 and put that into their platform.  If you are OK with going over 1.5 then yes this is unobtainable and misguided.  If you are serious about avoid warming over 1.5 it is critical.

[Barrister]

I disagree with much of what you have said.  But I will pick on one easy one for now. Point number 5 is not virtue signaling - it provides funding to research where it is most needed - You may have simply skimmed over the headings without actually reading the substance of what is proposed.  Here it is: "Restore funding of climate research within the Government of Canada and in the network of universities that received financial support before 2011"

I'll grant you that one point.  I think I may have just skimmed the headline.

I stand by 1 through 4 being virtue signalling.  "Declare an emergency"  - so what?  Establishing a unity war cabinet is never going to happen.  The opposition parties are not going to go along with that, in particular because fighting climate change is going to take a generation of work, not just one electoral mandate.  Set new targets - how about we try and meet the targets we've already set?  And as mentioned a target of zero is impossible at this time.  And pushing others to do more sounds good but will have no tangible benefits or results.

I recommend you read the IPCC report, the Greens are essentially taking what the IPCC recommended needed to be done to avoid warming over 1.5 and put that into their platform.  If you are OK with going over 1.5 then yes this is unobtainable and misguided.  If you are serious about avoid warming over 1.5 it is critical.

I'm not quite sure how this is a response to my comment.

Yes, we need to make serious reductions.  My complaint is that many of these 20 points don't actually address reducing GHGs at all - that they are just things that sound good without actually doing anything (aka "virtue signalling").  I accept we need to take serious action now.

My understanding though is that no one is seriously talking about zeroing out GHG emission.

[crazy canuck]

I disagree with much of what you have said.  But I will pick on one easy one for now. Point number 5 is not virtue signaling - it provides funding to research where it is most needed - You may have simply skimmed over the headings without actually reading the substance of what is proposed.  Here it is: "Restore funding of climate research within the Government of Canada and in the network of universities that received financial support before 2011"

I'll grant you that one point.  I think I may have just skimmed the headline.

I stand by 1 through 4 being virtue signalling.  "Declare an emergency"  - so what?  Establishing a unity war cabinet is never going to happen.  The opposition parties are not going to go along with that, in particular because fighting climate change is going to take a generation of work, not just one electoral mandate.  Set new targets - how about we try and meet the targets we've already set?  And as mentioned a target of zero is impossible at this time.  And pushing others to do more sounds good but will have no tangible benefits or results.

I recommend you read the IPCC report, the Greens are essentially taking what the IPCC recommended needed to be done to avoid warming over 1.5 and put that into their platform.  If you are OK with going over 1.5 then yes this is unobtainable and misguided.  If you are serious about avoid warming over 1.5 it is critical.

I'm not quite sure how this is a response to my comment.

Yes, we need to make serious reductions.  My complaint is that many of these 20 points don't actually address reducing GHGs at all - that they are just things that sound good without actually doing anything (aka "virtue signalling").  I accept we need to take serious action now.

My understanding though is that no one is seriously talking about zeroing out GHG emission.

Rather than just reading the bullets points, read the actual policy platform in detail and then compare that with the IPCC, they may be accused of plagiarism in another venue 

They are talking about doing concrete things.  But you are going to have to read further than you have.

[Grey Fox]

On JT's French, his mother was anglo & PET was mostly an absentee father.

JT has often mentioned that he finds the sentence construction structure of french harder to improvise than English.

[viper37]

A well designed carbon tax would be revenue neutral - that returns money back to consumers.

So yes, gas prices will, say double: but here's your $100/month check.  So now you do have a much bigger incentive to take the bus, make your house energy efficient, whatever.  Because even as you reduce your carbon output - you still keep the $100/month.

Yeah, when Jason Kenney dropped Alberta's carbon tax, price of gas dropped by 5-10cents/litre.  Which was nice, but that's not going to influence behaviour one way or another.

What is of interest to me is, how well it works toward reducing GHGs?

Here is a simplistic graph, by province, showing 3 reference years, 1990, 2005, 2017.
Link

The energy producing provinces have increased their GHG emissions, tax or not tax.
Quebec and BC had some form of carbon tax (we have a "green fund tax" of 0,03$/L + a price on carbon), Quebec and Ontario were part of the carbon market with California.

Quebec and Ontario saw moderate decrease of their GHGs, BC remained stable, AB went through the roof.

I still remain dubious of the claim it will magically reduce GHGs by itself, as the Liberals are proposing.  As for the "revenue neutral" claim, yeah right.  I've heard that before, for so many things...

Nope, not gonna trust a Liberal, especially a Trudeau.

I'm definately voting PCC, despite the environmental weakness.  And I want to see Maxime Bernier finish last in his own riding.
Might be even funnier if he elected a candidate in AB but lost himself...  Just to lose again in the next election and see his party crumble.

[Grey Fox]

Why you voting with the Forced Birth racist people, Viper?

[viper37]

Is it effective?

Yes.

[viper37]

I'm not sure, on average that they are - rather that it's just the more vocal / activist ones tend to be more left wing.

In general, it is not advisable for a non leftwing professor to push his views publically, outside of an economics or business administration faculty.

[viper37]

Why you voting with the Forced Birth racist people, Viper?

I am not.  I will be voting for the Conservative Party of Canada, or technically, my current MP and former mayor of the great city of La Pocatière.

As Malthus said, it is not an issue of the party, it's been made clear by the party multiple times and while Scheer is even more religious than Harper, he's not insane, he's in there for the love of politics, and that means letting people express themselves, but ultimately not let them go through with more radical ideas.

Besides, the Conservatives rules in the not so distant past, even as a majority government.  Did women rights in Canada regress in any ways?

[viper37]

Problem with the Liberals is that they seem to have leaped straight into corruption with the Lavalin affair, dropped the ball on election reform, made a hash of the Native affairs brief, etc.

Now, be careful.  People might think you are a racist for not supporting the Liberal Party, and judging them by their history is, well, how should I put it?  I lack the words.  But I'm sure CC and Jacob would remember what they said 4 years ago about people refusing to vote for the LPC or the NDP.