They also cut our media fund. Saw nenshi in a huff about it somewhere on the weekend.
I think we're not the same page about diversification. Obviously not on the environment though.
They also cut our media fund. Saw nenshi in a huff about it somewhere on the weekend.
I think we're not the same page about diversification. Obviously not on the environment though.
The more I read this stuff the more I think we need a beyond political party. I think we spend way more time trying to boil down to the right answer than most political parties do. We have enough diverse opinions that we don't suffer too much from group thought and contrary to what people might think with rage at the wheel to make final calls I think we would actually accomplish things.
Who's with me
Too much baggage with Beyond history. We can never go mainstream or the media will download Beyond.ca and go full on data mining.Originally posted by J-hop
The more I read this stuff the more I think we need a beyond political party. I think we spend way more time trying to boil down to the right answer than most political parties do. We have enough diverse opinions that we don't suffer too much from group thought and contrary to what people might think with rage at the wheel to make final calls I think we would actually accomplish things.
Who's with me
There is a reason some Beyond member(s) is purging their post history.
I have to say, other than a few members we are really matching the political spectrum of the old PC party. Fiscal conservative, social liberal. Kenny will get my vote if he can purge WR and PC of bigots.
Last edited by Xtrema; 03-20-2017 at 07:38 PM.
Yea no kidding, global news would have a field day with beyond archives. We would create media jobs like crazy.Originally posted by Xtrema
Too much baggage with Beyond history. We can never go mainstream of the media download Beyond.ca and go full on data mining.
There is a reason some Beyond member(s) is purging their post history.
I have to say, other than a few members we are really matching the political spectrum of the old PC party. Fiscal conservative, social liberal. Kenny will get my vote if he can purge WR and PC of bigots.
Yes, I feel like AB should have spent the $1.3B to shutter coal plants early. If your goal is to reduce CO2 by shuttering plants, you can't just close them and provide no compensation. If you did that, the climate for investing in AB would be decimated-the assets would essentially be nationalized without compensation.Originally posted by dirtsniffer
What should Alberta be doing to 'plan for the environment?' do you feel that we should have spent $1.3 billion to shutter coal plants early? NDP electricity 'reform' to cost Albertan's $6 Billion in the next 13 years.
It will no doubt be expensive, and I would like to see incentives or tax breaks for companies that invest in renewable, rather than simply paying out companies to provide renewable energy. However, I don't understand the economics well enough to make an argument either way.
I had the opportunity to visit a coal and a natural gas plant last summer as I work for a company that owns the assets. The natural gas plant was incredibly more efficient, cleaner, and required less maintenance. Being on the roof of the coal plant and watching the smokestack spew into the atmosphere was quite eye opening.
Originally posted by 89coupe
I do get great service there, especially when I mention my name, haha.
The 6 coal plants they closing early are quite high tech. That's why they were permitted to operate until their design life. I haven't looked into it recently but it's basically pis sing away money. Nevermind the PPA's.
Genesee, sheerness and keephills3.
Keephills3 was commissioned in 2011
http://www.transalta.com/facilities/...n/keephills-3/
Really sounds like a waste of money and mostly posturing and grandstanding to close this down. Outside that it is only Genesee and sheerness.
Total waste.
Last edited by dirtsniffer; 03-20-2017 at 08:35 PM.
Originally posted by Canmorite
Yes, I feel like AB should have spent the $1.3B to shutter coal plants early. If your goal is to reduce CO2 by shuttering plants, you can't just close them and provide no compensation. If you did that, the climate for investing in AB would be decimated-the assets would essentially be nationalized without compensation.
It will no doubt be expensive, and I would like to see incentives or tax breaks for companies that invest in renewable, rather than simply paying out companies to provide renewable energy. However, I don't understand the economics well enough to make an argument either way.
I had the opportunity to visit a coal and a natural gas plant last summer as I work for a company that owns the assets. The natural gas plant was incredibly more efficient, cleaner, and required less maintenance. Being on the roof of the coal plant and watching the smokestack spew into the atmosphere was quite eye opening.
Why do we have to reduce our CO2 emissions? Especially since the largest producers of CO2 are now not interested or required to reduce their emissions? Nothing like being a martyr I guess.......
And in a Kenney vs Jean contest I pick Jean......he has more integrity and comes across as a regular guy - not a politician.
I was going to vote wildrose.
I will never vote for any party mr. Temporary foreign worker, no education, islamophibe is a part of.
Now looms like centre thinking conservatives are looking to form a new party. Apparently manning has been talking to Alberta party.
I'd run for leader, but I think my stance would be too radical.
Edit: I'd buy one nuke from the USA and point it at the Kremlin, I'd also buy one nuke from France and point it at New York. The 45 foot wall would be optional, but a chain link fence would definitely be a good idea.
Ask the Queen for 640 acres for every born citizen 16 years or older male and female, free of charge - no land taxes for the first fifteen years. And a hard ban on California refugees.
I'd also push for the complete automation of farming on half the current farming lots. Heaven knows that grain farming is mostly just a guy making sure the machine is working and the GPS is inputting correct coordinates anyways. I would increase farming efficiency by reducing the number of humans and increasing the artificial computer brains to run it all. $100 per ton of wheat would be a target goal, with no humans actually farming it.
Electric cars running on 60% efficiency natural gas power plants, and reduce car repair shops by about 2/3rds.
While my stance on military would be considered very right, some would consider my stance of farming very left.
And I'd also throw Rob Anders in Jail. That's the way I would do it.
Last edited by ZenOps; 03-21-2017 at 04:28 AM.
Kenney's severely normal Albertan's quote is scary. Code for homophobic.
His belief that education brainwashes kids to unconservative values should scare anyone that believes in education.
His aims that God is supreme to our government and laws is scary, which he uses to support his anti abortion and anti right to die stance.
His belief that Canada's professors are Marxist, and working to suppress Christianity. Scary
He is unfit to rule an ant hill.
Last edited by Gestalt; 03-21-2017 at 11:27 AM.
I'm starting from the point that CO2 is a problem and that climate change is a major issue (A car guy who believes CO2 is an issue, I know, I get the irony). I believe the Paris agreement set out to do just that-include every major polluter nation in a CO2 reduction agreement. If everyone has to participate, everyone will bear the cost. Now that the US is apparently on the fringe, the deal looks rocky going forward.Originally posted by soloracer
Why do we have to reduce our CO2 emissions? Especially since the largest producers of CO2 are now not interested or required to reduce their emissions? Nothing like being a martyr I guess.......
However, I agree that if we take major punitive steps and no one else does anything, we will be worse off financially. That's why a world wide agreement is key.
Last edited by Canmorite; 03-21-2017 at 11:21 AM.
Originally posted by 89coupe
I do get great service there, especially when I mention my name, haha.
Are you on another fucking planet?Originally posted by Canmorite
I believe the Paris agreement set out to do just that-include every major polluter nation in a CO2 reduction agreement. If everyone has to participate, everyone will bear the cost. Now that the US is apparently on the fringe, the deal looks rocky going forward.
Nobody has ever willingly followed the Paris agreement, and "now that the US is apparently on the fringe"? Everyone has been on the fringe since the moment it was signed! At the end of the day, the USA and China are all that matters in this, everyone else pales in comparison IF it actually mattered.
It's all lip service. Regardless of your stance on politics or leanings, there is no argument on that, all governments have been jerking their citizens off while not actually doing anything. Do you honestly not see that? And somehow tie it to all Trump's doing??
Seriously
Sheesh. You're still not getting it.Originally posted by Canmorite
I'm starting from the point that CO2 is a problem and that climate change is a major issue
ALL pollution is a problem, and Canada is low on the contributor list. As Hi pointed out, it's the US and China.
We don't have a problem to fix, and again, we don't need our tax money going to ideological bullshit green subsidies. The money will be mismanaged, squandered, and will go in the toilet.
Besides, all over the world, corporations, universities, and private research companies, are already spending billions to develop viable alternative energy.
Last edited by Seth1968; 03-21-2017 at 02:33 PM.
Christ, stop with the condescending responses. You want to have an actual discussion or do you want to start with "Sheesh, you just dont' get it." This only serves to stifle discussion. Same with Hitempguy.Originally posted by Seth1968
Sheesh. You're still not getting it.
ALL pollution is a problem, and Canada is low on the contributor list. As Hi pointed out, it's the US and China.
We don't have a problem to fix, and again, we don't need our tax money going to ideological bullshit green subsidies. The money will be mismanaged, squandered, and will go in the toilet.
Besides, all over the world, corporations, universities, and private research companies, are are already spending billions to to develop viable alternative energy.
True, all pollution is a problem. So your argument is because we are a low contributor, we don't have to do anything? That's not going to fly. Like I said, everyone has to participate or an agreement is meaningless.
Well, I disagree. I believe there is a problem to fix and I'm not about to stick my head in the sand. Governments have subsidized many industries in the past to kick-start them, I see no issue with doing the same thing here.
They are spending billions, which is great, but they will likely still need the public policy to help shape the future of the industry. Getting government involved is important.
Last edited by Canmorite; 03-21-2017 at 01:35 PM.
Originally posted by 89coupe
I do get great service there, especially when I mention my name, haha.
I think everyone should really investigate the electricity industry in Ontario before making up their mind on how we should promote Greene energy in Alberta.
Its not like promotion will cost a crazy amount.Originally posted by dirtsniffer
I think everyone should really investigate the electricity industry in Ontario before making up their mind on how we should promote Greene energy in Alberta.
Even the US is only projecting a maximum 2% growth in solar and wind over a period of 15 years (realistically more like a penny on the dollar to alternate energy)
Not just that, they are predicting that with improvements in efficiency technology, they might actually need less pure energy in total at the end of 15 years even with population growth. First time in history the US will probably consume less energy in total, also the first time in history they expect US lifespan to shorten.
The US used the equivalent of 98.8 Quadrillion BTU's in year 2000, they expect to use 98.8 Quadrillion BTU's in year 2030.
Peak consumption? not just for oil.
Last edited by ZenOps; 03-21-2017 at 05:02 PM.
Even though I am not a NDP supporter, I am still not buying what the right is selling in this province. There's a reason there is two parties on the right and that's because they can't get along one of Harper's top goons isn't going to change that fact. There's a reason we kicked these clowns to the curb in the first place as they are only out for them selves it's just to bad the NDP was our only choice because they are pro big government and were never going to clean out the house the PC"s built.
I wonder if the Alberta party can get the numbers to run a full set of candidates as they seem to have the best plan out of everybody.
The PCs were corrupted by socialists. Easy to see when Jansen flipped as easy as she did. WR was previously the only fiscally conservative party. Sounds like thevery pcs have come around and it makes sense for them to merge. Hopefully under the wr banner with Jean leading the way.
What's the most seats the alberta party hasupplies won? One? Big stretch to think they could form government.
But what choice to moderate conservatives have to get away from Kenney band of crazies?Originally posted by dirtsniffer
The PCs were corrupted by socialists. Easy to see when Jansen flipped as easy as she did. WR was previously the only fiscally conservative party. Sounds like thevery pcs have come around and it makes sense for them to merge. Hopefully under the wr banner with Jean leading the way.
What's the most seats the alberta party hasupplies won? One? Big stretch to think they could form government.
Manning is already talking to the Alberta party, and many normal conservatives are already talking about forming a new party.
This is not going to go well for Kenney.
The wildrose will not join the pc's with that guy as leader.
The wildrose isn't joining the PCs.
The two parties could merge. The new party name and leader will be selected by party members.