Wish him the best. Went to his rallies. Agree on a lot, disagree on a few issues. Overall my favourite in the leadership race.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
14 points (100.0% liked)
CanadaPolitics
3212 readers
5 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
"If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist." ~Ed Koch
The party hes running for helped bring in 4% annual population growth to devastate wages for the middle class and eliminate any wage pressure we had, which is the backbone to unionization. Obviously also dramatically raising the price of rent and housing.
Canadian oil has also lowered emissions by displacing coal in the US, and ending oil production would simply make us poorer as China continues to open new coal plants, nothing positive would occur if we did end production.
I'll bet you real money that China (PRC) will reach peak coal by 2030. I'm not sure of a platform were bets can be made anonymously.
Oil is lower emissions than coal. You know what's cleaner than oil? Natural gas. Is the US a net importer or exporter of nat gas? US is a net exporter. Even you still think fossil fuels is the future, which is not true but you think it is, oil is not the best option for electricity generation, that would be natural gas. Furthermore nat gas is accessed as a result of fracking which the US is doing a lot more of now.
See the chart from the US Energy Information Administration: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#%2Ftopic%2F0%3Fagg=2%2C0%2C1&fuel=vvg&geo=g&sec=8&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.COW-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.NG-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.NUC-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.HYC-US-1.M&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.COW-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.NG-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.NUC-US-1.M%7EELEC.GEN.HYC-US-1.M&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-1.M&freq=M&start=200101&end=202512&chartindexed=0&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=
It is nat gas that replaced coal for electricity generation, not Canadian oil.
You want people to use oil because we have oil. If we had nat gas as the largest source of trapped energy, you'd want people to use nat gas. We have a lot of uranium, but uranium can be turned into bombs. If uranium could not turn into bombs, then you'd want people to buy uranium. You do not care at all of the positives or the negatives of different electricity generation. You want to have free money in a free bank account for you to spend freely however you want. You desire something that was given by chance to be turned in to free money to buy things. The only way to do that is to make other people pay money for something given to us by chance.
China is smart, they don't have oil or nat gas. What they have is coal so they use as much coal as they can to be self-sufficient. Instead of relying on bank accounts of energy, they are focused on turning electricity generation into a technology of energy harvesting (i.e. renewables). From free money bank account into actual real productive capital. Your type of thinking leads to increasing immigration to increase fake economic numbers on paper. China's way of thinking is productive and transformative. If you like free money (found in the ground), then you definitely like free GDP numbers (infinite immigration). If you think in China's way of thinking you'd be thinking in systems and per capital GDP.
Honestly, Canada needs less of you and more of China's thinking. Less free money, and more hard work.
My point is nothing occurs from cutting off oil production, someone else will supply the worlds continuously growing energy demand. We simply make ourselves poorer.
The "free money" funds our social safety net, provides jobs, and helps achieve our standard of living. Mass immigration lowers per capita GDP and is a strain on the social safety net, which lowers living standards and mainly hurts the poor, as we have seen the last few years.
The “free money” funds our social safety net
Then make the social safety net not dependent on free money. Other countries of social safety nets. Besides that, the free money will run out so it's best to be proactive and fund the social safety net on something else other than free money.
My point is nothing occurs from cutting off oil production, someone else will supply the worlds continuously growing energy demand.
This point really showcases you do not care about energy production nor emissions nor the environment. You think either I get free money or someone else gets free money. When I get free money it is good, when someone else gets free money it's bad.
You do know we have the worlds second largest uranium exporter? (link: https://web.archive.org/web/20181226012424/http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx) We created CANDU (Canada can do nuclear power without enriched uranium).
You know what will supply the world's continuously growing energy demand? It is renewables without a doubt. It could have been nuclear (with our only real competitor being Kazakhstan, a middle power) but noooo, people like you had to stand in the way.
We simply make ourselves poorer.
Again do better than relying on free money. Innovate and productive instead of relying on free money from inside the ground (oil and gas) or on top of it (real estate which takes up almost 20% of the economy).
The “free money” funds our ..., provides jobs, and helps achieve our standard of living.
Your solution is to make China poorer by tricking them into buying our oil and gas thereby giving us free money to by Chinese made products. Good job on the economy there bud. Very self sufficient and elbows up indeed.
Mass immigration lowers per capita GDP and is a strain on the social safety net, which lowers living standards and mainly hurts the poor, as we have seen the last few years.
When I get free money it's good. When someone else (immigrants) get free money it's bad. You also don't care about the poor. You just want the free money (found in the ground) to be divided between fewer people that's all. Division by a smaller number equals more for you.
I'm not against nuclear, it's usually people like yourself the climate zealots that are. Hence Germany's green party closing 30gw of nuclear power to instead buy coal produced solar panels from China.
I choose not to thrust ourselves into poverty when there's a near zero chance nuclear can replace it due to government bureaucracy. Somehow France did it in the 60s but now its one of the most expensive energy sources with the most NIMBY opposition.
coal produced solar panels
There is nothing in the laws of physics (our current understanding of it at least) that prevents solar panels from being produced by other energy sources, including solar power.
Solar panels are themselves just glass, aluminum, and silicon.
If you can find a physics equation that shows you can only build solar panels using coal, you'd win a Noble Prize in Physics. It would be an honour to be the first person in the world to see your work on this absolute truth.
What you actually care about is this:
solar panels from China.
I am glad more countries are giving their money to China being productive as opposed to giving you a free money cheque, while you disingenuously use "the poor" as a shield to gather sympathy domestically and abroad.
If you cannot live your life without a free money cheque, have fun staying poor.
Well they require rare earths, of which China refines most of it due to its energy intensity. Most other countries dont want that amount of smog, whereas China is communist so can generate 60% of its energy from coal. This is why China produces the large majority of solar panels and wind turbines.
You sound like you know nothing about energy generation, but you seem to fancy yourself an expert.
Maybe sometimes, there are people who actually know what they are talking about? I am actually in electrical engineering. I didn't go the energy route, went with electronics/tech sector instead because there are more diverse employment opportunities.
And you? Nothing but a oil chugger I suppose.
they require rare earths
This is patently false. Current battery technologies require rare earths. That's where rare earths enter the chain. There are cutting edge battery chemistries that cut out rare earth and conflict minerals. Time will tell their viability.
Rich coming from a person who says:
You sound like you know nothing about energy generation, you seem to fancy yourself an expert.
I can quite easily prove you are who knows nothing about energy generation. All modern energy generation needs rare earths. Oil and gas itself does not produce electricity like magic. You need to move a rotor within a stator to produce an A/C current. The rotor has magnets. All high performing magnets require rare earths.
See vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jm5RVHLlcQ
I've gone through sooo many classes in this when I was in uni. I have forgotten more than you will ever care to know.
You know nothing of electromagnetism and the interplay between electricity and magnetism.
Solar panels rely on the photovoltaic effect and so produce electricity without needing magnet-containing rotors.
China is communist so can generate 60% of its energy from coal.
Then tell Alberta that they live under communism with how much coal they use: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-alberta.html
22% now, 50% in 2005.
Cope harder.
Why do I argue with people like you? I feel like the guy from Don't Look Up.
You like China because because they (currently) use fossil fuels. I like China because they are productive, innovative, lead by an engineer, and silence people like you.
Sorry its things like copper as well, I really meant all metal refining. Batteries are also required for wind and solar to be useful, without that you've got intermittent power that causes grid failure.
Nuclear is the only useful renewable at any kind of scale that isn't entirely dependent on China.
Sorry its things like copper as well, I really meant all metal refining.
I hope you are campaigning to remove the entire grid because "copper" and "all metal refining" is "Communist". Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.
Batteries are also required for wind and solar to be useful, without that you’ve got intermittent power that causes grid failure.
No, they are not required. For the batteries we do need, there's research into other battery chemistries.
You can also produce hydrogen from renewables or better yet pumped hydro for electricity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jx_bJgIFhI
Nuclear is the only useful renewable at any kind of scale that isn’t entirely dependent on China.
So obviously not true. You forgot hydro and geothermal. Majority of electricity in Ontario is Nuclear. Majority of electricity in Quebec, B.C., Manitoba, and Newfoundland is hydro. Majority of electricity in Iceland is geothermal.
You're so obviously wrong and biased.
You'd have more respect if you just said "I want free money, wah". What a fucking looser.