,,, Carney’s MOU with Alberta calls for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), purportedly to ameliorate environmental damage. But this is still a very costly, unproven technology. In Saskatchewan it has only achieved 60 per cent efficiency

Ccs is a scam. Cheaper energy than coal can be achieved 10 months of the year, in canada, with coal plant as backup. Much lower emissions than 60% capture, and bigger negative of ccs is that it costs 10$ per watt. Ballpark of nuclear plants. Solar + batteries is $1 per watt.

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 5 points 23 hours ago

Yeah, carbon capture doesn't math. I think the saying is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The only reason why it is promoted is because the fossil fuel cartels push it as it moves the blame and focus from them to someone else's problem. Then a bunch of garbage "carbon credit" companies start up and make a lot of noise while doing basically nothing. All the while they can keep pushing for fossil fuel projects because "it's fine, carbon capture will solve it".

[–] Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I wish red & blue would just fuse their parties at this point. Only difference left between LPC & CPC at this point is that the CPC is filled with nazis, the differences end there really. Hopefully we get an orange surge wave next election and then eventually, flush capitalism down the toilet.

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Stirring up nationalist sentiments with the idea of an outside threat to make yourself the national champion and having a populace rally behind you with their political support as they huddle under the flag is incredibly powerful in electoral politics, but politics for the public and politics behind closed doors with powerful stakeholders are never the same.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

with the idea of an outside threat to make yourself the national champion

That threat isn't one of Carney's (or even Trudeau's) making.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 21 hours ago

A threat so menacing that our government is actively taking steps to integrate defence systems more deeply and hand resource extraction rights to them

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Carney is a man who somehow, and I will never know how, convinced NDP voters the voting for an ex banker capitalist whose job it was to renovict people and hide the wealth of the 1% from taxation in Canada was the absolute best choice for progressives and left-wing voters to rally behind

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Because literally the Conservative candidate was dramatically worse on progressive policies and there was only the slimmest chance of avoiding that fate. Until we reform voting the whole song and dance of strategic voting will favour the traditional tradeoffs of these two parties. Without vote reform we're more or less doomed to be the frog that boils slow.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

In what way was the candidate dramatically works on Progressive policies? Jimmy would have fired government workers? Do you mean he would have built more Pipelines and pumped more oil? Or is it that you are worried that he wouldn't have attacked freedom of speech quite as aggressively as the liberals have with their online bills?

There was no threat to Progressive policies with Poilievre. Or at least none that are not threatened already. And the simple fact of the matter is that the more the carney runs our economy and debt into the dirt, the more that Progressive people and poor people will suffer when eventually that has to be corrected and we can't borrow any more money. You may be too young to remember how badly people suffered for the first Trudeau's overspending when that had to be corrected, this time it's going to be in order of magnitude worse and that date will come

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Poilievere ran with a cabinet that had constant issues of candidates calling out support for MAGA-like policies and conduct across the board. He threatened jail time for political rivals, had issues with various perspective MPs talking about their personal stances on repealing abortion protections or saying things regarding indigenous affairs that were racist or in denial of a well documented genocide. He made clear his position as anti-trans which many queer people rightly see as being simply the first domino to fall in the repeal of queer and a whole host of women's rights.

His economic policies were very much out loud every thing that Carney is up to now and perhaps you forgot that. Carney was in effect a traditional conservative politician with a liberal coat of paint. He wasn't talking about vote reform or taxation policies on billionaires. The kind of person you run when you want to shore up Conservative style financial values while basically not actively threatening civil rights issues like your opponents do. He was a traditional Conservative wet dream of basically everything a Whig government wants without the culture war bullshit If you think progressives actually liked Carney at the point of voting him is that's bloody insane. The man's a banker who has been strengthening old colonial ties and wheeling and dealing during a sovereignty crisis where the US, our historical trading partner is softly threatening annexation. The only reasons Conservatives are critical is because they think "Conservative" means "fiscally Conservative" and not the branch of political philosophy of the likes of Edmund Burke that thinks channeling money into the hands of the rich and conserving a social hierarchy that keeps certain people at the bottom and punishing deviance from a social norm, removing safety nets because "families" are easier to control than individuals. Meanwhile "Conservative" government spending has never actually been fiscally conservative historically. They just pump money into whatever makes their friends rich because that's kind of the point. It doesn't matter who is in the seat for government if they don't gave the pretty label that seems to say to them "This guy won't waste money" you can what if any scenario where your guy wouldn't be doing the same or worse. At least Carney had the shame to not say that shit out loud and feels like he needs to court the public instead of getting tacit endorsement for that kind of behavior right out the gate on election day the way Poilevre would of had.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

What absolute nonsense. Unless you define maga like Policies as being tax breaks and the like there is no comparison between trump's policies and Poilievres. If anything carney was far more trump like, with his build baby build comments and make Canada strong again stuff.

And no, carney is not putting in place PoilievreS economic policies. He said he would, he ran on them, but now he's running away from them. Remember when he promised to deal with interpreneurial trade? Then tried to walk it back when you realized it might be hard? Remember what he said he was going to get rid of the carbon tax but then doubled up the industrial carbon tax and associated fees? He never got rid of the regist legislation that is preventing companies from building pipelines and doing things in Canada, and now he suggesting that the Canadian taxpayer will pay for it just like they did under Justin Trudeau which is the absolute direct opposite of what the conservatives were going for.

Carney's platform was very much like the conservatives but his actual actions are nothing like the conservatives

And carney is absolutely threatening civil rights. Both the left and the right are deeply concerned about his online gestapo bills. The new police powers for search and seizure are deeply worrying. Etc etc

Conservative spending is the opposite of what you're saying. In harper's time for example spending was extremely targeted and did very well and did not flow into the hands of his buddies. Right now we have a scandal where it appears that Brooksfield bought into a company 15 days before carney agreed to give them billions of dollars in bailouts for their condos. Which is exactly what you were just talking about but it's not the conservatives doing it

Poilievre was clear about what his policy was. Get government spending under control and come up with a plan and March towards a balanced budget. Attract business investment to Canada by creating a favorable environment. Keep investment money in Canada by giving a break to those people who invest in Canadian investments instead of moving their money to America which is what has been happening for the last year and change. Focus on correcting the mistakes and problems of the last 10 years and get crime under control

None of those are bad things. You can say what you like but those are all things that even if you feel there are other priorities out there you can't say that those are bad things. And none of that is happening under Carney

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If your intention is to approach politics as team sport then your post makes sense but what about anything I said makes you think I am defending Carney? Polivere is simply the bigger asshole of the two and his economic policy was vibes based -but they are both shit and the Conservative base is just too hung up on minute differences to see that their shit also stinks. Until we actually reform the voting system we're stuck in this duality of it all going to shit as the Overton window shifts right and rights trickle away.

I'm not interested in playing defend or compare the assholes. You asked why he got voted in, that was all the point I had to make. He got voted in because he played conservative better than the Conservatives. It would have been their election otherwise. If you're thinking I give a shit what any conservative platform whether the label on the front is red or blue you can piss off.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Your commentary is clearly intended to be a defensive carney it has nothing to do with team sports. I addressed your points point for point, there's nothing team-oriented about it

And nobody gives a crap who's to dig her asshole. If you want to hire someone to be your friend the last big brothers. But we're talking about here is who has the skills and knowledge experience and vision to be able to leave the country forward. There is absolutely no doubt that it's Poilievre over carney. Something that the only man to employ both of them pointed out quite clearly

Carney pretends that he's going to execute PoilievreS agenda because he knows it's popular and correct. But then he either can't or doesn't or both.

And you are literally playing "Defend or compare the assholes". That is the literal definition of what you're doing.

And no I didn't actually ask anything. I pointed out that your previous statements were entirely wrong and explain why point for point

I know why he got elected. He is an incredible snake oil or peddler and a continent who managed to convince those on the far left that someone with a long history of renovations and hiding the wealth of the 1% is a great idea. And he convinced liberals that he would be better than you know which he absolutely is not turning out to me. We're on the same downward trajectory

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He didn't, Pete and Trump did.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Crazy we have to explain this to non-magats.

[–] GrackleBirb@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 days ago (12 children)

My support for Carney was to keep PP out. Singh did not give me the confidence that he could do that. I still vote NDP at the provincial level (although my riding has been Conservative forever alas) - the federal NDP hasn’t really inspired much confidence but Marit is killing it at the provincial level in Ontario.

[–] mister_newbie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I, too, really like Marit, but let's be honest: she's never winning in this province -- where Bob Rae is still seen as the bogeyman.

A rotten head of cabbage could probably beat Doug these days, provided it's red.

[–] Gnumile@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This is a perfect example of why things are very unlikely to change. Too many people have too little faith in things actually changing, so it remains conservatives vs liberals

[–] mister_newbie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

It's a perfect example on why FPTP sucks hairy ballsacks. I'd vote NDP, happily, if I knew I could transfer that vote to a non-blue candidate.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Bob Rae not as bad as Harris or Ford but I'll never forgive him for letting public servants keep their job admist a recession .

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago

We came very close to a PP government. Too close. I don't like Carney much but Poulivre would have been disastrous. I would rank Singh above both, but my riding was heavily Tory.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Jagmeet went to our strike line and said he’d take Trudeau down if they forced a deal on us. When they forced a deal on us, Jagmeet was silent. That’s why I didn’t vote for the NDP. Hopefully their new leadership actually stands by their word.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] BassetHound@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (20 children)

I gave up on the NDP after years of mismanagement. I voted for the party of Jack and was alright with Mulcair. But under Jagmeet the party has been run into the ground.

That year where Jagmeet and the NDP propped up the obviously dead Trudeau government was the final straw. Willfully choosing to support a wildly unpopular prime minister to avoid the election was gross and made a mockery of their name. If you want to be taken seriously as a party and a leader, you have to be in it to win. There could have been an opportunity to become the opposition again and maybe replace the Liberals in time. Instead they chose to sacrifice their own party. If they don’t even want to be a serious party, why the hell should I vote for them?

load more comments (20 replies)

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Singh unfortunately didn't help the cause much. But I think it was actually Pollievre who helped Carney with such incredible efficiency. I agree, it makes no sense, but PP's innate reality distortion field was apparently large enough to cause some sort of gravitational lensing around Carney too that made him temporarily look like an anti-Trump.

I also think Carney did particularly well on the military topic, especially compared to previous Liberal positions, which might have genuinely appealed to some NDP voters disillusioned with the NDP's traditionally weak stance on defense, in light of the active military threats against us and our allies.

Personally, I understand where the NDP's defense policy is coming from, and I think it's responsible and probably even the right way to approach it holistically. We don't need to beg Europe to partner with us, even if they're obviously willing to, we have everything we need to develop our own military and industry on our own, but it will take time for those investments to pay off, and I get the desire to shortcut some of that with European assistance. But maybe people thought we wouldn't be able to have socialism and kick Trump and Putin's teeth in at the same time. I don't know.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments