As someone who lives in Alberta, please don’t just dismiss this as “they’re bat shit crazy”… I mean like yea, half my neighbours ARE bat shit crazy supporters of this shit.

But they’re also loud voices, and too many people outside of Alberta are starting to listen to the crazy and agreeing.

The educated voices here need your help to shut this shit down now or we’re going to see this cancer spread.

Please point out to your friends and colleagues just how terrible this thinking is while they’ll still listen. Or the next prime minister will be someone who thinks the same way.

it’s not popular

The downvotes you’re getting disprove your assertion.

We can’t have solar or winds farms because it might ruin our “pristine viewscapes”… but open pit mining of the most polluting fossil fuel we’ve ever had by a foreign billionaire is totally fine.

Your hypocrisy is showing Danielle.

What deference would it make if they did?

Moving sheep from on pasture land to another doesn’t change the emissions from these sheep.

The question is what happened to the land these sheep use to be on.

Canada’s population is expected to grow by 500~3000 people daily for the next few years.

Building 5000 units Canada wide is not going to even make a dent in the housing market much less destroy it.

What blows my mind 🤯

The landlords game has two different sets of rules you could play with. One set of rules was basically the same as the Monopoly we know today. When the game ends when one player acquires ownership of everything and bankrupts everyone else.

The other set of rules, called “prosperity”, involved a tax that redistributed wealth. The game ends when all players have doubled their original stake and everyone wins.

The game was intended to show how unbridled capitalism ultimately leads to a few billionaires owning everything and everyone else being poor/bankrupt. (Sound familiar?)

And compared it to the prosperity rules which were based on Georgism, a kind of socialism/capitalism hybrid that both rewards people for the value they produce while also creating surplus public revenue that can be used to create social safety nets.

Money isn’t the limiting factor though.

There’s plenty of money waiting to be spent on green electricity projects that’s bottlenecked by grid connections, permitting, panel and turbine manufacturing, rare element supply chains and host of other factors slowing down how quickly we can build new renewable capacity.

Also the typical LCOE cost comparison approach doesn’t factor in the cost of grid connections, which is lower for a nuclear power plant than it is for an equivalent capacity of renewables. Nuclear is still more expensive on average, but the difference isn’t as clear cut and there a cases where nuclear might be cheaper in the long run.

Everytime nuclear comes up on Reddit/Lemmy we always seem to argue whether nuclear or renewables is better choice like it’s a choice between the two. Both nuclear and renewables are slam dunk choices compared to fossil fuels on every metric if you factor in even an overly optimistic case analyisis of the financial impacts of climate change. (Nevermind giving considerations of the humanatarian impact.)

80+% of our planet’s energy still comes from burning fossil fuels. Renewables have been smashing growth records year over year for a long time now and yet we haven’t even reached the point where we’re adding new renewables capacitiy faster than energy demand is increasing. We’re still setting new records annually for total fossil fuel consumed. Hell we haven’t even gotten to the point where we stopped building new Coal-fired power stations yet.

The people who argue that “we don’t need nuclear, renewabes are cheaper and faster” you’re missing the reality of sheer quantity of energy needed. We can’t build enough new renewables fast enough to save us regardless of how much money is invested. There aren’t enough sources of the raw materials needed to make that happen quickly enough, we can’t connect them to the grid quickly enough, we cant build new factories for solar panels and wind turbines fast enough. Yes, we will undoubetly continure to accelerate our new renewables projects at a record setting paces each year but it’s not enough, it’s not even close. Even our most optimistic , accelerated projections don’t put us anywhere close to displacing fossil fuel consumption in the next 10-20 years.

We need to stop arguing over which is better. We need to do it all.

Not sure where you’re getting 250kwh/m2/year from. If it was one contiguous solid panel maybe you could achieve that and then you’d be correct it would be about 560,000 km2. Or roughly the size of France.

But you need to leave space between the panels in a solar farm for them to be at the optimal angle without casting shadows on each other. Real world solar farms have much lower density than that.

The density can vary significantly, our hypothetical solar island could be anywhere from the 6th to the 50th largest country but regardless we’re still talking about something in the area of a trillion individual solar panels.

Assuming money isn’t the limiting factor (which it isn’t in most countries) we don’t have anywhere close to the ability to manufacture and deploy that many panels by 2030 or 2035.

Assuming we maintain exponential growth of both wind and solar (doubtful) we’re still a least two decades away from eliminating fossil fuel electricity generation never mind meeting the 2-3x generation capacity needed to transition transportation and other consumers of fossil fuels over to electricity.

Renewables growth has shattered estimates before, you never know, but the transition is not happening any where near as fast as people seem to think.

You might want to do some basic math on the current rates at which renewable energy and global energy demand is growing.

The world burned 140,000 TWh worth of fossil fuels last year, a new record because global energy demand is still growing faster than total new renewable generation.

Let’s say we built an island of floating PV panels in the ocean large enough to generate that much energy.

It would be the 8th largest country in the world.

No we’re not going to hit 70% by 2035 even assuming it maintains exponential growth, not even close.

Proportional representation isn’t the only alternative to FPTP.

Something like STV or even just IRV tends to put centrist parties in charge which would likely benefit the liberals.

deleted by creator

I work in this space. My focus area is consequential GHG accounting specifically, which is the process of quantifying the impact a decision will have on GHG levels.

There is an internationally recognized methodology for GHG emissions account and for most other things you’d make environmental claims about.

Hard part is most of those methodologies were designed for voluntary compliance. They tend to allow lots of estimates and average when better data isn’t available, because for someone trying to do the right thing, estimating data is better than nothing.

But that leaves a giant gaps in legislation like this because someone with incentive to do so can make generously optimistic assumptions that ridiculously overstate their environmental stewardship while still technically following the methodology.

While I think it’s doubtful we’ll see any major improvements in reporting for a while. The bill is still a massive step in the right direction.

And there’s hope for the methodologies getting better too. The leading methodology for calculating GHG emissions is currently being revised with a new version expected to be published next year. Current proposals being considered include dropping several notoriously inaccurate approaches, that could be used to make false or exaggerated claims.

Sometimes ChatGPT/copilot’s code predictions are scary good. Sometimes they’re batshit crazy. If you have the experience to be able to tell the difference, it’s a great help.

If BlackRock thinks that population growth in Canada is important, it seems to me they’re actually in a far better position to make that happen than the average Canadian.

BlackRock owns a fuck ton of property in Canada, they are in a strong position to make rents and housing, much more affordable. Which will drive the economy up significantly.

Families will be more willing to “grow the population’ if they’re not allocating 50+ percent of their income towards housing.

Affordable housing also makes us a better destination people immigrating to Canada.

But that would require BlackRock to be less greedy… so

I know nothing about but was curious why they haven increased their residency positions.

One of the first hits on was this article, it seems like the issue (at least for family doctors) isn’t a lack of available residency positions since 268 positions went unfilled.

Sounds like it has more to do with the job basically sucks compared to other specialties, a few reasons mentioned in the article:

• Provinces are effectively forcing family doctors to crank patients through at a high rate since they’re pay is based on the number of pts the see in a day

• Family practice involves less collaboration with other physicians, less opportunity for professional growth.

• Political climate, notably in Alberta, is outright hostile towards doctors.

Doesn’t really explain what’s hindering doctors trained abroad from becoming doctors here.

Seems to me that a program designed to help foreign trained doctors become licensed here would be a good investment.

That could get really awkward if some of the neopronouns become common.

“… tell him or her or zim or xyr or thon that he or she or ze or xe or thon can leave a message… “

Michal Cotler-Wunsh, Israel’s special envoy for combating antisemitism, castigated Ms. Joly in a response on social media, warning that Canada was creating a “false moral equivalence” that would “fuel rising antisemitism” in the country.

Canada: We’re offering support to women on either side that were sexually assaulted.

Michal: Don’t do that it’ll make people hate our side.

🤔

Pretty much everybody is happy to see coal power shutdown. Even most people working in the coal industry are fine with it as there’s still a depressingly large market for coal.

We’re replacing it with natural gas and the oil and gas industry employs way more Albertans than coal. People in that industry are generally happy about it.

If we had replaced it with solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, anything that would make a significant impact on our still massive GHG emissions. Then about half of Albertans would be happy and about a third would be claiming “F*ck Trudeau yadda yadda”

Because Spez is a greedy little pig boy.

Ask a stupid question…

There’s a problem with the “if it’s medically necessary” part.

All the states that have banned abortions have some sort of exemption for if it’s necessary to save the mom’s life but patients are still dying because doctors risk prison time if they make that decision and the state disagrees on if it was necessary. So patients clearly needing medically necessary abortions aren’t getting them early when they’re low risk, they’re getting them when they’re close to death and the surgery is high risk.

You’re right that circumcisions usually aren’t necessary. But there are medical benefits to the procedure and it is a valid treatment for some medical conditions like phimosis which can lead to serious infections.

Reducing medically unnecessary circumstances is a problem to fix with education not legislation.

We need to let parents and doctors still make informed medical decisions without the state interfering.