High-speed rail coming to Canada!..in 4 years...maybe

[Momo26]

Everyone who is of that camp needs to table the fossil fuel and natural resource issue ans understand that for canada to effectively be saved, we need to leverage our resources.

Oh and whilst you plug in your EV just understand that other nations are full steam (pun intended) in growing and using old energy to do so.

[danbrotherston]

Everyone who is of that camp needs to table the fossil fuel and natural resource issue ans understand that for canada to effectively be saved, we need to leverage our resources.

Oh and whilst you plug in your EV just understand that other nations are full steam (pun intended) in growing and using old energy to do so.

For Canada to be "effectively saved" we need to make investments in the future, not in stranded assets. Investing in oil is an investment in self destruction, we either build a pipeline we can't use for it's whole lifetime, or worse, build a pipeline that we do use. There is no option where we build a pipeline and things go well. Fortunately for the rest of the world, there are indications that despite these bad choices, we are already peaking in fossil fuel usage, so probably it turns out to be a bad choice for us.

As for "other nations"....no in fact other nations are making much more progress than us. There are a bunch of petrostates who are making similarly bad choices, but that isn't a group Canada should want to be a part of. China (and others) on the other hand, are investing in renewables at a rate that should embarrass us. The Netherlands, a country where I haven't seen the sun in a week, has something like 20x the solar power of Ontario...a province with nearly unlimited land.

[tomh009]

I can't see the northern pipeline happening. BC is adamantly opposed. First nations are adamantly opposed. The cost would be $30B+. Oil prices are not high, and oilsands crude is lower yet. No company has stepped forward to build it. Even if approved, timeline is 10+ years to complete, and by then the oil consumption is likely to be dropping. And I think the pipeline companies can do this math, too.

On the other hand, the Trans Mountain expansion could make sense. It needs far fewer approvals, can be ready in four (?) years (when there is still demand for oil), and cost not much more than a tenth of the price of a new pipeline. Mind you, it's not good enough for Danielle Smith.

[danbrotherston]

I can't see the northern pipeline happening. BC is adamantly opposed. First nations are adamantly opposed. The cost would be $30B+. Oil prices are not high, and oilsands crude is lower yet. No company has stepped forward to build it. Even if approved, timeline is 10+ years to complete, and by then the oil consumption is likely to be dropping. And I think the pipeline companies can do this math, too.

On the other hand, the Trans Mountain expansion could make sense. It needs far fewer approvals, can be ready in four (?) years (when there is still demand for oil), and cost not much more than a tenth of the price of a new pipeline. Mind you, it's not good enough for Danielle Smith.

I'm not nearly so hopeful on this kind of thing. Leaving aside what it looks like in 10 years, because you may (or may not) be right about peak oil...I don't think the companies and especially the executives chasing quarterly bonuses actually care about what it looks like in 10 years.

If nothing else, the crypto bubble followed by the AI bubble has shown clear as day those people with money don't care about the future. I have zero doubt that the right approvals could get the northern pipeline built only to be a useless disaster that the Canadian public will end up bailing out. Given the behaviour of the current gov...catering to the oil industries every demand, I don't see a lot of sensible pushback here. And worse, it seems that a lot of the public (especially in Alberta) are for some reason uncritical of this support.

[Acitta]

I can't see the northern pipeline happening. BC is adamantly opposed. First nations are adamantly opposed. The cost would be $30B+. Oil prices are not high, and oilsands crude is lower yet. No company has stepped forward to build it. Even if approved, timeline is 10+ years to complete, and by then the oil consumption is likely to be dropping. And I think the pipeline companies can do this math, too.

On the other hand, the Trans Mountain expansion could make sense. It needs far fewer approvals, can be ready in four (?) years (when there is still demand for oil), and cost not much more than a tenth of the price of a new pipeline. Mind you, it's not good enough for Danielle Smith.

I'm not nearly so hopeful on this kind of thing. Leaving aside what it looks like in 10 years, because you may (or may not) be right about peak oil...I don't think the companies and especially the executives chasing quarterly bonuses actually care about what it looks like in 10 years.

If nothing else, the crypto bubble followed by the AI bubble has shown clear as day those people with money don't care about the future. I have zero doubt that the right approvals could get the northern pipeline built only to be a useless disaster that the Canadian public will end up bailing out. Given the behaviour of the current gov...catering to the oil industries every demand, I don't see a lot of sensible pushback here. And worse, it seems that a lot of the public (especially in Alberta) are for some reason uncritical of this support.

I think that a lot of Albertans are supportive because resource jobs are among the best paying jobs for the working class. Back in the '80s, I was visiting my sister in Prince George, BC. One of my nieces, then a teenager, was getting $16/hr sweeping floors in the plywood plant, whereas, back in Toronto, I was getting $4 and change working in a bookstore. It is hard to blame people for wanting those good paying jobs.

[ac3r]

Everyone who is of that camp needs to table the fossil fuel and natural resource issue ans understand that for canada to effectively be saved, we need to leverage our resources.

Yup. This country is so broken and they just want to make it worse. Nope. Build the mines, pipelines, nuclear plants, train lines (and electrify them all), rapid transit, highways, ports, communications infrastructure, public housing, schools, hospitals...whatever it is, do it and do it now. This country has so much wealth and potential but we just sit stagnant. And with the way the world is going these days we want to ensure we can become a powerful nation, not remain a joke on the world stage.

And yeah, build HSR as soon as possible because we desperately need it. Heck, invite the Chinese in to help. They're going to eventually become the world power anyway.

[tomh009]

And with the way the world is going these days we want to ensure we can become a powerful nation, not remain a joke on the world stage.

The indisputable need for infrastructure investment aside, few people outside Canada view our country as a joke. In fact, the comments by European and Asia-Pacific leaders and media were highly complimentary of the Canada approach and particularly Mark Carney after his speech at Davos.

[danbrotherston]

And with the way the world is going these days we want to ensure we can become a powerful nation, not remain a joke on the world stage.

The indisputable need for infrastructure investment aside, few people outside Canada view our country as a joke. In fact, the comments by European and Asia-Pacific leaders and media were highly complimentary of the Canada approach and particularly Mark Carney after his speech at Davos.

Heh, yeah Canada is definitely not a joke... but that speech was pretty shocking from a western liberal.

[panamaniac]

The indisputable need for infrastructure investment aside, few people outside Canada view our country as a joke. In fact, the comments by European and Asia-Pacific leaders and media were highly complimentary of the Canada approach and particularly Mark Carney after his speech at Davos.

Heh, yeah Canada is definitely not a joke... but that speech was pretty shocking from a western liberal.

Western pragmatic centrist.

[danbrotherston]

Heh, yeah Canada is definitely not a joke... but that speech was pretty shocking from a western liberal.

Western pragmatic centrist.

At this point, I take "liberal" and "centrist" to be synonyms.

And there's absolutely nothing pragmatic about what the American democrats are doing.

But unfortunately the US captures an inordinate amount of my mindshare (and realistically, most people in the western world also).

I will say, his speech was also pragmatic in that it advocated against increasing nationalism, and for continued and better cooperation. To me, this is a fairly liberal view, and it's one that I do like. I think globalization _can_ benefit us all, but these things tend only to be fair when we have a large number of smaller (and more equal) partners.

I've had this conversation with Canadians and Europeans alike. The "made in Canada" movement is a nice, but why not "made in the free world (i.e., not the USA)".  Also with things like Signal. Some in Europe say that it's no better than WhatsApp because they are both based in the US and that we should instead create/use some European messaging corporate monopoly. And to be fair, being located in the US _IS_ a legitimate problem. But to me, it's not as big a problem as monopoly control over our communication channels.

We need a better world order, not just a restoration of the previous situation with a new leader. That's not a view that those in power (liberal or conservative) typically express (well, unless their followers are particularly gullible).