*Edit: Evidently dino_bobba_renno removed his/her post while I was in the process of replying
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
You’re talking about producing fresh produce 8 month out of the year for 33 million people. And if it were so easy to do this and so cost effective don’t you think we would all ready being doing it.
It wasn't easy or cost effective to extract the oil from the oil sands 20 years ago, but times, and circumstances, change. Faced with increasing transportation costs, the market system would value energy being used differently. While I cannot predict that this will be the future with 100% certainty, I can refer to trends.
We already have green houses that pump out fresh fruits and vegetables year round. Near where I live, on the Niagara Peninsula in Ontario, there is a great debate currently go on because too many green houses are being built on prime agricultural land, the argument being that you can build a green house anywhere there is sun, where as there is only so much prime, arable land. So we're already having to debate the use of green houses today. And with scarce prime agricultural land being gobbled up by suburbs, and increasing oil prices making the 5,000 mile Caesar less viable, you will see a shift in our agricultural practices.
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
And these businesses you speak of who have to export will be competing with foreign companies who do not have to absorb those costs.
And how much cost do you think these businesses will absorb before their shareholders start to complain?
Do you think that Dion is the only one in the entire world proposing to impose a cost on pollution? Obama and McCain are both proposing, to some degree, to put a price on pollution. BC recently enacted their mini-Green Shift. As well, other parts of the world have been taxing energy at a much higher rate for decades. Do you think the base cost of fuel in Europe is that much different from our own? No! As a matter of fact, because of their proximity to the historically main source of oil (the Persian gulf) their costs are actually slightly lower than ours.
However, Europeans pay upwards of $2 and $3 a litre for gas, the majority of that difference arising from higher taxes, which they in turn direct to the building of infrastructure and transportation, and the mandate that cars run on more efficient fuels (91 is the lowest octane that you can buy in Europe, vs. in Canada where 89 is still the norm). As well, many European states have lower income tax rates and higher levels of government service than we do.
As a result of those higher petrol (as the call it there) prices, people drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
This is also why these same businesses won’t be running out blowing tones of money on R & D. The money they’re playing with doesn’t belong to just them. It also belongs to the share holders and in almost all cases the bank, and I can tell you neither of them have a very good sense of humor or a deep desire to save the planet.
There are many progressive companies out there. Ford, for example, retrofitted their factory in Rouge, outside of Detroit, to have a green roof, which lowered their heating and cooling costs. Faced with, A) economic stimulus (notice I didn't say incentive, the prospect of higher costs can also stimulate a company or society to act) and b) a viable business case (ie. benefit must outweigh costs), businesses will react.
As well, the money does belong to the company. When you buy shares, you sign a contract to essentially loan the company money through a public market (why it's called and "initial PUBLIC offering") in exchange for a share in the ownership, as a shareholder you have no right to influence the operation of the company. Now, that being said, the directors are required to consult the share holders, and if a majority of the owners (ie. shareholders) believes that the directors are not operating the company in a way that they feel is beneficial, they can vote to remove and replace the directors. As well, the company can decide to buy back shares (ie. repaying the loan).
As for a bank loan, that is even more structured. The bank simply provides capital to the company that is applying based on certain conditions, a repayment plan, interest on the principle, etc., the terms of which are decided by the bank based on their analysis of the company. There is nothing to stop a company from taking out a bank loan simply to throw a party. So long as they abide by the conditions of the bank loan, the bank has 0 say in how the money is used.
Now, something that is commonly done these day are various fiduciary vehicles, like private equity investments, etc. which are similar to bank loans, but where the bank also takes an ownership stake (or sometimes even an operational stake) in the company, and while these agreements usually contain more favourable interest rates and such, you have a consequential loss of operational control to the bank or other party.
I apologize for the aside on how financing works, now back to our regularly scheduled debate...
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
So when will he able to tell, after year 4 of this plan?
Last I checked, we're not in an election. As a matter of fact the possibility of their being an election between now and September is 0%. Unless Harper decides to dissolve parliament (which is against the election timing act he himself passed (another + in the conservative column by the way)) it is impossible, because the opposition parties cannot vote no confidence if the house isn't sitting.
Now, lets analyze the political climate again, as I eluded too in a previous post. Liberals have less money than Conservatives and cannot waste money on partisan misleading advertisements featuring cartoon oil stains. So they must rely on free media exposure to get their message across. Its not be in their interest to unveil their whole plan in one shot. If they draw it out, then people will debate it (like us here), and they can have little media events interspersed throughout the summer further unveiling and explaining their platform. Free media!
On the balance of probabilities, I would suspect he would put forth hard numbers earlier in the summer than later, because there has been a lot of talk in the media (namely guided by the Conservative party) about the lack of firm numbers, but alas, this is just a guess based on analyzing the situation rather than rhetoric.
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
So why not just keep taxes the same and offer incentives with the current tax regime? Why introduce a new tax then give the money back then take away again. Seems awfully bureaucratic to me for something the could simply be accomplished by offering breaks with in the existing system. Oh wait, I forgot, we’re fighting poverty here too right? Guess we have to get that money from somewhere.
Hey, go ahead and propose a way of shifting societal behaviour using our current system. It cannot be done. In order to shift behaviour, you have to change the rules. Currently, there is no stimulus for people to change their behaviour. Energy is relatively cheap, it doesn't help things that we subsidize energy, albeit not nearly as much as, say, China or India.
In honour of the Olympics, lets look at Beijing. They have a government that subsidizes gasoline, and a burgeoning middle class. Everyone wants a car, and they finally have the economic means to get one. But, because there is no stimulus for people to NOT drive (sure, they have other options, one of the best public transit systems on earth) but the same arguments against public transit that exist here, exist there. Why should I jostle with people in the subway when I can have all the space on earth in my own private vehicle.
Now, if they ended subsidies of fuel there, and it went to world market prices (someone can call me on this, but I believe it would entail something like a 400% increase in prices in their case) you would have a huge mass of people suddenly saying "I'm more willing to put up with an hour of jostling, then paying through the nose to drive around in a car and have no other luxuries, like a new flat screen TV".
The subsidies are also playing havoc with their environment. Just look up how bad the smog is in Beijing. I believe the world record marathon runner just announced that he will not be competing in the marathon because of the health consequences, and the Australian track and field team will be flying in only for their events because of the horrible conditions.
Now to bring this back to us, their removal of a subsidy, and our applying a tax on energy (it bears repeating that again that they are not proposing a tax on fuel gasoline) accomplishes the same thing, they increase the cost of energy, and the market being a self correcting mechanism, individuals will analyze the new reality and make decisions appropriate to their situation.
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
To quote Dino_Bobba_Renno “Won’t somebody PLEASE think like an adult”?
Yes, I agree... instead of repeating the rhetoric that the Conservative party puts out, why don't you analyze both sides arguments for your self. Oh, I forgot, the Conservative party has not actually responded with anything of substance. Just cartoon oil stains blabbering out rhetoric.
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
commonsense wrote:
The Persian gulf is cranking it out as fast as they can, and they're running out. We're going to be the only store left open pretty soon... except for that little corner store up the street, on the bad side of the tracks.
Yes one day in the future, for the next 50 to 100 years I guess we can just suffer through.
It's already happening. Saudi Arabia's track record in times of increasing oil prices has been to increase production in order to stabilize those prices at a level they feel comfortable with. What's happened with this oil shock? They've only increased production by a few hundred thousand barrels and have been unable to influence the price. They have essentially reached maximum production capacity. Every one of their oil fields have been tapped, and while not tapped out, the entire planets ever increasing desire for oil means that we are the only major source of
new oil development.
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
commonsense wrote:
but in my books substance counts over appearance.
Again, exactly how much emissions is this plan proposing to reduce? For someone who likes substance you sure have a bit of soft spot for vague cosmetic proposals. Again, you’d be better off voting Green if this plan is what you’re
looking for.
While it is true that they have not yet put forth their estimates, through the analysis of the impact such a plan would have, as well as comparing it to similar plans in other countries, it would probably work. That is why I am supporting this plan. If the Conservatives proposed a plan I thought were better, then I would be supporting that plan instead.
-----
Liam... Let me begin by saying that the tone of discussions on this thread has been congenial and very informative. I've changed my position on many points based on the constructive debate that has gone on. However, to make personal attacks such as "you deserve a big 'STUPID' sticker on your dumbass forehead" is not constructive, and does not add to the demeanour of the debate. While I will respond to the points that you raised, be advised that I will simply ignore you if you continue with those remarks like that.
-----
EmperorLiam wrote:
FAIL. How many poor people have KITCHENS, let alone utensils to cook that food with? The people that can cook, usually have no problem getting work. So the poor are the ones buying predominately processed food, so your point is completely lost. Not that it was much of a point to begin with.
With the exception of the homeless, which by definition do not have homes, all of the poor live in houses and have some means of food preparation, food preparation being more specifically what we're debating. If not a kitchen, then a kitchenette, or at the very least a cutting board and a hot plate.
Those that would prepare food would, therefore, be everyone. Everyone prepares their food before eating it, with the exception of going to a restaurant where you pay someone to do it for you, whether it be opening the baloney and bread packages, or sticking your pizza in the oven. The point I was trying to make was with regards to what they are preparing. Processed foods are a value added product because someone has done some of the preparing for you, in the case of the pizza they've kneaded the dough, applied the sauce, cheese and pepperoni, and freeze dried it so that it will be preserved. This is in direct opposition to non-processed foods like apples, lettuce, as well as certain tax-exempt prepared foods considered necessities, like bread and butter.
EmperorLiam wrote:
"One word: Greenhouse"
FAIL. More energy is required to build and heat a greenhouse in winter than is spent shipping food (trade exists because it is cost effective). To even suggest hydroponic and vertical growing of food in CANADA makes...
In our current economic climate maybe. As I mentioned above, there already exists a thriving greenhouse industry in Canada. As well, it is true that trade exists because it is cost effective, but if it weren't cost effective, then society would shift its behaviour. Greenhouses which are heated with solar power would cost less to operate than trucking in the food, over time. I say over time, because I acknowledge that the amount of capital required to build an operation such as this would be high at first, but averaged over the length of the project as a whole would ultimately be cheaper.
The reason why we haven't seen a truly massive effort put into the construction of green houses is precisely as you indicated. Historically it was cheaper truck it in 5,000 miles. But the era of cheap gas is over, and that historical advantage is disappearing.
EmperorLiam wrote:
"Our current lifestyle (5,000 mile Caesar salads and gas guzzling SUV's) is not sustainable or cost effective"
So oil, which we are no where near running out of (just demand surpassing supply), which has already sustained a world wide boom for 50+ years... is not sustainable? So even though we can make oil from either coal or slate, and both of which we have virtually unlimited supply, you say our current rate of consumption and lifestyle is not sustainable?
Well, a couple of points there.
1. We are running out of it. Yes, the oil taps won't run dry within our lifetime, but we are not as ignorant as we used to be to think that there is an unlimited supply.
Drawing from that point, however, is the reality that the oil have have left is not as easy to get too. We can no longer just shoot into the ground and see it bubbling up to the surface (I saw a Beverly Hillbillies episode recently). Costs associated with the extraction are rising, and as (as you stated) demand is surpassing supply; looking at it relatively, therefore, we are running out. The definition of running out being that not everyone will have the same level of access that they had previously, if at all.
As an aside, we will likely never run out of oil. Instead, oil will become too expensive to be used on the mass scale that we currently do, and we will shift to a different energy source. It'll probably always remain as a niche product or a novelty, like those old flour windmills in Holland, or the water wheel.
2. While oil, or to be more accurate cheap energy, has sustained a world wide boom since the second world war, the parade has to come to an end some time. Once energy derived from oil becomes too expensive, what will we do? We will need to obtain our energy from some other source. What's on the horizon? Hydrogen is not a source in and of its self; practically it's a means of bottling energy. With no (wide) natural reserves of Hydrogen to fill our tanks, we'll need to make it. How do we do that? We either derive it from natural gas (another source of energy that is quickly depleting) or make it using electrolysis, which then gets into the question of how do you make huge quantities of electricity? The three only real viable options we currently have are Solar or Wind, I like to dub these natural sources of energy, or Nuclear. Fusion too maybe on the horizon, but so far no one has successfully built a fusion reactor that produces more energy than it uses.
3. Coal, Slate, Bio-fuels, all require more energy to convert than is finally produced. They are not economically viable. The one possible exception is Bio-fuels derived from waste vegetation, rather than oil seeds. But even then, there are a whole host of issues, namely the farmers practise of tilling their waste vegetation pack into the earth in order to help fertilize the next crop. And to anyone that is going to suggest chemical fertilization, they are all derived from the same oil that we use to fuel our cars and are increasing in prices at exactly the same rate as a barrel of oil.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Where is the evidence that it is not sustainable? Not only is our system sustainable it is self perpetuating, we can actually build new things cheaper than we can repair them... we are hardly near an era of decreasing consumption, quite the opposite. Technology is of course a wild card in favour of keeping the current lifestyles we live going, so good luck selling that view to an educated person... you could have hippies singing you praises though.
Any physicist will tell you, a self perpetuating system is impossible. All systems require an input, and create an output which is inherently non-compatible with the input. Even the proposed Mars missions (which I would say is the closest thing to necessitating a self perpetuating system) are not self-perpetuating systems, they havve simply engineered them to require only electricity as an input.
As for our system, in order to operate it requires cheap, plentiful energy. For the past 50+ years, we've been deriving that energy from oil, being the cheapest plentiful source available to us at the time. Now that it is less plentiful and more expensive, what are we to do?
The Liberals are proposing to try and ween us off oil, and other fossil fuels, before they become too expensive as to create a crisis that will lead us away from continuing the our 50+ year tradition of prosperity.
CKA Elite 
Active Member 
CKA Elite 
