Any one who assumes that another party is going to blanket support a non-confidence vote doesn’t understand how minority governments work.

These are times when other parties have the leverage to influence what bills are being passed.

If things got bad enough that no other parties agreed with direction then ya we would be heading to vote, but realistically things aren’t that bad right now, they could always be better, but it’s not bad enough to just throw away leverage.

We don’t need to even do the math ourselves. It’s already be done countless times and the results are always the same.

BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1357-august-26-2024-small-electric-suv-produces-52-fewer-life-cycle

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

I’m surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.

What? You’re the one claiming that various metals aren’t infinitely recyclable.

It’s true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn’t really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I’m just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn’t need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it’s useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you’re being downvoted.

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can’t get over this. We’re talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you’re talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that’s what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that’s it’s my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that’s not because they aren’t recoverable, that’s because it’s not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that’s just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren’t great at reading either. So I’ll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it’s gone.

Dental care, housing deals with cities and the fall back carbon pricing were all done dispite provincial pushback (as far as I’m aware).

The only one where they worked with the provinces was the daycare, and that took like 18 months for provinces to actually agree on and even today provinces like Ontario continue to drag their feet on.

From what I’ve seen over the last 3-5 years, the provinces have very little interest in actively working constructively with the feds.

I don’t know what the current status of the healthcare chats are, but a few years ago the feds were willing to help push additional funding into the provincial healthcare systems, but the provinces needed to agree to terms (I believe the terms were around the money needing to be spent on the public healthcare system and not working towards privatization). as far as I know the talks never went anywhere, and healthcare systems are still underfunded.

What part of this change changes that? These locations are setup so that they are close to the people who need them, shutting down the locations doesn’t stop the usage, it just pushes it to happen in less safe spaces

Were billions given upfront for this project? Most of the battery/EV projects I saw were mainly tax breaks.

To clarify your point. The privatization in Europe has nothing to do with the lower prices, it’s the lower tax rate.

In places like Ontario we “double dip” on revenue where the LCBO marks up alcohol as any retailer would and makes revenue for Ontario, but at the same time, alcohol tax is also collected.

When people talk about privatization of the LCBO, it’s a portion of that retail markup revenue which we would be unnecessary giving away.

None of this refutes what was said above.

Privatization resulted in alcohol prices increasing.

I’ve also not seen any numbers that suggest that the Alberta government makes more revenue from the private system than they would have a public system.

Every back-of-the-napkin calculation I’ve done suggests that the move to a private system increases access to alcohol for citizens while reducing the government revenue related to alcohol sales.

This article shares the per-capita government alcohol revenue in Alberta vs Ontario showing Alberta coming out on top.

Does that feel like a strange stat to anyone else? The revenue would be based off total alcohol sales in dollar amount rather than volume of alcohol sold, I know it would hard to correct for that.

When I looked into this before (and that was hard to do because good Alberta data seemed hard to find, I don’t have that data handy unfortunately) it seemed like Alberta cirizens spent like 5-15% more per capita annually on alcohol, knowing that negates the value of a per capita revenue number since on it’s own it can’t correct for the extra spent per person.

I would almost want a “government revenue” per “wholesale/retail value” or maybe multiple numbers where it’s “government revenue” per “liter of liquor/beer/wine/etc” and then compare those in both markets.

Because that’s truely what we want to measure right? We want government revenue to be high, while also not significantly increasing volume sold.

deleted by creator

most of it…

• didn’t/doesn’t address housing shortage.

Not sure what to say about this. This is a failure of every level of government, some levels are more willing to try to address part of this while other levels are actively trying to make it worse. To me this statement feels like it comes from someone who is frustrated but hasn’t taken the time to understand the problem that they are frustrated with.

• didn’t/doesn’t address inflation.

Inflation is being dealt with… Things are nearly back to normal levels of inflation. You can’t say that it’s not being addressed.

• increases taxation as a means to get more income flow to the government

This is normal and a good thing? I’m also not sure which taxes you’re referring to? Our taxes haven’t really changed much recently.

• spends crazy(milions and bilions) on S.D.G ideals

Unless you have meaningful examples there isn’t anything I can say here.

• makes it impossible for farmers to meet (Co2 etc)regulations
  • and government buys them out…
  • and Schiphol etc buying that land for extra CO2 credit.

Once again I need some sources on this, this sounds like something you heard and are repeating without taking the time to understand what was being talked about and now you’re trying to pass it off as fact.

• has crazy ‘sustainability’ demains, which makes international production business move elsewhere

Not sure what you’re talking about here. Is this referring to businesses “offshoring” the production of goods? This has been happening for a long time and I hope that we can start bring more manufacturing back “onshore”

• increasing poverty. People requiring food-bank support is increasing, but because of increasingly harsh business environment the food-bank actually obtains less from industrie.

Yes poverty is up, but not for the reasons you’re suggesting(unless you have some new data I haven’t seen). food inflation is going to be the new norm until the world gets the climate crisis under control. Our global agriculture system is not built to handle the rapidly changing climate we’ve created. droughts, floods and war are likely going to continue to cause price instability.

• many small/medium businesses are going bust because they can’t repay the corona-loan. (which many have warned is a slow death trap)

This is also normal? Many economists believe that economic downswings every 7-15 years is good for an economy because it helps wipe out under preforming businesses. if a company took out 60k in loans, and after 4 years hasn’t been able to pay back the 40k they owe (20k was already forgiving), and also can’t find a bank to move that loan to, they are likely not running a very good business.

I’m glad that we gave these businesses a lifeline during covid, but at some point they need to prove that they can adapt to the new market conditions. No one forced them to take these loans…

So ya, to me most of this was a mix of unsubstantiated opinion and vague concepts, which I feel is acceptable to call nonsense

All of those things are recyclable today with wind turbines being the hardest and batteries being the easiest. But the quantity of materials that needs recycling is still low so there are only a handful of companies doing it.

Solar in some cases can actually address the [over exaggerated] concerns regarding EV charging. By bringing power generation closer to where the power is being used, there can be less load on the long distance transmission lines. In some cases it can also reduce the load on local transformers.

But all of that is mostly irrelevant, the transition to EVs will happen over the next 30 years. Even if we weren’t looking to move to EVs if we ignored the current grid we would be in trouble. But like anything we’ll upgrade parts slowly as needed.

What a load of nonsense.

Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)

The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…