Lemmy Lemmy:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
The issue is once again, the LPO failed to think things all the way through while the taxpayers got to subsidize some millionaires buying expensive cars.
I know that I for one am just thrilled that I got to help some rich assholes get rebates of $150,000 each on some expensive personal toys.
Not the LPO, everyone. No one anticipated a $150K electric car. It's got nothing to do with the LPO. And it was $25K total, not $150K each. Regardless, it's not like this program cost taxpayers anything. The $150K Porsche sale netted the provincial government $12,000 in sales tax. Factor in the $5K rebate and the taxpayer's still up $7000 on that deal!
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Besides, all electric cars are doing is replacing one environmental problem with another. If you doubt that statement, just look at where much of the battery production takes place and where much of the materials are mined from and then if you're old enough to remember, think back to the environmental disaster that was INCO in Sudbury prior to the mid '70s.
There's nothing wrong with replacing one environmental problem with another if the "other" is a lesser problem or an easier solved or managed problem. I'm not following your logic with this Sudbury bit. Are you suggesting that Sudbury's problems came from demand for batteries and, therefore we should avoid using/making batteries?
Not familiar with Sudbury and INCO, are you? Prior to the mid-70s before any real environmental laws were put in place, INCO in Sudbury was the single largest polluter in North America. Aside from tailings ponds being regularly breached, INCO in Sudbury produced 5% of North America's
total pollution. Nowadays, much of the mining for raw materials for batteries is done in countries with woeful environmental laws, if they exist at all. If the electric car really takes off, we're going to have hundreds of sites the world over that will likely be worse than INCO was. It's estimated that at least 20% of China's farmland is toxic, caused primarily by mining, refining and battery production. In the eastern part of the country and in the belly of China, there's precious few water sources left that are safe for drinking, toxified in part by heavy metals and other mine tailings.
PA9 PA9:
And finally, why are we even bothering? To make us look good or something? In 2010, while Alberta's oil fields were humming along quite nicely, Canada's GHGH contribution was 1.7% of the global total. To put it another way, despite the self-flagellation of the part of various govt officials, Canada's total annual GHG contribution is about HALF of what international shipping creates annually.
Some estimates suggest that the 16 largest container ships and supertankers alone generate more pollution and GHGs than all the world's ICE powered cars combined.
Lemmy Lemmy:
Red herring. You make your gains where you can make them and you start by making the gains where they're easiest to make first. No one said the process of getting off the carbon tit was going to be easy, nor immediate. Think of a homeowner with electric baseboard heating. He's pissed 'cause his hydro bill is high. Your logic is that he shouldn't even consider turning off a light he isn't using because, why bother? 90% of his hydro bill is heating so no point trying to save elsewhere on the electric bill. Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.
How do ya figure, sports fan? Let's say you and I both like to have fires in our backyards but you don't have a lot of access to firewood. For some reason I decide to stop because it's "bad for the environment" and give you all of my firewood to burn for yourself. I haven't really reduced the pollution caused by backyard fires if you're burning the wood I gave you as well as your own supply.
PA9 PA9:
Besides, the whole thing quit being about the environment a while ago. Now it's about wealth redistribution so third world and developing countries can play catch-up while the West punishes itself for being so successful.
It's sad when common sense takes a back seat to the promotion of an ideology.
Lemmy Lemmy:
That's 2/3 rhetoric and 1/3 nutty conspiracy.
Well, it looks like the IPCC co-chair from 2008-2015 and the recently resigned chairwoman of another UN environmental panel also enjoy rhetoric and being part of a "nutty" conspiracy.
CKA Uber 
