Several commenters on SDA frequently point out if you accept the premise of your opponent’s argument, you’ve already lost. Looks like that’s what the Saskatchewan United Party is saying here.
Saskatchewan United Party calls on Sask Party government to reject Net Zero by 2050 policy. Leader Nadine Wilson says the Sask Party government seeks to shut down coal and natural gas for wind and solar, gets punted from assembly for calling government liars.
NDP calls for break on fuel tax, finance minister says it would be temporary
Wind peters out in Alberta, yet again, on Wednesday
Op-Ed: Kaase Gbakon: A (Hungry?) Tiger in Your Tank: Part 2
Why should she have apologized for the SK Party lying?
Nadine took a principled stand. Not only is it impossible to achieve “net zero” this side of stone-age squalor (achieving 100% nuclear power and electrification would still entail a life cycle carbon footprint), it is either ignorance or dishonesty to claim otherwise.
“net zero” is a policy for stagnation and destruction of the people, it should be rejected early and often.
I think the question is – what happens after 2050 and the climate is still a problem?
Is it a problem now?
Well, it seems to be about as big a problem as one wants it to be.
exactly…….so much BS out there about “climate EMERGENGY”……money pit
There is no Climate Problem, ONLY FILTHY LIBERAL fake Problems that never arrive-scam.
woops, spellcheck.
This is the way. As a province we need to reject this current energy transition in its entirety. 2030, 2035, or 2050 we’re just negotiating on our own demise.
If and when there is a clean, reliable energy alternative to our coal and natural gas then the transition time will become self evident.
Yes
Reject Net Zero Now.
Why wait for 2050?
Did she mean reject it by 2050 or reject —now— net zero to 2050 programme
Precisely. Asked my UCP MLA why I should vote for him when all UCP is doing is acknowledging the problem exists by pushing it back to 2050 instead of 2035. Told him, “Vote for us, we’re only half as shitty as the NDP” wasn’t much of a campaign slogan.
There is an alternative. It’s called nuclear power. It can do everything that coal and gas can do, and has already been demonstrated in Canada as the mainstay of Ontario’s electricity production. Same in New Brunswick. Nulear power is the principal electricity source in Sweden, France, Belgium.
Even the use of “clean” is conceding the argument.
Thank you Nadine! It’s refreshing to see someone take a principled stand that’s based on truth. Continuing to feed the unicorns like the Sk Party wants to do will lead us further into a pit
Saskatchewan has at least one truthful politician.
You listening, PeePee?
Keep in mind that Net Zero will be followed (as it has already been advertised) by Absolute Zero. I am not making this up – the goal is not Net Zero, but no fossil fuels and no emissions ever. You can look it up.
Here is but one sample:
https://ukfires.org/about-us/
There is more, but you have to dig to find it.
No such thing exists called “FOSSIL FUEL”….you are making her point…stop using Marxists language.
Language is the first thing FILTHY MARXISTS claim. Fossil Fuel. Climate Change, Islamaphobia, Systemic Racism….all are FILTHY LIBERAL Strawmen, that most people don’t notice.
ALL of it is Fake.. Gaslighting Bullshit. EVIL LIES.
“opposite the editorial page”
Nope. It’s the opinion/editorial page.
NBD, I once had an editor who thought it was “off/ed”.
op-ed
/ˈäpˈed/
noun NORTH AMERICAN
denoting or printed on the page opposite the editorial page in a newspaper, devoted to commentary, feature articles, etc.
“an op-ed piece”
“Op Ed” is what they call Edward, the overworked surgeon.
I thought it was “opinion/editorial”.
Well done. Now talk about how absurd it is to blame a gas making up .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere for all our woes and I’ll love you even more.
had to dbl check the #, spot on; gimme a moment. grade school math. percentage shift 2 d points left right as apropo.
# is 0.04 4/100th. but that is the %age soooooo gimme moment, gotta conjure some goose eggs.
expressed as a fraction then, CO2 takes up 0.0004 of the total of the air.
But 0.0004 is so obviously, and visually, insignificant. Much better say 400 parts per million. Here, we have 400, a large number, and MILLION, an even bigger number. It sounds facile, but it is true, and deliberate. People really have no idea how little there is.
Someone recently wrote “4 parts out of a 1000” (instead of .04%.).
I think that is more relatable for the average reader or listener.
And more memorable too. I’m gonna use it from now on.
Why is it that 1000 out of a 1000 articles by believers of catastrophic “climate change” cite only one gas that is only 4 parts out of a 1000 in the atmosphere.
But of course you could refine this by referring to how much of that is human sourced.
Actually 4 parts in 10,000.
Holy Moly. And I have a background in finance.
I was using the journalist’s calc and didn’t check it.
But it does highlight my point about “parts per …” being a more effective expression.
I have been one of those commentators. If you accept the frame of your opponent you have lost and all you are doing is negotiating the terms of surrender.
In my view this is the only way to beat this. Net zero is a religion… not based on any kind of economic or scientific evidence. Force them to do a full accounting of costs and benefits of higher CO2 levels.
You make your first mistake when you listen to them; your second – and fatal mistake – is when you agree to sit down and talk.
Jamie:
Well Ann Coulter did say How to Talk to Liberal (If you Must).
But again: With the Libranos slated for slaughter PP should assiduoulsy avoid controversy. Nail, nail, nail Trudeau; no controversy there as he is the most hated “leader” in the world.
” …PP should assiduoulsy avoid controversy.”
Like he did from April 2020 to February 2022?
I sure won’t forget that.
Rhetorical question:
What could he have done?
N A D A.
As most people bought the global propaganda BIG TIME not only could he not have done anything, the opposition would have had a field day. Trump was gung ho on the “vaccine” and lockdowns. Still is peachy keen on the “vaccine”.
We had daily body counts on TV here in BC.
What could he have done? Oh, not much, I guess. I mean, maybe he could have spoke out against turdo pissing all over our rights, but he didn’t. Maybe he could have could have said something about the likely ruin of our economy, but he didn’t. And, and, and ….
Climate change itself is a religion. You must repent for your sins against GAIA and repent or you will burn. i’m pretty sure that story isn’t original or new.
If you wanted to promote Net Zero in an honest way, you wouldn’t jet-set around the country trying to raise money just to keep your political party in power. You wouldn’t fly half-way around the world for a vacation and then come home to tell your constituents they shouldn’t use fossil fuels. You wouldn’t announce massive subsidies for new battery plants (in your favorite ridings) and yet not have secured the supply chain for the critical minerals that go into the batteries or even started to upgrade the electrical infrastructure to handle the increase in load.
You wouldn’t state that the western world needs to show an example to the rest of the world on how to approach net zero, and then do the opposite yourself.
You wouldn’t be such a hypocrite. You would lead by example. Yet, there they are. Wining and dining at the climate conferences that claim we are killing the planet.
Not everyone is capable of shame. He is what he is and do not doubt it.
The dream: Net Zero by 20xx.
The reality: Not Zero, Not Ever.
I would like Net Zero much sooner if it means Net Zero Liberals!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/peter-sweden-sweden-is-charging-electric-busses-diesel/
Net Zero = Zero People.
The misanthropes are everywhere like the useful idiots who chant & protest and paint and glue themselves, but the elites who wield enormous power are the existential threat.
They need to be re-educated and then culled just in case.
Buddy, I would be happy with just the culling right now, we can worry about the re-education later, although, it probably won’t be needed!
Reject net zero immediately as it is an impossibility , only the very terminally stupid think killing everyone is a good idea.
.04% is actually 4 parts in 10,000.
0.4% is 4 parts in 1,000.
4% is 4 parts in 100.
Bingo. Thanks Eleventh of Nevember.
As indicated above I took another writer’s calc without checking.
And I have an investment background. Blush.
Yeah, let’s destroy our economy because Co2 takes up 4 parts per 10,000 of the atmosphere.
“Parts per ___________” is a more easily grasped expression.
Or using the standard denominator 400 parts per million.
Though I think the smaller numerator 4 (per 10,000) is more effective.
ck
It is also useful to point out humans contribute about 3% of that .04%.