News:
SMF - Just Installed!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by Herman
- September 06, 2025, 08:23:37 PMThe Carney government is killing jobs and driving up the cost of living by strangling business with red tape.
When it comes down to it, Prime Minister Carney needs to do one thing: GET OUT OF THE WAY.
When it comes down to it, Prime Minister Carney needs to do one thing: GET OUT OF THE WAY.
Posted by Herman
- September 05, 2025, 09:27:05 PMCanada lost another 66,000 jobs in August. The third straight month of job losses. The national unemployment rated went up to 7.1 percent.
Posted by Brent
- September 05, 2025, 11:58:44 AMQuote from: Herman on September 03, 2025, 03:52:17 PMCanada has more resources than Texas.
Are Canadians happy with mediocrity? I am not.
Posted by Herman
- September 03, 2025, 03:52:17 PM
Posted by Herman
- September 03, 2025, 03:35:12 PM
Posted by Herman
- August 31, 2025, 02:28:01 PMHow do you think Brookfield is performing right now?
Posted by Herman
- August 28, 2025, 06:25:14 PMIt will be Carbon Tax 2.0
Conman Carney's Clean Fuels Standard could increase the price of fuel by 17 cents a litre. The same as the old consumer caarbon tax.
Conman Carney's Clean Fuels Standard could increase the price of fuel by 17 cents a litre. The same as the old consumer caarbon tax.
Posted by Thiel
- August 28, 2025, 02:06:59 PMQuote from: Herman on August 27, 2025, 06:08:11 PMIt's bullshit.There is virtually no chance of a new liquefied natural gas facility getting built and exporting energy to Europe in the next five years and Mr. Carney knows that.
Much media hype about Mark Carney signing a "Joint Declaration of Intent" with Germany.
What does it mean? Nothing.
Read the fine print: "This JDI (Joint Declaration of Intent) is not legally binding and does not create any financial commitment."
All show business.
Posted by Brent
- August 28, 2025, 01:13:05 PMSeems there is a business case for selling Canadian liquefied natural gas to Europe after all.
The Mark Carney government, unlike the Justin Trudeau government before it, said this week that it is willing to consider — possibly, maybe down the road, in the medium term — selling LNG to Europe.
Right now, a lot of Canadian natural gas is being exported to Europe, it's just being exported through the United States, which seized on this opportunity while we decided to be "green" and take a pass. And so Canadian natural gas is sold to the United States at a discount and then sold to the Europeans by the Americans at a premium.
The Carney Liberals are still saying many of the right things, as they have done for months, but they haven't delivered yet.
On that front, and whether they will deliver on all of this, we are still at the wait and see stage of this relationship.
The Mark Carney government, unlike the Justin Trudeau government before it, said this week that it is willing to consider — possibly, maybe down the road, in the medium term — selling LNG to Europe.
Right now, a lot of Canadian natural gas is being exported to Europe, it's just being exported through the United States, which seized on this opportunity while we decided to be "green" and take a pass. And so Canadian natural gas is sold to the United States at a discount and then sold to the Europeans by the Americans at a premium.
The Carney Liberals are still saying many of the right things, as they have done for months, but they haven't delivered yet.
On that front, and whether they will deliver on all of this, we are still at the wait and see stage of this relationship.
Posted by Herman
- August 27, 2025, 06:08:11 PMQuote from: Thiel on August 27, 2025, 01:53:35 PMMr. Carney's new pact with Germany to provide critical minerals and more energy is good for the national economy. However, it is unlikely to achieve its full potential because of Liberal deference to Quebec. It's also not a commitment.It's bullshit.
Much media hype about Mark Carney signing a "Joint Declaration of Intent" with Germany.
What does it mean? Nothing.
Read the fine print: "This JDI (Joint Declaration of Intent) is not legally binding and does not create any financial commitment."
All show business.
Posted by Thiel
- August 27, 2025, 02:06:07 PMThe United States Department of Energy recently published a report, which essentially summarizes the U.S. government's rejection of the 30-year-old, United Nations-centric, climate-alarmed consensus worldview. This has many implications for Canada.
The report also, not surprisingly, diverges from the UN-climate-alarmed consensus idea that the solution to climate change risk is global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission suppression. Rather, when it comes to policy, the report comes down firmly on the idea of adaptation to potential climate disruptions, regardless of cause: "Technological advances such as improved weather forecasting and early warning systems" have substantially reduced losses from extreme weather events. Better building codes, flood defences and disaster response mechanisms have lowered economic losses relative to GDP. Further, heat-related mortality risk has dropped substantially due to adaptive measures including the adoption of air conditioning (which relies on a robust economy) and the availability of affordable energy. "U.S. mortality risks... even under extreme warming scenarios are not projected to increase if people are able to undertake adaptive responses."
What does this mean for Canada?
First, one must assume that it portends a continued U.S. movement away from GHG mitigation efforts and programs involving direct emission suppression from sources such as power plants, manufacturing facilities, vehicles, commercial and residential buildings, and so forth.
It will also likely mean less intrusive efforts to suppress GHG emissions indirectly with various energy efficiency standards, agricultural practises and the mandated replacement of GHG-emission power production with lower/less-GHG emitting wind and solar technologies. Oh, and once again, the much-ballyhooed transition from internal combustion transportation to electric vehicles is likely to take it in the neck, at least in the U.S. for the next four years.
Again, what does this mean for Canada? In a nutshell, it means the U.S. will cut a fairly large amount of spending on GHG suppression measures while Canada (Carney government, et al) plans to increase such spending. And the U.S. will also cut spending—and consumer costs—for electric vehicles while Canada will increase both.
Because virtually all of the U.S. focus is about lowering the costs of energy and the technologies that use it—and energy is the foundational input of developed economies—all of that will likely make the U.S. more economically competitive, from the individual to the firm, compared to Canada.
The more Canada elbows up and doubles down on joining the UN's GHG-suppression regime, the less competitive Canada will make itself compared to the U.S., which—Trump's tariffs and current politics notwithstanding—remains the most relevant touchstone for whether or not Canadian policies are economically rational.
The report also, not surprisingly, diverges from the UN-climate-alarmed consensus idea that the solution to climate change risk is global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission suppression. Rather, when it comes to policy, the report comes down firmly on the idea of adaptation to potential climate disruptions, regardless of cause: "Technological advances such as improved weather forecasting and early warning systems" have substantially reduced losses from extreme weather events. Better building codes, flood defences and disaster response mechanisms have lowered economic losses relative to GDP. Further, heat-related mortality risk has dropped substantially due to adaptive measures including the adoption of air conditioning (which relies on a robust economy) and the availability of affordable energy. "U.S. mortality risks... even under extreme warming scenarios are not projected to increase if people are able to undertake adaptive responses."
What does this mean for Canada?
First, one must assume that it portends a continued U.S. movement away from GHG mitigation efforts and programs involving direct emission suppression from sources such as power plants, manufacturing facilities, vehicles, commercial and residential buildings, and so forth.
It will also likely mean less intrusive efforts to suppress GHG emissions indirectly with various energy efficiency standards, agricultural practises and the mandated replacement of GHG-emission power production with lower/less-GHG emitting wind and solar technologies. Oh, and once again, the much-ballyhooed transition from internal combustion transportation to electric vehicles is likely to take it in the neck, at least in the U.S. for the next four years.
Again, what does this mean for Canada? In a nutshell, it means the U.S. will cut a fairly large amount of spending on GHG suppression measures while Canada (Carney government, et al) plans to increase such spending. And the U.S. will also cut spending—and consumer costs—for electric vehicles while Canada will increase both.
Because virtually all of the U.S. focus is about lowering the costs of energy and the technologies that use it—and energy is the foundational input of developed economies—all of that will likely make the U.S. more economically competitive, from the individual to the firm, compared to Canada.
The more Canada elbows up and doubles down on joining the UN's GHG-suppression regime, the less competitive Canada will make itself compared to the U.S., which—Trump's tariffs and current politics notwithstanding—remains the most relevant touchstone for whether or not Canadian policies are economically rational.
Posted by Thiel
- August 27, 2025, 01:53:35 PMMr. Carney's new pact with Germany to provide critical minerals and more energy is good for the national economy. However, it is unlikely to achieve its full potential because of Liberal deference to Quebec. It's also not a commitment.
Posted by Herman
- August 24, 2025, 07:07:05 PMCanadian cities keep electing cunts like this.
Posted by Herman
- August 21, 2025, 09:01:54 PMLook at Hamilton. It really aint that much different than any other big city in Canada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLHGeLuly8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLHGeLuly8
Posted by JOE
- August 21, 2025, 08:41:14 PMQuote from: DKG on August 21, 2025, 08:23:59 PMOntario has traditionally been the economic engine of Canada. But, the largest province that generates something like forty percent of the nation's econonomic output is in trouble due to systemic problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWbiQl_RKcg
I think the Trump tariffs had a lot do with it DKG
DKGBut we in the West have decided to help our Ontario Brothers and Sisters in need.
After all, we are all Canadians. We need to stick together.
Trump has caused havoc everywhere else in the world too.
It's not really Ontario's fault that they find themselves in this predicament.