[andyt]

Did that really need pointing out?

[DrCaleb]

Apparently.

[N_Fiddledog]

You're both wrong.

The way the survey appears to have been presented an implicit third option would disappear.

As explained by Angus Reid that survey was an online survey with a captive paid forum of participants.

I'm going to assume it's like what online ads are promoting when they invite people to "make money online doing surveys."

http://join.ca.surveycompare.net/?cid=5 ... fgodey4AWA

So these participants are there looking to make some pesos doing surveys. They open the page they see two options.



Do you like Cap n Trade?

Do you like Carbon tax?

Want your cash? Click one.

There is no explicit option for no tax and without one it does not exist in that format.

As previously stated Angus Reid has been critiqued for these sorts of limited option surveys before.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

You're fixated on one aspect. This discussion is about a plan to reduce ghg production. Not locations of gas wells or other questions, that may be perfectly legitimate but have nothing to do with ghg production. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of the US plan, but if natural gas is being substituted for other carbon fuels, that is a good thing. Even if not, the bottom line is if there is a plan in place to reduce overall ghg output. I know in BC the govt is hell bent for leather to produce and ship as much lng as possible. Most of our fracking seems to be removed from where people live, but then we have a lot more of that space vs the US. I know there have been protests back east about fracking. So don't come on all holy about Canada vs the US in this regard. And we're digging and shipping coal and trying to expand the high ghg oilsands. We've got nothing to brag about, and we don't even have a plan to make changes. At least the US has started on that.

But sure keep on flapping about fracking if that makes you feel better. As if we didn't do it. As if fracking for gas the is the number one concern about ghg output.

Just the usual diversion argument - you should work for Harper.

the only one playing the diversion/deflection game is you. YOU should work for O'Bummer.

Let's put it this way, if some company decided to slap up a wellhead or pad 100m from your house, I have grave doubts you'd be waxing idiotic about how it's helping to reduce GHGs. This US plan you think is so shit hot is basically a case of, "no source of natgas to be left untapped". In fact, if you look at the home page of this site you'll see a story where the US is poising itself to take over global energy dominance. Reducing GHGs my ass, this is nothing more than a plan to try and put the US on top and nothing more.

Of course only a moron would think that trading our water for lower GHGs is a good plan. Take a look at a map of the Western US and note how many natgas wellheads there are. And people wonder why California is suffering from a fucking water shortage and why water levels have decreased significantly in the entire region.
Depending on the size, each well can use anywhere from 2.5 million to 7.8 million GALLONS of water per frack. Then consider that there can be dozens of pads on one site with up to 20 wells per pad.
Then factor in that it takes hundreds of truck trips to bring in just 1 million gallons of water for fracking and hundreds of truck trips to take the waste away.
I'm sure all the people in residential areas where wells are installed are just so happy to see the reduction of GHGs, well, if they could see it through the smoke, dust and GHG emissions from all those trucks.
But hey, who cares what properties or other parts of the environment take a shit kicking, as long as it reduces GHG emissions, right?

The US plan has SFA to do with reducing GHGs anyway. It has nothing to do with America becoming energy independent. It has everything to do with the US attempting to achieve global energy dominance.

A plan, I might add, that you'd be having a shit hemorrhage about if Harper or a US "RepubliCON" came up with it.

[smorgdonkey]

I think that it's completely F'd. If we (Canada) cut our greenhouse gas emissions by half it would be like nothing was done at all because of what China and India (& other places) are doing.

The developed world wants to do some of these things but the world that didn't go through the first industrial revolution wants in on the cheap so they are going full bore with coal and all of the methods which pollute the worst.