And yet, here is his government choosing to do business with this company despite definitely suffering a political cost for it. And trying to pass it off as a Canadian company in such a brazen way that anyone with a modicum of self-respect should be insulted that they think you are that stupid. He didn’t need to do this, at all. Maybe it’s coincidental, but it doesn’t look good to me.

I think calling placing his investments in a blind trust “divestment” is playing a little fast and loose with the definition. He still owns the stocks, he’s just not allowed to manage them or keep track of them. But we didn’t hit the guy with the amnesia ray, he knows he’s invested in these companies.

Just a reminder that Mark Carney is invested in Palantir according to his summary statement.

I don’t think Trudeau could have whipped up the level of support that Carney did,

Why not? We were being directly attacked economically and having our sovereignty threatened. A dog could have whipped up plenty of support in that context as long as it was painting itself as a nationalist dog. You are way, way overestimating the effect Carney had on the election and vastly underestimating the effect Trump had, in my opinion.

*Before Trump was elected. I think a Trudeau led Liberal party would have had a much weaker showing, but not as weak as the polling referenced here would suggest. The Conservative falloff was mostly a result of the fallout from the new (at the time) Trump administration and the common understanding that the Conservative party is the pro-US party. The Liberals were able to seize the mantle of Canadian nationalism in the face of that disaster. In another world where Trump was not president but Carney still takes over the Liberals, I don’t think we see nearly the same swing. In a world where Trump is president but the Liberals stick with Trudeau, I think the most likely outcome would have been either a weak Con minority or a very weak Liberal minority.

I have no idea whether it’s been studied sufficiently, but the author of the article you shared seems to think it can be effective if that step is taken.

I also can’t say whether the site was studied sufficiently, but the timelines talked about in the article combined with bill C-15 allowing ministers to exempt entities from environmental laws if they are pursuing something deemed as encouraging economic growth pushes me well beyond the point where I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

the most optimistic proponents of carbon storage argue that it’s a means of mitigating the effects of heavy industry, not of making a meaningful difference in other ways. But they seem to think those mitigating effects can be important, and maybe even necessary?

Maybe, but unfortunately the reality is that:

nearly all CCS projects in the U.S. are actually enhanced-recovery projects that keep the oil and gas flowing, and every new barrel of oil and cubic foot of gas sold and burned is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. So not only do these kinds of projects not help, but they perpetuate our use of fossil fuels at a critical moment in history when we need to do the opposite.

Which is also why O&G advocates like Danielle Smith support it.

They don’t accept floor crossers as a policy. He could sit independent and caucus with them, however.

I didn’t expect much, but a lot of people did because this deceitful snake wrote a whole ass book of marketing material to convince voters that he isn’t who he very definitely is. Liberal partisans were trying to convince me that he was basically a social democrat during the election.

No, they’re both going to shoot me, if ‘shooting me’ here means furthering conservative policy.

Yeah, I don’t know. Would a Conservative minority get away with what Carney is pulling? At least Liberal voters would be resisting the exact same policies we are seeing from Carney if they were being done by Poilievre. And Poilievre would never have managed to bribe his way to a majority the way Carney did. Don’t take this comment as me arguing that a Poilievre government would definitely be better, however. Just…I think the assumption that we chose the lesser evil should at least be examined.

Uh, it wouldn’t. Carbon capture is a joke. That’s too kind, really, because greenwashing another pipeline isn’t funny.

But Canada’s Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu said her government doesn’t have preconceived ideas about what the changes will be. Instead, the aim is to modernize the labour legislation that hasn’t “kept up with the times.”

“It’s no secret that the country is under immense stress,” Hajdu told CBC News on Thursday, pointing to the economic threats Canadian industries face from the U.S. trade war and other global events. “And there’s an urgency to making sure that we have the most modern tools available.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is a 2007 book by Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein. In the book, Klein argues that neoliberal economic policies promoted by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics have risen to global prominence because of a deliberate strategy she calls “disaster capitalism”. In this strategy, political actors exploit the chaos of natural disasters, wars, and other crises to push through unpopular policies such as deregulation and privatization. This economic “shock therapy” favors corporate interests while disadvantaging and disenfranchising citizens when they are too distracted and overwhelmed to respond or resist effectively.

Carney is using the disaster that is the Trump presidency to subject us to Thatcherite reforms that he hopes we will be too distracted to resist cohesively.

Well, I’ve only lived in the urban centres so I haven’t really lived among the worst of it. Having moved from a small city in northern BC to Edmonton my immediate environment feels significantly less, ah, reactionary actually, haha. But the rural areas of the province are among the most conservative in the country and unfortunately the way ridings are here rural areas are disproportionately represented in the legislature which makes following provincial politics very aggravating.

Why move back? Just, life stuff.

So excited to have recently moved back here. At least I can be one more remain vote.

While mindful of what he called the “existential challenge of climate change,” Carney said abundance and affordability are also top of mind for

That’s a very telling word to use.

Carney warned that if sustained opposition to more development in the province continues, Ottawa will have to focus on projects in other provinces.

“If things get stalled here, we’re going to be spending more time elsewhere in the country,” Carney said.

Translation: Accept Alberta’s pipeline or lose investment. Carney is bending over backwards to give Danielle Smith whatever she wants while levying threats against BC to make it happen. Is he trying to make the Cascadia movement into more than a joke?

He said Canada’s renewed focus on energy development “has to go hand-in-hand with environmental protection,”

Unless that involves protecting orcas, I guess? Carney really likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth.

Give this guy enough money to launch his wife into low earth orbit on a penis shaped rocket, which is the sort of help society really needs.

Israel has a perverse incentive to not strongly resist antisemitism. Part of its national sales pitch is that it’s the only safe place for Jews. The existence of Jewish communities outside of Israel that are frankly much safer than that being led by the sorts of people leading Israel flies in the face of the pitch. Rising antisemitism in our own countries rebalances the risk in that equation more towards Israel’s favour.

That’s strange, I didn’t see anything.

I think it’s more likely that he ran back to home office hoping for protection.