6 responses

  1. Purple Library Guy
    05/16/2011

    Riiiight, because nobody would be using rare-earth magnets if it weren’t for wind turbines, and if only nobody wanted to use wind for power, Chinese mining would be pristine and environmentally friendly. What we have here is a category error. The problem here is not “People are building wind turbines”, the problem is “China’s unfettered, inadequately regulated drive for maximum short-term profits”.

    Do you Cons have any idea how desperate you sound? How much neodymium gets mined for a single wind turbine? Presumably a few pounds, which very rarely needs replacing. OK, next question–how much coal *doesn’t* get mined for a single wind turbine? Tons and tons per year. So yeah, for the whole sector we’re talking partial responsibility for one toxic lake, versus how many mountaintops blown apart, valleys filled in, streams and lakes killed, for the US coal mining alone? And that’s before we even get into the warming, air pollution and stuff. Don’t make me laugh.

  2. Stan
    05/14/2011

    The liberals supported the Kyoto and Copenhagen treaties.
    The Copenhagen treaty would have forced Canada to send the corrupt goons at the UN $10 billion a year and impose much tougher, and much more expensive, regulations on Canada’s industry.
    Chinese industry already pollutes far more per unit of production than ours, so the idiotic treaty would have resulted in more clean factories here shutting down and more production moving to the much higher polluting factories in China.
    How would that be good for the environment?

    Maybe before supporting these treaties you should read them…..?

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/08/26/world/asia/choking_on_growth.html

  3. Stan
    05/14/2011

    This is just a tiny example of how stupid and ill informed the green movement is:

    “This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines… and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

  4. Purple Library Guy
    05/13/2011

    Ah, but the environment, and any other new technology requiring investment in physical plant or research, *is* a right/left issue. Modern Conservatives don’t believe in any of that stuff. For them, investment is about resource extraction and finance, as pure-paper as you can get it. They don’t believe in going around producing real things that do something useful, improve standards of living and employ people. The last thing they want is to see money in the hands of manufacturing companies or, worse, their employees. In their zero-sum minds that’s just taking it away from the people who should have it: Bank executives and foreign-owned oil companies.

  5. TofKW
    05/13/2011

    Hudak should be going after McGuinty over boondoggles like EHealth …this strategy is just plain stupid.

    There is a schism within the ONT Progressive Conservatives, the old PC Red Tory side versus the rightwing-populist Harris-types + the nutbar Hillier-OLA. Obviously Hudak is on the Harris side, and he’s playing up that base by attacking the environment.

    What he fails to see is the environment is not a right/left issue. There is money to be made by investing here, just like any other new technology.

    I don’t know Ernie Hardeman, but I suspect he’s more on the traditional Robarts/Davis PC side. Most rural southwestern Ont PC MPPs are – like Ted Arnott (Wellington—Halton Hills) or Bob Bailey (Sarnia—Lambton).

    I really wish John Tory was the leader running this time around, and that he didn’t have the political instincts of a sloth. The OLP is going to win another term thanks to Hudak being an empty vessel of rightwing talking points, and McGuinty is so beatable too.

  6. Saskboy
    05/13/2011

    Your title suggests we should both destroy, then create.

Back to top
mobile desktop