Worthless poll that means exactly nothing. Every single thing about the climate change being published by the Globe is not worth.the paper it's published on. The Globe and Mail declared its editorial position as settled on all climate change issues and declared its support for the climate activism as a media entity. It was the reason I canceled my subscription after years and years. I don't have a problem with activist submissions being published, but when a media organization declares itself an activist, that's not the journalism I(nor anybody, really) should support- that's called propaganda. The question that should have been asked : "are you willing to break up the Confederation in order to reduce the CO2 emissions?" Because this is where we may end up.
Nearly two-thirds of Canadians support oil and gas emissions cap, even if it puts jobs at risk: poll - The Globe and Mail
Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a Nanos Research poll said they agree or somewhat agree that Canada should immediately limit emissions from the oil and gas sector and curtail them over timewww.theglobeandmail.com
Nearly two-thirds of Canadians support oil and gas emissions cap, even if it puts jobs at risk: poll
MARIEKE WALSH
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 12, 2021
:format(jpeg)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/ZYHM2B5BFZMXDCDOV3ZB77CA2Y.jpg)
A flare stack lights the sky from an oil refinery in Edmonton, on Dec. 28, 2018.
JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Almost two-thirds of Canadians support immediately capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands – even if it puts jobs at risk, according to a new poll.
Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a Nanos Research poll said they agree or somewhat agree that Canada should immediately limit emissions from the oil and gas sector and curtail them over time. Thirty-four per cent said they either disagree or somewhat disagree, and 3 per cent said they are unsure.
The poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail, also shows the country is “fundamentally divided” between the Prairie provinces and the rest of Canada, Nanos Research founder Nik Nanos said.
As such, it reveals the political calculus for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as his government plans to implement a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, Mr. Nanos added, because the regions with the most support for such a cap are also Liberal strongholds.
The regional breakdown reveals a gulf between the main producers of oil and gas and other regions. In the Prairies, 57 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with limiting emissions, whereas Quebec had the lowest level of dissent, with just 16 per cent not in favour. In Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, 29 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, said they oppose a cap.
The oil and gas sector is the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, but it is also critical to the economy. Mr. Nanos said the poll shows the country’s regions are “out of sync,” with “the Prairies at one end of the spectrum and then Quebec at the other.”
During the recent election campaign, the Liberals pledged to put a cap on the sector’s emissions, with the ceiling shrinking over time. The government has said it will set five-year targets, starting in 2025. Because the path to a majority government runs through Quebec, Mr. Nanos said there may not be much incentive for Mr. Trudeau to bridge the regional divide.
“Good policy for the federation may become victim to a good political strategy for the Liberals, that’s what we have to watch out for,” he said.
The Prairies, though, “aren’t immune to climate-fueled wildfires and droughts,” said Keith Stewart with Greenpeace Canada. “The best policy for the federation is to help each other through a rapid transition to green energy so we capture the jobs that come with it,” he said.
On Nov. 9, former prime minister Stephen Harper told a closed-door meeting that the federal government’s climate policy unfairly singled out “certain parts of the country.”
The week prior at international climate negotiations in Glasgow, Mr. Trudeau called his government’s planned emissions cap on oil and gas “a big step that’s absolutely necessary,” Mr. Trudeau acknowledged in his Nov. 1 speech that imposing limits will be “no small task for an oil-and-gas-producing country.”
The Prairie provinces were also the exception in a separate Nanos Research poll for The Globe on equalization payments. On that question, more people in the Prairies want equalization removed from the Constitution than respondents from other regions.
Overall, 61 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with removing equalization payments from the Constitution, while 30 per cent agree or somewhat agree. Nine per cent said they are unsure.
In the regional breakdown, though, 50 per cent of respondents from the Prairies said they want the payments removed from the Constitution.
Respondents from Quebec were the least likely to support the change, with just 20 per cent saying they would back it.
Last month, Albertans voted in favour of removing equalization from the Constitution in a referendum that Premier Jason Kenney said was designed to put pressure on Ottawa to address the province’s many grievances. Results posted by Elections Alberta showed 61.7 per cent voted “Yes.”
Mr. Nanos said the timing of the referendum means the issue was much more front and centre for respondents in the Prairies, adding that it’s not clear if people in the region are truly outliers or if the results there simply reflect what others would think if equalization got more attention.
The hybrid telephone and online random surveys ran from Oct. 31 to Nov. 3, with 1,026 respondents. They have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Climate Change
- Thread starter fictionfactor
- Start date
They have views in line with their audience’s views. Seems a sensible tact
Curious to hear how Nanos farmed those “worthless” results.
OK. You can ask in Ontario: "Do you support transition to zero emissions economy?" I don't know the answer, but I'm betting that the support would be quite high. But, then ask : "Would you agree to pay $3/l(to pick a low number) for gasoline to achieve it?" . The point is, it's easy to reach a desired answer by posing a general question to responders with nothing on the line. Put a value on it that they can calculate and the outcome will always be different. Hence, the poll commissioned by the Globe is worthless- click bait at best.
Deny the facts and blame the source is always a good tactic when you have no valid argument.
So are you saying that the Globe falsified the responses to the poll. They lied about the Nanos finding? They lied about 2/3 of Canadians wanting gas emissions caps?
How many national polls have you conducted? It's laughable to think that you, with zero experience, know more than Nanos.
Who gives a fuck? The science is settled, our opinions are meaningless. You may as well ask "Is the Earth flat?"
Hmm. Several hundred years ago the science was settled on the shape of the Earth, too.
Let me explain the difference in meaning between the words 'many' and 'everything'. No, fuck it, I can't be bothered with people who intentionally misconstrue things.
We can't solve a problem like homelessness in our country . Yet you think you can get dozens of countries to agree on what to do about their energy use . What I am saying we can't fix something within our border . But we can tackle the worlds weather . Climate change is driven by people that make money off the industry .
Someone already posted a link to dozens of end of world stories due to weather . Yet we are still here .
Great documentary by left wing John Moore . I'm shocked it is still on youtube .
Probably because you have no answer . 7 billion plus on the planet and growing . You think you can get rid of fossil fuels and feed everyone . Good luck with that .
Except we can fix many things within our border and has been discussed if you were at all interested in listening countries do agree on stuff like acid rain and CFCs.
The reason we can't solve homelessness is because basically we don't give a fuck and partly because there are people actively opposed to the measures we are willing to do. As long as they stay out of our face, people being homeless is a them problem. When they do get in our face... you don't hear much about those annoying people at intersections trying to wash your windows with their filthy water much any more.
Just like people here don't care about the homeless . The the largest carbon emitters don't give a shit about polluting .
Actually
Spherical Earth - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So pretty much soon after we started getting down with science. There were signs of leaning in that direction before that.
I'd have thought every educated person by now would know what you said isn't true. Hell we were taught how the ancient greeks did those calculations in High School.
However again, we have gotten dozens of countries to agree when they give a fuck and take action. Acid rain, CFCs.
Also we can get those countries that do give a fuck to actually agree... to minimal virtue signaling which is the level at which people really care. We make all the right noices, we pay extremely rich people to buy electric cars, Twoplanes and Biden are doing everything they can to shift from Canadian Oil Sands to terrorist oil because... improvement? Plus things like the Carbon tax which actually is a good idea.
Climate change and homelessness are not in the same league. Even China I am sure cares, they just don't feel they can take significant action due to the internal politcal costs from the economic costs. The moment you can get India and China actually on board, action is possible. I'd guess when their GDP per capita apporaches ours and the technology makes it affordable they will be in. It's a bit of a huge ask to expect a country as poor as India do go full retard [or AOC same thing] on the issue.
I try not to engage. OTOH there are very few beggers in my small town. In Montreal I had one guy get very assertive. Probably terrifies 5 foot 100 pound girls into giving him money, but at 6'2 and about 1/8 of a metric ton I was just annoyed. My fault for not being a dick. He would just not accept the answer no. No means try again. Honestly I doubt he was actually homeless. Next time it happened I flat out ignored the guy.
However if it applies [and it doesn't in this case] it is a perfectly cromulent thing to bring up, even if you don't care.
I mean I'll slam a family values Jebus guy for going balls deep into another dude even though I don't really care if dudes bang or not. I will also work within their ideology if it means scoring points [devil's advocate and all that]
Give me a current alternative to fossil fuel that is as plentiful, as reliable and as inexpensive? You can't.
No need to put jobs at risk at least at the beginning of the move
away from fossil fuel. Just place a ban of import of crude oil from
the Middle East to the eastern coast. Climate sheeple in Ontario
will be begging Alberta to postpone oil production capping for
several years if not one decade.
away from fossil fuel. Just place a ban of import of crude oil from
the Middle East to the eastern coast. Climate sheeple in Ontario
will be begging Alberta to postpone oil production capping for
several years if not one decade.
Nearly two-thirds of Canadians support oil and gas emissions cap, even if it puts jobs at risk: poll
MARIEKE WALSH
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 12, 2021
A flare stack lights the sky from an oil refinery in Edmonton, on Dec. 28, 2018.
JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Almost two-thirds of Canadians support immediately capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands – even if it puts jobs at risk, according to a new poll.
Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a Nanos Research poll said they agree or somewhat agree that Canada should immediately limit emissions from the oil and gas sector and curtail them over time. Thirty-four per cent said they either disagree or somewhat disagree, and 3 per cent said they are unsure.
The poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail, also shows the country is “fundamentally divided” between the Prairie provinces and the rest of Canada, Nanos Research founder Nik Nanos said.
As such, it reveals the political calculus for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as his government plans to implement a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, Mr. Nanos added, because the regions with the most support for such a cap are also Liberal strongholds.
The regional breakdown reveals a gulf between the main producers of oil and gas and other regions. In the Prairies, 57 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with limiting emissions, whereas Quebec had the lowest level of dissent, with just 16 per cent not in favour. In Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, 29 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, said they oppose a cap.
The oil and gas sector is the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, but it is also critical to the economy. Mr. Nanos said the poll shows the country’s regions are “out of sync,” with “the Prairies at one end of the spectrum and then Quebec at the other.”
During the recent election campaign, the Liberals pledged to put a cap on the sector’s emissions, with the ceiling shrinking over time. The government has said it will set five-year targets, starting in 2025. Because the path to a majority government runs through Quebec, Mr. Nanos said there may not be much incentive for Mr. Trudeau to bridge the regional divide.
“Good policy for the federation may become victim to a good political strategy for the Liberals, that’s what we have to watch out for,” he said.
The Prairies, though, “aren’t immune to climate-fueled wildfires and droughts,” said Keith Stewart with Greenpeace Canada. “The best policy for the federation is to help each other through a rapid transition to green energy so we capture the jobs that come with it,” he said.
On Nov. 9, former prime minister Stephen Harper told a closed-door meeting that the federal government’s climate policy unfairly singled out “certain parts of the country.”
The week prior at international climate negotiations in Glasgow, Mr. Trudeau called his government’s planned emissions cap on oil and gas “a big step that’s absolutely necessary,” Mr. Trudeau acknowledged in his Nov. 1 speech that imposing limits will be “no small task for an oil-and-gas-producing country.”
The Prairie provinces were also the exception in a separate Nanos Research poll for The Globe on equalization payments. On that question, more people in the Prairies want equalization removed from the Constitution than respondents from other regions.
Overall, 61 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with removing equalization payments from the Constitution, while 30 per cent agree or somewhat agree. Nine per cent said they are unsure.
In the regional breakdown, though, 50 per cent of respondents from the Prairies said they want the payments removed from the Constitution.
Respondents from Quebec were the least likely to support the change, with just 20 per cent saying they would back it.
Last month, Albertans voted in favour of removing equalization from the Constitution in a referendum that Premier Jason Kenney said was designed to put pressure on Ottawa to address the province’s many grievances. Results posted by Elections Alberta showed 61.7 per cent voted “Yes.”
Mr. Nanos said the timing of the referendum means the issue was much more front and centre for respondents in the Prairies, adding that it’s not clear if people in the region are truly outliers or if the results there simply reflect what others would think if equalization got more attention.
The hybrid telephone and online random surveys ran from Oct. 31 to Nov. 3, with 1,026 respondents. They have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
