Foxconn Denies Report of Unrest at iPhone Factory http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/business/foxconn-denies-report-of-unrest-at-iphone-factory.html?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0
Sure, but all this means is that we effectively establish a range where shale gas and oil are viable. Say for arguements sake that is the equivalent of $80-$120 USD/barrel. Unless alternative energy can meet the lower end of that range, factoring in all costs (meeting peak load, base load, etc. dealing with power storage), then fossil fuels win. As costs go up, alternative sources are more viable but so is wildcatting and new technology to extract new shale deposits. You get a boom of drilling, then prices drop back down. The whole idea of peak oil forcing change goes out the window in this scenario. Or at least gets delayed a few decades.
I think you don't want to believe. The reality is that unless the anti-fracking lobby limits it's production, natural gas from shale deposits will be very abundant for a very long time. Not only that, shale oil deposits are massive as well. Likely big enough to push Peak Oil out a few decades in North America.
Shale of the century The “golden age of gas” could be cleaner than greens think http://www.economist.com/node/21556242
Except that the reason it is cheap is because of shale gas. Of which there is at least a 100 year supply. It is just not going to run out for decades, even with massive increases in usage.
In the farming community I grew up on 40 years ago, it was relatively common for some natural gas to come up with the tap water in some wells. South Western Ontario, Canada. No fracking back in those days.
The proximate cause for the demise of C-30 is not opposition or privacy commissioner complaints. C-30 died because there is a reasonably large subgroup of the Conservative party base which has Libertarian sentiments and opposes the invasion of privacy potential of C-30. If there was no strong opposition from their base, then C-30 would go through, just like C-11 is.
John Ibbitson: Why Stephen Harper always listens to his base "According the Globe's Ottawa Bureau chief, the Prime Minister's mind is often swayed by the rumblings of the Tory base. And in the case if Bill C30, their displeasure means the legislation will never see the light of day." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-john-ibbitson-why-stephen-harper-always-listens-to-his-base/article2434452/
Was the outcome altered though? Proof please? You assume it was, you don't know it was.
There certainly should be a criminal investigation and if any laws were broken, those responsible should be held to account. Unless there is proof that the leadership of the Conservatives directed this action, that is the end of the matter. If there is no such proof, you are not going to get a new general election out of this. No way.
It is a stretch to say that this "casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of Canada's Government'. It is disturbing and not inside baseball.
However, the government needs 154 seats to form a majority in the 308 seat lower house and it has 165, an 11 seat margin. Even if they lost all 14 of these narrowly contested ridings, they would still have had a minority government.
How many were fooled by these calls? Certainly some were, even hundreds might have been. But enough to flip more than one or two seats the other way? I doubt it.
We will, to an extent anyway. Even if oil sands production doubled every 5 years, which it won't, it would take a many decades to get at all the economically extractable oil.
The Bakken formation in the USA has a huge amount of oil in it. Thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling technologies, North American shale oils and gas reserves have vastly increased. Peak Oil has moved out quite a ways.
So, Canada is going to let a multi-trillion dollar resource sit in the ground? That resource is going to get developed and shipped south to the USA and west to China. The oil sands will be developed. The oil sands contribute about 5% of Canada's carbon emissions currently so eliminating them completely would not put a dent in our carbon usage.
The fact is Canada is a cold, sparsely populated country with high energy needs.
Ah, the $1600/family Kent is talking about is payable immediately. The $3800 is over the 30 year operational lifetime of the F-35. You are comparing apples and oranges. The cost for the F-35s is about $30B / 9M families / 30 years or about $111/year. Big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
So what. Doubling the assembly costs would mean little to the final selling price.
iPhone 6 Bill of Materials.
http://www.techinsights.com/teardown.com/apple-iphone-6/
Get a grip.
Foxconn Denies Report of Unrest at iPhone Factory
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/business/foxconn-denies-report-of-unrest-at-iphone-factory.html?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0
Microsoft in 1999 was worth $850B in today's dollars. Apple has a ways to go to have the highest market cap ever.
Sure, but all this means is that we effectively establish a range where shale gas and oil are viable. Say for arguements sake that is the equivalent of $80-$120 USD/barrel. Unless alternative energy can meet the lower end of that range, factoring in all costs (meeting peak load, base load, etc. dealing with power storage), then fossil fuels win. As costs go up, alternative sources are more viable but so is wildcatting and new technology to extract new shale deposits. You get a boom of drilling, then prices drop back down. The whole idea of peak oil forcing change goes out the window in this scenario. Or at least gets delayed a few decades.
I think you don't want to believe. The reality is that unless the anti-fracking lobby limits it's production, natural gas from shale deposits will be very abundant for a very long time. Not only that, shale oil deposits are massive as well. Likely big enough to push Peak Oil out a few decades in North America.
Shale of the century
The “golden age of gas” could be cleaner than greens think
http://www.economist.com/node/21556242
Except that the reason it is cheap is because of shale gas. Of which there is at least a 100 year supply. It is just not going to run out for decades, even with massive increases in usage.
In the farming community I grew up on 40 years ago, it was relatively common for some natural gas to come up with the tap water in some wells. South Western Ontario, Canada. No fracking back in those days.
Not really working the way you think it is.
The proximate cause for the demise of C-30 is not opposition or privacy commissioner complaints. C-30 died because there is a reasonably large subgroup of the Conservative party base which has Libertarian sentiments and opposes the invasion of privacy potential of C-30. If there was no strong opposition from their base, then C-30 would go through, just like C-11 is.
John Ibbitson: Why Stephen Harper always listens to his base
"According the Globe's Ottawa Bureau chief, the Prime Minister's mind is often swayed by the rumblings of the Tory base. And in the case if Bill C30, their displeasure means the legislation will never see the light of day."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-john-ibbitson-why-stephen-harper-always-listens-to-his-base/article2434452/
Was the outcome altered though? Proof please? You assume it was, you don't know it was.
There certainly should be a criminal investigation and if any laws were broken, those responsible should be held to account. Unless there is proof that the leadership of the Conservatives directed this action, that is the end of the matter. If there is no such proof, you are not going to get a new general election out of this. No way.
It is a stretch to say that this "casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of Canada's Government'. It is disturbing and not inside baseball.
However, the government needs 154 seats to form a majority in the 308 seat lower house and it has 165, an 11 seat margin. Even if they lost all 14 of these narrowly contested ridings, they would still have had a minority government.
How many were fooled by these calls? Certainly some were, even hundreds might have been. But enough to flip more than one or two seats the other way? I doubt it.
We will, to an extent anyway. Even if oil sands production doubled every 5 years, which it won't, it would take a many decades to get at all the economically extractable oil.
The Bakken formation in the USA has a huge amount of oil in it. Thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling technologies, North American shale oils and gas reserves have vastly increased. Peak Oil has moved out quite a ways.
So, Canada is going to let a multi-trillion dollar resource sit in the ground? That resource is going to get developed and shipped south to the USA and west to China. The oil sands will be developed. The oil sands contribute about 5% of Canada's carbon emissions currently so eliminating them completely would not put a dent in our carbon usage.
The fact is Canada is a cold, sparsely populated country with high energy needs.
Ah, the $1600/family Kent is talking about is payable immediately. The $3800 is over the 30 year operational lifetime of the F-35. You are comparing apples and oranges. The cost for the F-35s is about $30B / 9M families / 30 years or about $111/year. Big difference.