Now that much of the dust has settled on Cambridge Analytica‘s misuse of Facebook users data the sad story can now be told. It is critical to note upfront that Facebook was not hacked and that the information that was misused was provided voluntarily by Facebook Users. The only breach […]
If you are interested in fully electric cars or plug-in hybrids there is a myriad of misleading information to wade through. One of the big questions is, ‘Is it is cheaper to run own and operate an electric car vs a gasoline powered car?’.
Before we get into the numbers, you need to be aware of two things:
The most accurate, generalized, answer is to say electrified and gasoline vehicles are very competitive with each other and one does not (yet) have a major cost advantage over the other.
I drive a Cadillac ELR with a 60KM+ range (average of 55KM in winter and 65KM range in summer) before my gasoline engine generator kicks in. Because I used to track my expenses and my kilometers, I can say with certainty that the ELR save me:
We have two interesting sets of numbers for you to review. From the new for 2018 book ThePriceOfCarbon.com comes an interesting info-graphic:
After limited debate the US Senate overwhelmingly approved a further reduction in “Dodd-Frank” banking regulations introduced in 2010 to avoid another 2008 style bank generated economic collapse.
Dodd-Frank‘s primary mechanism for doing this was to require financial institutions that were “too big to fail” to withstand stress tests. The idea being that if your bank was going to need a government bail out in the event of failure, effectively making you and me the banks insurance company, that such banks need to prove that they can withstand large economic downturns by keeping enough cash (and near cash) on hand to cover their immediate debts.
If banks pass the stress test, and ALL did in June 2017, they can issue dividends and buy back their own stock (financial engineering to raise their own stock price). If they fail, they can’t. The results and some key details are published so both the markets and individual investors know which banks are stable and which ones are not.
The principle Dodd-Frank change passed in March 2018, was to increase the threshold needed to be included in the stress test, from $50B to $250B.
Banks and other large financial institutions are not evil corporations but they are run by greedy people just like you and me. When those people are given massive incentives to bring in large amounts of income to the banks, they are likely to take risks that are absurd in retrospect, just likely they did in the 2000’s.
When the money that is risked belongs only to shareholder, employees, and board members, there is not public issue with those risks; even ‘crazy’ ones. The problem occurs when the company (bank) in question is so large that if it fails it will bring down the countries (globe’s?) economy. This is also called “systemic risk“. Such a failure cannot be allowed to occur, so governments step and transfer your tax money to those companies.
Put simply, if you are ‘too big to fail’, the public has a right to validate your stability.
While laws must be periodically updated to keep up with the products offered for sale and global political / financial environment, the problem with the March 2018 changes is that they are all reductions:
There has been much talk in the recent decade about banning disposable plastic bags. The basic argument is that consumer grade disposable single use plastic bags are the root cause widespread environmental damage but have ready alternatives, so why are will still using them?
As is often the case with political issues, there is no simple answer to the question “Should single use plastic bags be banned?”. Below are some of the facts and you can decide for yourself if this is a crisis or not:
Recently it was brought to our attention that a small site took issue with the facts supplied in our article “A Tale Of Two Cities: How Chestermere is Spending $100K More Than Lacombe To Find a New CAO“. Given the outrageous claims in the article, we felt compelled to provide the facts.
Please note that www.PartisianIssues.com is trying to stay out of Municipal politics. In Chestermere’s case specifically, we know that the new Council will make mistakes but that those mistakes will be well intentioned and not malicious.
This is perhaps the strangest claim made in the article so we will deal with it first. Our original article made three fundamental points;
The simple fact is that even though Lacombe started their CAO search after Chesteremere did, Lacombe has already hired a new CAO. Chestermere is still spending $27,000 on a person (who we are sure is a smart, qualified but temporary CAO) that has not made any notable changes to the city that any other CAO wouldn’t have done.
Beyond this we found it odd to imply that Lacombe isn’t in a hurry to get their CAO work done. Clearly this is inaccurate; Lacombe is done and Chestermere isn’t.
Let me start with the obligatory, I do not particularly like Donald Trump, believe much of what he says or think his campaign was shinny clean. That being said I do like to listen to both facts and common sense, so let’s go:
There are a few key points to consider when thinking about the claims that the Trump Campaign for President of the United States in 2016 was seriously aided by the Russian Government:
Dr David Maenz is interviewed on CBC Regina radio. The discussion is on climate change, his new book The Price of Carbon, and how the Saskatchewan Provincial government is handling the Canadian Federal Governments demand for a price on carbon.
The Oil & Gas industry has more than its fair share of misinformation directed at it. This site is intended to expose and explore facts and so as part of our new series on the Oil & Gas industry we thought you would like a quick run down of some interesting facts:
Most Canadians think that they are getting their gasoline from Alberta and Texas, but that is just not the case. This 2016 graphic from Statistics Canada shows where Canada really gets its oil from:
The environmental lobby has mislead many well intentioned companies and intelligent individuals with the “keep it in the ground movement”. That logic only applies to “western societies” and has sadly resulted in serious efforts to block even the cleanest Oil & Gas projects for the last decade. The most recent tactic is to block the infrastructure required to make Oil & Gas functional; in particular pipelines are being opposed at every turn.
These next two points should clearly demonstrate that “keep it in the ground” is both naive and environmentally damaging.
The fact is that the most scientificly trustworthy energy industry research body in the world, the International Energy Association (IEA), agrees with dozens of other government and industry analysts that Oil & Gas demand will continue to EXPAND through the year 2040. 2040-2050 is the magic decade when China and India will have moved most of their citizens into the middle class.
Before you start thinking, ‘but wait, that will change if we ‘go electric”, note that the IEA is expecting massive amounts of electrification in the next 20+ years and has already wrapped those expectations into their projections. If we don’t have substantial electrification (solar, wind, electric cars,…) 2040 will not be the
Keep in mind the word EXPAND. This means that at about 2040, the world will not have stopped using oil and gas; this means that consumption will have peaked. After 2040, there will take between 100 to 200 years to cycle out of petroleum based products.
Having worked at a few pipeline companies, I know they take safety and spills very seriously but we see pipeline bursts and their resulting spills with frequency in the news so the question lingers: Are pipelines safe?
Let’s start by stating an obvious fact that no-one WANTS a pipeline or any other serious infrastructure (power lines, rail lines, highways…) in their back yard but without such infrastructure our modern world would grind to a halt. If we can agree on that as a fact, and not an opinion, we can rationally consider pipeline safety.
The factors determining the safety of any pipeline compared to rail or trucking are also obvious and visually undeniable. Below is a simple chart outlining some of the risk factors that go into transporting liquids and gases:
| Factor | Pipeline | Pipe Score | Train | Train Score |
| Above/Below Ground | Burried | 1 | Above Ground | 8 |
| Visibility | Very Low | 1 | Very High | 8 |
| Connections | Few | 1 | Many | 8 |
| Human Error Likelihood | Nearly Zero | 1 | Constant | 6 |
| Intentional Damage Likelihood | Very Low | 1 | Moderate | 5 |
| Easy of Stopping Leak | Very Easy | 1 | Very Difficult | 6 |
| Volume | Very High | 9 | Low | 3 |
| 24 Hr Monitoring | Excellent | 1 | Minimal | 8 |
| 16 | 52 |
While testifying on NAFTA in front of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Canadian Prime Minister told them:
“Canada is privileged to have the United States as a neighbor and friend. And the United States should thank its lucky stars, everyday, that they have Canada on their northern boarder.
This is is the most successful and peaceful bilateral agreement in world history”
“Canada is privileged to have the United States as a neighbor and friend. And the United States should thank its lucky stars, everyday, that they have Canada on their northern boarder.
This is is the most successful and peaceful bilateral agreement in world history”
Multinational trade negotiations are often accused being a closed door mess with a never ending series of mistakes, but Canadian negotiating strategies on NAFTA have been very successful.
Successful is a subjective word and this site aims to keep to the facts and avoid too much opinion, so let’s define success. In the context NAFTA negotiations, success is defined as a trade agreement that is as favorable to your country as possible, with least amount of drama.
Canada, so far, has been “walking softly and carrying a big stick” with the following successful tactics:
1. Starting Negotiations With Demands: Canada laid out its criteria early in the process. This instantly gave the Canadian negotiators important bargaining chips to potentially throw in at the end to close a deal. Things like the dispute mechanisms and protecting the Dairy industry make great domestic politics, which bolsters your position with the other side, but are “nice to haves” and not truly critical to the success of a final deal.
2. Quietly Racking Up Negotiating Chips: In Canada’s case starting superficially unrelated proceedings, like attacking Boeing’s now demonstrably malicious claim against Bombardier, and starting a WTO claim against the US’ unfair trade practices, gives Canadian negotiators more “chips” to bargain with. Massive deals like NAFTA often include side arrangements to terminate other proceedings.
One of the most contentious issues between Canada and the United States on North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is chapters 11, 19 and 20 the dispute mechanisms. Chapter 19 is the one most are fired up about:
…binational panel of five arbiters, agreed upon by both parties, who will determine whether or not the duties have merit based on U.S. domestic laws.
Source: macleans.ca/opinion/why-naftas-chapter-19-is-worth-fighting-for/
Canada has politely stated that the United States is a massive economy with leadership that have inflated ego’s which are tied directly to high powered, big money, special interests. The combination means that without a dispute mechanism, US politicians will frequently bring unfair claims of NAFTA breaches that Canada will not be able to defend against. Canadian media and politicians (and even some American observers) have gone so far as to call this demand a ‘poison pill‘ using the logic that they know there is no-way Canada will accept a contract without a dispute process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvrzlCFQ8eU