Today Fri Sat
It is forecast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on July 31, 2014
Chance of Rain
It is forecast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 01, 2014
Chance of a Thunderstorm
It is forecast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 02, 2014
Chance of a Thunderstorm



What a Green Win Would Mean for Toronto

Here's what the future might hold for our city if Mike Schreiner and the Green Party of Ontario form the next provincial government.

Photo from Mike Schreiner’s Facebook page.

There won’t be a Green government, of course—they even acknowledge it in their platform: “In the next session of the legislature, your Green MPPs will demand that government … [followed by a list of demands].” In fact, the Green Party of Ontario (GPO) will be lucky if it manages to send its first MPP to Queen’s Park in the upcoming election.

That said, the province might be lucky if it did. Leader Mike Schreiner and the Greens approach electioneering with a candour that likely comes at least in part from the knowledge they won’t win—they’re free to advocate useful ideas that more electable parties won’t touch.


Like the Big Three, the Greens promise to spend some $30 billion over the next decade to improve transit in the province (although their platform doesn’t indicate how much of that might go to Toronto). Unlike the other parties, however, the Greens would ask us to bite the bullet and pay for it via new revenue tools, potentially including “congestion charges, gas taxes and parking fees.” No one likes taxes, which is why no one else is publicly advocating for a new dedicated revenue stream. But such a revenue stream is probably the only way Toronto is going to get a Downtown Relief/East-West Express/Don Valley subway line in our lifetimes.


On this file, the Greens are the only party bold enough to call out the white elephant in the room: the Catholic school boards are an expensive anachronism that should be merged into the public system. The GPO estimate that eliminating duplication would save between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion annually, which would buy a lot of education. As Ontario’s biggest city, Toronto should receive a good portion of those funds.


The Greens are, of course, first and foremost green, so rather than building (or planning to build, then cancelling) new power plants, they would offer grants to homeowners for investments in energy conservation measures. The platform claims that the program would create more than 56,000 jobs, and could be paid for by “cancelling the refurbishment of expensive nuclear plants and purchasing low cost water power.” Good idea, but until more details are made available, we can’t determine whether it is, in fact, too good to be true. It’s also possible that giving up on nuclear power represents a triumph of ideology over practicality.


The GPO wants to double the Employer Health Tax exemption for small business from $450,000 to $900,000, and pay for that by bumping the corporate tax rate up by 1 per cent (the NDP is also in favour of a 1-per-cent corporate tax hike). It’s unclear, however, whether the hike on big business would raise enough money to cover the estimated $800-million annual cost of the increased exemption.

Social Issues

The Green Party is out-NDPing the NDP here, with a recommendation for a Guaranteed Annual Income for all Ontarians. Recognizing that it’s early days yet and the idea will for now likely serve as a lightning rod for comment-section trolls, the Greens suggest it’s something that should be looked at in the “longer term.” However, they say they would press immediately for a doubling of the Ontario Child Benefit for families living close to the poverty line, which would be paid for through the elimination of the current Liberal government’s rebate on electricity bills.

They also crank up the leftist rhetoric on the subject of natural resource extraction, opining that “It’s time that people who profit from our shared natural resources pay a fair price for the water, aggregates, and minerals they take.” This would be a complex negotiation, since it’s likely that the companies doing the extraction have a different concept from the Green Party of what’s “fair.”


Schreiner and the Greens want to eliminate the stranglehold that the Beer Store (owned by the multinationals behind Molson, Labatt, and Sleeman) has on beer sales in Ontario. They would allow smaller brewers, who currently pay high fees to sell their products through the Beer Store, to co-operate on distribution and to open their own stores. Notionally, such a change would promote local craft brewers and moderate prices through increased competition.

Is it time to start taking the Greens seriously? A Green government isn’t coming any time soon, but having a Green MPP or two might help introduce to the mainstream some ideas that are otherwise unlikely to see the light of day.

  What a Liberal Win Would Mean for Toronto   What an NDP Win Would Mean for Toronto     What a Progressive Conservative Win Would Mean for Toronto  


  • WD

    “Is it time to start taking the Greens seriously?”


    • you know my name


    • Paul Kishimoto

      Is it time to start taking furries seriously?

      • WD

        I’m actually curious how that’s even relevant besides being a failed attempt at insulting me, but whatever.

  • HotDang

    Which party are you doing next? Libertarian? Marxist-Leninist? Communist? Family Values? Because in our electoral system the Green Party and my list of ne’er do wells all stand the same chance of forming a government.

    I whole-heartedly agree with some Green policies, and scoff at others, but they honestly don’t stand a chance.

    • bobloblawbloblawblah

      I hope they do the Natural Law Party.

    • Electrify85

      I believe the Libertarians are running in enough ridings to theoretically form a government. Would not be a bad idea to do a write up on them, especially to compare to Hudak.

      • andrew97

        I thought it was interesting to see which parties could “theoretically” form a government. At a glance, the Communists with 11 candidates could form a theoretical minority, if: they elected all their candidates; all parties with fewer candidates elected all theirs; and all parties with more candidates got an equal number of seats. (I ignored the possibility that there is more than one fringe candidate per riding, so this might not work out in reality.)

        If you assume all independents get elected (again ignoring that there may be more than one independent/fringe per riding), the None of the Above Party of Ontario with 8 candidates could form a theoretical minority.

  • pls

    can u do will smith next
    like what would a will smith win mean for toronto’s transit?
    probably only mad chicks would ride in his whips

  • nevilleross

    It’s also possible that giving up on nuclear power represents a triumph of ideology over practicality,


    The Greens should have enough sense to know that nuclear is what we need to be green as they define it; that they still believe in all of the bullshit Neo-Luddite fear mongering based on stupid mistakes made at Chernobyl and Fukushima is one of the reasons I won’t be supporting them as much as I’d like. The Gree Party member to a person should be going to this website and learn about nuclear power, then talk about it:

    Until they do, I’ll be sticking with Wynne.

    • Informed Voter

      Increasing the use of hydro power from Quebec and investing in home retrofitting can negate the need for further nuclear development and save billions in the process. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me!

    • dsmithhfx

      There may be better options in the fairly near future for some form of nuclear, if some promising research pans out. If we build with current technology we’re stuck with it for 1,000 years. Basically it’s totally uneconomic.

      • TheSotSays

        “If we build with current technology.”

        Where do you come up with this “we” business? You likely can’t drive a nail without calling your husband.

    • mlwjones

      One of the other reasons to abandon nuclear – it’s only cheap if you ignore the habitual cost overruns and long-term maintenance questions. Factoring those in, it’s not cheap at all – the debt retirement charge on all our bills is thanks primarily to our nuclear facilities.

      Energy conservation and small-scale local energy generation creates local jobs that can’t be outsourced, and avoids the cost overruns and potential scandals of megaprojects. You can’t run up $1billion in cancellation costs on a rooftop solar panel…

      • nevilleross

        But you can have brownouts when there isn’t enough sunlight to power said precious panel(s), and that’s what will happen with the over-emphasis on solar and wind just because people are in thrall to the same disaster stories again and again (FYI, more deaths have happened due to coal and gas emissions than due to anything from a nuclear power plant.)

        I’d rather stick with the (most likely inflated) cost over-runs of a nuclear plant project than be just placing my eggs in the one collective basket of solar/wind simply because people want to be Neo-Luddites and believe in disaster stories that sound like something out of the movies of Sam Katzman or like the warning out of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

        • mlwjones

          My concern with nuclear isn’t technological, it’s more scale – nuclear is Big Energy by definition and Big Energy costs Big Bucks. Investing the same billions in conservation and local renewable projects addresses both supply and demand issues… Also, not one to put all eggs in any basket. Solar and wind can be complimentary to even nuclear in the transition period. If I can generate 20% of my demand easily and cheaply, and everyone else can do the same, that’s a few gas plants we don’t have to order, much less cancel.

          • nevilleross

            Nukes have allowed France to meet the Kyoto targets and to have lower power bills/costs-that’s a heck of a lot better than what wind and solar can do.

          • torontothegreat

            What an antiquated way of thinking…

            Not only does Neil Degrasse Tyson disagree with you but Germany completely, 100%, proves this way of thinking wrong.

            Germany which is half the size of France, but has considerably more people/more homes, which means that they use more energy (France has only 3/4 of the population of Germany) generates 74% of it’s power needs through renewable energy. SEVENTY FOUR PERCENT and has at least 1000 LESS hours of sunlight on average per year, than France.

            They are actually taking things a step further by phasing out nuclear energy altogether.

            But you can have brownouts when there isn’t enough sunlight to power said precious panel(s)

            What a load of crap. Do you know what a Photon is? They still exist when it’s cloudy. Also very powerful amplifiers are already engineered to keep the rate of solar conversion normalized.

            The real rub is Solar power is technically nuclear power. That’s exactly how the sun makes it’s energy – let’s keep it off our planet and in space where it belongs.

          • torontothegreat

            Voting for Rob Ford saved a lot of people 64 dollars a year. That’s a heck of a lot better than someone running for the sake of common good could do!

        • torontothegreat

          I’d rather stick with the (most likely inflated) cost over-runs of a nuclear plant project than be just placing my eggs in the one collective basket of solar/wind

          That’s actually TWO “collective baskets” of energy.

          Relying solely on Nuclear energy is precisely “placing your eggs in the one collective basket”. Then you’ve got the audacity to call this person a luddite – which is actually what proponents of nuclear energy ARE; by DEFINITION OF THE WORD LUDDITE.

          • nevilleross

            I call it as I see it; if you can’t accept that and wish to deal in sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, that’s your (and their) problem, not mine. Ignoring the fact that France, for example, is the biggest user of nuclear power, that it has the lowest emmissions in the EU, and that it’s met its Kyoto targets, you’re still going to believe in solar power when we don’t get sun every day, and in wind when the same thing also happens?

            If the people so opposed to this kind of power can’t stand it, maybe they should consider living in the countryside in communes instead.

          • torontothegreat

            Ignoring the fact that France, for example, is the biggest user of nuclear power, that it has the lowest emmissions in the EU


            France does NOT have the lowest emissions in the EU. France ranks 18 highest worldwide.

            EU Countries with lower emissions than France according to International Energy Statistics (






            Czech Republic



            you’re still going to believe in solar power when we don’t get sun every day

            It’s amazing that you’re so against something you clearly don’t know the science of.

            Start with French scientist Edmund Becquerel’s discovery of “photovoltaic effect” in the 19th century, so this isn’t exactly a new concept.

            You seem really sucked in by Big Energy propaganda and I’d suggest you stop getting your facts from them as well.

          • nevilleross

            No, I believe in reality (remember that word?) of what France and other nations that haven’t given up nuclear have done and not in moonbat eco-emoprogressive scare/fear-mongering bullshit like you and others like you do. We could have solved all of our energy problems and not have to be dependent on coal and gas for power (and have the same happen here in Ontario), but people like you have wrecked it all. Now look where we are.

            When you want and push for ‘all or nothing’, you will always get nothing.

          • torontothegreat

            What you believe is irrelevant. You’ve provided nothing to this conversation and thankfully dinosaurs like you will soon be gone from having any impact on this discussion.

            When you want and push for ‘all or nothing’, you will always get nothing.

            Says the guy that pushes a SINGLE source of energy. The only thing I’m pushing is that we care about our environment and take steps like Germany to find multiple sources of green energy to use.

          • nevilleross

            I’m pushing the realistic type of energy supported by noted environmentalists like Al Gore and the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore; they have more sense in their heads about this than people like you do.

            Something else to think about:

          • torontothegreat

            I’m pushing the realistic type of energy

            But you’re not. As I’ve already outlined several times, to which you haven’t even refuted in any meaningful way. Germany just broke the world record by producing 5.1 terrawatt hours of clean energy in July – that’s more than 6 times the entire amount produced by the USA! – That’s REALITY. Check your head.

            You may want to update your opinion, as Al Gore has over the last few years. Because he is “sensible”, this is how “realists” actually think. You’re pushing some kind of strange Nuclear dogma that is so outdated.

            “Meanwhile, solar PV [photovoltaics] is riding a ‘Moore’s Law Jr’ costdown curve. Wind and efficiency too, though not as steep. We need to get to scale on renewables quickly and make the transition. – Al Gore”


            founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore

            Patrick Moore is NOT an environmentalist, he exploits the fact that he once WAS someone who jumped on the environment bandwagon, but not anymore – not for decades.

            Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

            I prefer what credible scientists have to say about it, but hey, that’s just me. You’re basically arguing that we should listen to Rob Ford/Stintz on transit, as opposed to the transit experts – I hope you see that.

            they have more sense in their heads about this than people like you do

            You’ve still yet to prove anything I’ve said as false. You’ve still failed to provide any kind of formidable counter argument to this debate. You have failed, now I see why – you prefer soundbytes to knowledge. Truly senseless on your part.

          • nevilleross

            And you’ve yet to prove that you aren’t like everybody else these days and that you actually believe in science instead of fear-mongering. BTW, have you/did you even read what I posted from Sense About Science, or are you being the one to plug your ears and say “nah nah, can’t hear you’?

          • torontothegreat

            I have given PLENTY of proof as to my position. The only thin you have provided thus far is a Twitter debate. Soundbytes from 2 years ago that have been refuted all the world over.

            You seriously need to get up-to-date on this issue, as you seem to be living in the past. I’d also suggest looking at REAL science, not a Twitter debate between a bunch of idiots, with barely any credentials.

          • torontothegreat

            BRAVO! Germany is saying “nein” to dirty energy by heavily investing in solar energy, and the results are stunning: the country just broke the world record by producing 5.1 terrawatt hours of clean energy in July – that’s more than 6 times the entire amount produced by the USA!

            If a cloudy country like Germany (which has no deserts and is the size of New Mexico) can excel in solar energy, why can’t the rest of the world? The answer is government priorities. While we continue to subsidize fossil fuels and embrace controversial tactics like fracking, Germany is showing the rest of the world what smart policies can do.

    • brainhurt_and_fear

      Nuclear power plants are death waiting.

      • andrew97

        How many people died as a direct result of Fukushima? (Answer: zero)

        • dsmithhfx

          “How many people died as a direct result of Fukushima?”

          At this point, we don’t know.

          Yes, coal power is very, very bad and should be shut down as soon as possible (and kudos to the Ontario government for doing just that, even it it caused electric rates to spike).

          No, the risks of coal generation don’t somehow justify or ameliorate the risks of nuclear power generation.

        • HotDang

          Supposedly more people die per year from wind power because it’s dangerous to install.

          • torontothegreat

            And how much land does wind power render permanently useless?

            Here’s a hint: Zero square feet.

          • HotDang

            Cool the hyperbole. Thousands of years is not permanent.

          • torontothegreat

            In terms of humankind, it sort of it.

            Anyways, it’s not hyperbole, it’s semantics. You’ve met said semantics with avoidance and a straw man. Good on you for “sticking to yer guns. MURICA!!!!!”

          • HotDang

            Exaggerating a finite to infinite is not hyperbole?

          • torontothegreat

            “‘MURICA!!!!!” Seriously dude.

            Infinite is a time measurement and indefinite could be anything that’s not completely decided. The word permanent falls to the latter, as it’s not a measurement of time, but rather of expectation.

            Now try to keep up here. Permanent is indefinite, as in nobody f’n knows how long the land can’t be used for.

            Anyhow, your semantic blathering has nothing to do with anything.

          • HotDang

            Why do you keep saying “MURICA?” It’s not in wiktionary.

            But wiktionary does say that permanent can mean “without end, eternal.” But either way, relegating a disused coal mine to hold some radioactive waste is not a big deal.

          • torontothegreat

            Why do you keep saying “MURICA?” It’s not in wiktionary

            Because you do things like use wiktionary as a reference.

            I guess the standard meanings in Oxford or even M-W weren’t up to snuff eh?

            But wiktionary does say that permanent can mean “without end, eternal.”

            OMG, stop it man, you’re killing me!

            But either way, relegating a disused coal mine to hold some radioactive waste is not a big deal.

            Says you. Why the hell would I take ANYONE seriously who ignores standard meanings for words and searches the internet until they find the one that validates their point? That is some serious ignorant type ish right there!


          • HotDang

            You still haven’t defined what you mean by MURICA. I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Urban dictionary defines “murica” as follows:

            The way un-educated Americans (generally rednecks, hicks, republicans, or very patriotic people) say America.

            I am neither uneducated, nor am I American. So unless you are using an “Oxford” or “Meriam-Webster” definition of this word that I was not able to find, I think it’s clear that you are misusing this word, just like you misused “permanent” before. Your whole argument rests on a shaking foundation of incorrect definitions.

            Also, no one died from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

          • torontothegreat

            nor am I American

            The duck test isn’t precise, my apologies. Although I’m not sure that really says anything in your favour either.

            The claim of there being no consequences to life and the prediction that there won’t be in the future from the Fukushima catastrophe is an outrageous falsehood.

            Your entire argument can be summarized as “nobody promptly fell down dead during the Fukushima disaster, therefore nuclear energy is safe”

            “Every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”
            - National Council on Radiation Protection

            “State-of-the-art analysis based on the most inclusive datasets available reveals that radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdown is at least as big as Chernobyl and more global in reach.”
            - ISIS (archived by the British Library as UK national documentary heritage)

            Meanwhile, every bluefin tuna caught in the waters off California in a Stanford University study was found to be contaminated with cesium-137, a radioactive poison emitted on a large scale by Fukushima. The tuna migrate from off Japan to California waters.

            “The tuna packaged it up [the radiation] and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”
            - Daniel Madigan, Stanford University

            Impact on the environment

            “Some 800 square kilometers are ‘exclusion zones’ of abandoned cities, towns, agricultural land, homes and properties” and from which 159,128 people have been evicted, relates PSR senior scientist Steven Starr.”

            Economic losses have been estimated as high as $500 billion

            Last year the Japanese government enacted what some have dubbed the “The ‘Fukushima Secrecy Act’”. A new State Secrets Act which can restrict-with a penalty of 10 years in jail-reporting on Fukushima.

            Further, about a month after the disaster, on April 19, 2011, Japan chose to dramatically increase its official ‘safe’ radiation exposure levels from 1 mSv (millisievert, a measure of radiation dose) to 20 mSv per year – 20 times higher than the US exposure limit.

            This allowed the Japanese government to downplay the dangers of the fallout and avoid evacuation of many badly contaminated areas.

            So, you go on soldier! Keep your head in the sand, curl up in a corner and keep that thumb in your mouth.

            “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

            - Neil deGrasse Tyson

            If you actually care to educate yourself on this subject as I have, this is a good place to start:

          • HotDang

            I’m very much opposed to the catching of bluefin tuna for food. If the green party could get behind opposing that, and other issues that actually affect the environment, rather than nuclear scare mongering, then they’d finally have something going. I am extremely sad to learn that these beautiful animals have been harmed by the radioactive disaster. That’s a tragedy.

            And I’m certainly not here to defend the members of the Japanese government. They’re a bunch of fucks for the most part. Bastards.

            The real problem with nuclear power is not technological, but managerial. It’s like they showed in the classic thriller “The China Syndrome”. Managed correctly, it’s a 100% bullet-proof technology. The problem is that people have bad days, or don’t care. But there’s no real alternative.

          • torontothegreat

            I’m very much opposed to the catching of bluefin tuna for food.

            So you entirely missed the point that these bluefish tuna are full of radiation, directly related to the Fukushima disaster… Okayyy…

            The real problem with nuclear power is not technological, but managerial

            Really? No, there are several technological problems with Nuclear Energy as well.

            One giant, unanswered problem of nuclear power is what to do with nuclear waste. We produce about 2,200 tons (2,000 metric tons) yearly, with nowhere safe to put it. Currently, the nuclear industry stores the waste in massive concrete structures. France eventually plans to store its nuclear waste far underground, digging tunnels into 150-million-year-old rock [source: Butler]. For now, the waste has to be protected to prevent the materials from falling into the wrong hands.

            In addition, because nuclear power relies on uranium, it’s not a renewable source of energy — it doesn’t naturally renew itself like wind or sunlight. So perhaps those 50 million Frenchmen eventually will look next door to Spain, one of the leading countries for wind turbine production, for alternative methods to keep their country powered [source: Keeley].

            The problem is that people have bad days, or don’t care

            Well, hot dang, now I feel safe :P

            But there’s no real alternative.

            Actually I have already cited several, you just choose to pretend that there aren’t alternatives.

            It’s obvious at this point that you are fine your ignorance, even with facts presented to you. If you’re not prepared to talk about any one of the several alternatives I have previously presented, then I’m not prepared to talk to the equivalent of a backwoods hick that chooses ignorance over science & technology…

          • HotDang

            not a renewable source of energy

            There are lots of supernovae in the galaxy, constantly renewing the supplies of uranium and plutonium. It is renewed when the solar power runs out. It’s a perfect system.

          • torontothegreat

            Just another 6.6 billion years to go and we’ll have all of our stocks replenished!

          • torontothegreat

            I’d suggest you watch this

          • HotDang

            VICE is owned by FOX news and is a sensationalistic reactionary news source. Not interested.

          • HotDang

            So I looked up permanent in Webster’s and it turns out you are wrong:

            Per”ma*nent (?), a. [L. permanens, -entis, of permanere to stay or remain to the end, to last; per + manere to remain: cf. F. permanent. See Per-, and Mansion.] Continuing
            in the same state, or without any change that destroys form or
            character; remaining unaltered or unremoved; abiding; durable; fixed;
            stable; lasting; as, a permanent impression.

          • torontothegreat

            Not sure which Websters you’re looking at but:

            lasting or continuing for a very long time or forever : not temporary or changing


            Generally a good rule of thumb is to use the Oxford definitions. However in this case, I believe they both use the same definition.

          • HotDang

            I was looking at

            Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

        • brainhurt_and_fear

          You seem unaware that you used TWO disasters in your example; curiously, here you only use one. Why is that?

          B/c to defend Chernobyl makes you look both cruel & stupid. You’d lose your argument. Hundreds of thousands of people (homes/businesses/careers) are displaced, the cancers & deaths are still adding up (how’s reproduction going, families?), & tens of thousands of square miles are poisoned.

          Thumbs-down for nuclear in the urban, economic & cultural centre of Canada.

          • CaligulaJones

            “Thumbs-down for nuclear in the urban, economic & cultural centre of Canada.”

            When did Pickering become an economic and cultural centre. Of anywhere?

            Or do you mean the Bruce Peninsula?

          • brainhurt_and_fear

            How ridiculously small do you think the fallout area for a nuclear meltdown is? The industrial belt is not that big a place, no matter how long you think it takes to drive it.

          • HotDang

            Bruce Peninsula

            It’s a global centre for givin’ ‘er shit and gettin’ ‘er done.

          • andrew97

            Even if we use Greenpeace’s inflated estimates for worldwide cancer deaths from Chernobyl, coal is still worse by an order of magnitude. Chernobyl is not a fair comparison to modern nuclear plants because it was an inherently unsafe design, with a flammable graphite moderator and no secondary containment vessel.

          • brainhurt_and_fear

            Yet failed reactors were considered fine & safe… until they weren’t. Like many disasters, we ignorant, short-sighted people only become aware of the weaknesses of _anything_ when they fail.

            But I don’t have big swinging testicles that need to gamble everything I know & love in order to save a few bucks.

            Besides, why is this an either/or prospect? There are many, many ways to make power, we just lack the will & leadership to do it without the proven devastating effects of nuclear.

          • andrew97

            I don’t think anyone thought Chernobyl was “fine & safe”. The Soviets built their reactors cheaply and quickly, which they made up for by not caring about human rights or the environment.

          • brainhurt_and_fear

            Our human rights & environmental record is pristine, I know. And transparency was why there was enormous public & international pressure to shut it down safely, & you & I expected the meltdown to happen.

          • dsmithhfx

            Chernobyl might have been fine until some dimwitted managers decided to ‘stress-test’ it.

        • torontothegreat

          You assume that coal is the only alternative. That’s a grave miscalculation to the OPs statement.

        • torontothegreat

          Not just people. Land.

          63,000 square miles of land is now useless for up to 320 years.

          Discussing the impact of Nuclear fallout only in terms of human death rates is either incredibly disingenuous or you’re incredibly ignorant to the concerns within the scientific and environmental communities in regards to nuclear energy.

      • nevilleross

        Only to Neo-Luddites like yourself. Run along now and don’t be late for the service of your church (meeting of other environmentalists.)

        • brainhurt_and_fear

          Feel free to return to the conversation when you have a reasoned opinion.

          But maybe we’re in 3rd grade & namecalling is de rigueur?

          • nevilleross

            When I hear reasoned, adult debate and not just copy-and-pasted platitudes that somebody else said, then I’ll not ‘insult’ anybody. But all I heard was just the same old, same old I’ve head a billion gazillion times.

          • dsmithhfx

            Turns out concrete and rebar ain’t radiation-proof.


          • brainhurt_and_fear

            When you feel the need to hand out a good diss, may I recommend chiming in on any of my other slightly more detailed comments? You know, not just what you consider the low-hanging fruit. How lazy are you? C’mon, if you want to be serious with your insults, ya gotta reach for it. Reeeeach!

            And nuclear power plants are death waiting.

          • torontothegreat

            How is re-affirming a fact a platitude?

            If you’re suggesting that Nuclear Power Plants have never caused a single death, you sir are dealing in platitudes.

  • Alex

    Watch this and tell me that solar isn’t the way to go. It’s just going to keep improving. Wouldn’t it be great of Toronto / Ontario was on the cutting edge of something?

    Also, all I seem to hear people talk about is cost. Fuck cost. Our forefathers have royally screwed this planet over, and we’re all pretty peeved about it, and we’re doing the same thing. Same stupid mistakes. We have the technology and the brains to do something about it. We have other countries as examples of how bad it can get if we don’t. And even when another country takes a chance on it, and it works, we STILL don’t change.

    I’m not saying 100% that solar is the answer, but it’s worth taking a serious look at. And I don’t want to hear “well it won’t work cuz of this and that”. That’s bullshit. Find a way to make it work.

    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      Cutting edge? That sounds expensive. Let’s wait five decades.

    • torontothegreat

      That 7-inch Glass Hexagon is a beaut! I hope people can discuss the merits of an idea like this, break away from the mould that their heads are currently in and move towards a solution that is rewarding now and in the future.

  • Person

    I went to a Catholic high school and graduated in 2006. The majority of the school was tolerant, if not very accepting, of homosexuality and there were many lesbians that attend the high school and were also Catholic.

    I’m not sure what type of values you hold, as a Catholic, but I think it’s extremely unreasonable to think that differences in values cause harm to others. If anything, it makes people more accepting of other viewpoints.

    What we need less of, is people like you, who believe that differences in values means that we must segregate populations.

  What a Liberal Win Would Mean for Toronto   What an NDP Win Would Mean for Toronto     What a Progressive Conservative Win Would Mean for Toronto  
July 2014
« Jun   Aug »
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31    

Social Media
on Google+
Special Notices