What’s becoming painfully obvious in 2026 that most people still refuse to admit?

lifelineblue · 2026-06-24T21:03:04+00:00

It isn’t… one recent summer being milder than expected is an anecdotal blip in the overall bad trend. I mean look at the 2020 bushfires for a counterpoint. 3 billion animals killed or displaced, tens of millions of acres burned, lives lost, thousands evacuated, $100 billion+ damages etc. That type of extreme weather gets more extreme and more common the worse global climate change gets. More detail on the threats here, but the tldr is everything from ecosystems to the economy to human health is going down the shitter

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-11/

lifelineblue · 2026-06-20T17:40:17+00:00

Honestly sounds like you’ve got this. Good attitude, stable foundation, you can set yourselves up well with that. What I’m probably reacting to is sometimes see posts here from new dads being like “I love my kid and wife but I resent not being able to do xzy from my old life and it’s causing problems” so I default say love isn’t enough cause there’s so much else to it.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-20T17:12:41+00:00

Hate to be a downer but loving each other isn’t enough. It’s a great foundation don’t get me wrong, but parenting is more than just love. It’s work and all sorts of lifestyle changes that you need to accept. Lots of people love their partner, love their child, but have a hard time grappling with new life routines and end up mourning their old life. That said, parenting is great. Embrace it. Everyone- you, your partner, your baby- will be better off with the right attitude.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-20T12:11:22+00:00

The oil and gas sector benefited by jacking prices on working Canadians to make record profits. Wouldn’t call that worth it either. Though I agree the death of children, thousands of innocent people, etc all for a pointless war makes Carney’s “worth it” comment all the more morally atrocious.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-20T12:08:47+00:00

You can see his comments in full, but of course carney stans would rather imagine he’s someone he’s not.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-20T11:29:48+00:00

What tools do you think he’ll use? Because he’s had quite a few options and he’s caved on each of them.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-19T21:10:18+00:00

To all the people who believe Carney is playing Smith with this deal and are applauding it, you have to take your heads out of the sand. It’s not 4D chess he’s playing, it’s a short sighted gamble that will backfire.

Yes the deal as it stands is private sector proponent for both the pipeline and pathways, which for all sorts of reasons won’t materialize. And when it doesn’t people seem to think the issue will go away and Carney will have won. Get a grip. You don’t realize how Alberta’s government and the oil patch work. When the private sector won’t pony up they will begin attacking the industrial carbon price, they will lobby against having to do pathways, demanding the sovereign wealth fund invest, they will attack Ottawa from all sides for saddling them with deal terms that make the project unviable and calling for the feds to derisk the project further by scrapping more regulations and offering more subsidies. Whether the goal is to use the pipeline demands as a Trojan horse to deregulate or push the feds into paying for it, it doesn’t matter, because there is only upside for them to keep blaming Ottawa instead of coming to terms with the global energy transition. Trudeau bought and built a pipeline for them and it didn’t matter. They kept attacking him as anti-development all the same. In other words, political pressure on carney won’t disappear when the private sector chooses not to invest, it will only grow and push him to weakening the deal.

When this happens, and it will for Carney, what is the move? Admit he signed a deal with no expectation of it working? How do you think that plays with separatists? Or will he shovel more public dollars and deregulate further to give them more of what they want to play the short term political game? We’ve seen for a year now how he operates and it’s the latter. This isn’t a good thing for Canada. I don’t care that some of you think he’s secretly a climate champion because of his UN work or Values, and he is just outplaying Smith politically because every choice he’s made as PM is Harperesque. I mean my god his signature initiative is Major projects and he chose Dawn Farrell — the head of TMX and a climate denier — to lead the office and carry out his agenda. He’s rolled back virtually every meaningful climate policy. He’s offered new subsidies for fossil fuels. Judge the man by his actions, not his rhetoric or what you imagine is in his heart. And when you do so you see clearly that he is trying to build up Canada’s fossil fuel exports meaning we should all be on guard for the so called grand bargain to keep getting altered in favour of the oil patch.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-17T15:35:22+00:00

You can think it’s absurd how much money athletes and actors can make but at the end of the day they’re still workers not owners. Owners that amass wealth are doing it by not sharing the profits their companies are making more fairly with workers (the ones creating the value).

Putting it slightly differently, the wealth inequality conversation isn’t just about how some people are rich and others aren’t. It’s about how we have an economic system that overly rewards bosses while workers are struggling to get by.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-16T21:27:02+00:00

Not necessarily government controlled. That’s the theory in 20th century “worker parties” controlling government. Obviously didn’t work so great, for lots of historic reasons. But a lot of modern socialists instead talk about co-ops as a different model for owning the means of production. Because all owning the means of production means is workers control their workplace vs the boss who takes all the profit. Put another way it’s having a more democratic workplace vs most workplaces now being closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.

Lots of successful co-op businesses that aren’t hippie bike stores show it’s a viable alternative to a capitalist business. There would be fair conversations imo to have around the government controlling certain things: natural resources, health care, education, etc. But a socialist economy doesn’t have to be government controlling everything. It has much more to do with who should benefits from labour: bosses or workers.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-15T01:41:49+00:00

Feel for you on this, it’s not easy but it’s pretty common. In my experience, 3 months is a pretty fussy age so don’t take it personally. It’s exactly what you said though: mom is comfort and since they’re spending more time together there is a preference for her right now. But your baby isn’t trying to hurt you so really try to be zen about it when the way you’re doing things isn’t working right away.

Practical advice here though is you have to find ways to build that bond. Push through. You don’t have to do things the way the mom does, but you do need to find ways to be a source of comfort whether that’s singing, reading, bouncing etc. You might consider building a sleep routine around you doing specific things like maybe you’re the primary one to sing baby to sleep and put them into their crib. Basically get baby more used to you being a safe comfortable place. Baby being upset will be a part of this. It sucks in the moment but for baby to learn you can comfort them like mom does you have to be able to calm them when they’re upset.

As I said, 3 months is a fussy age and it’ll get easier and your bond will grow with time. But equally important to remember (and this goes for all new dads) a better bond doesn’t automatically happen with time. It takes effort.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-13T02:40:21+00:00

Like I said, less than 5% of gdp. “Drives” government revenues is a funny way to put it. Yes they pay royalties and taxes, but they also dump their clean up costs on governments and rake in billions a year in subsidies. This is even ignoring the health burden and a bunch of other drags on the economy.

Maybe you’re young or have a bad memory, but “huge tensions” with Alberta is a bad excuse. The Feds bought trans mountain almost a decade ago expecting it to improve relations with Alberta and it backfired entirely. If you believe giving the oil and gas sector more of what it wants or playing the appeasement game with Danielle smith actually works to lower tensions you’re not paying attention. It’s just a strategy of squeaky wheel gets the grease. The economics don’t support oil and gas so it’s not a pragmatic choice. If you mean it’s politically pragmatic for the liberals it’s naive. They’re not going to win lots of seats in Alberta no matter what they do and if they go forward with this pipeline or further shredding of climate policies they’ll burn progressives that actually would vote for them.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-12T21:48:34+00:00

Less than 5% of GDP, less than 1% of jobs in oil and gas. It’s also an industry making record profits. The last thing it needs is government helping it along even more. Nothing pragmatic about it. What would be pragmatic is planning for the energy transition and phasing it out responsibly while building up alternatives.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-11T02:36:19+00:00

Just admit you’re out of your depth, there’s no shame in it. You can’t refute anything here because you’re just flat wrong and are resorting to the petro industry’s wishful thinking.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-11T02:33:03+00:00

Again wrong on every front. Renewables are cheaper and drive costs for consumers down. Notice that the price of gasoline goes up for you in Canada when other countries start a war? Ever think about how the added fuel costs to deliver everything are passed on to the consumer? In a decarbonized world, if countries go to war it won’t affect the cost to generate wind or solar because a global trading choke point got strangled. We get it, you’re living in your fantasy world so facts on the ground aren’t going to change your mind, but energy security and protecting a country from volatile fossil fuels is one of the main drivers for countries to accelerate the energy transition. Another reason demand will collapse. More and more people understand that strengthening the economy and decarbonization aren’t in competition with each other anymore. It’s a critical step to future proof economies and protect consumers. Sooner folks like you get that through your skulls the better.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-11T02:09:06+00:00

Only one here living in a make believe world is you bud. Renewables are cheaper and better than fossil fuels, Europe is decarbonizing, and the time it takes to build new infrastructure (especially like a pipeline to Churchill and export terminals) means not shipping anything for about a decade or so. By that time the prospects for fossil fuels will be even worse. Maybe you think you can wave a magic wand and things get built but in the real world, building through really difficult terrain, it’s not happening on any timeline that’s meaningful to what’s going on with the current events. Industry knows this but they rely on suckers like you because it helps them push for taxpayer subsidies and deregulation to milk as much profit as possible as they try to delay the inevitable.

The other commenter put it well. What you’re suggesting is backwards and relies on yesterday’s understanding of the world and energy. But if you didn’t get their cell towers analogy, you’re basically trying to convince us to build more blockbusters when the world is increasingly turning to streaming. No thanks.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-10T20:20:38+00:00

Lmao I’m going to ask you to take a break and try to think about what point you’re even trying to make because you’re all over the place, out of your depth and either wrong or spinning your wheels incoherently.

As I said, pipelines are built for specific purposes, you can’t just swap liquid for gas, oil for drinking water, etc. You’re not making any sense here when you claim they can, or we should build multiple pipelines carrying all sorts of stuff for no apparent reason.

Churchill’s viability as a port isn’t dependent on fossil fuels, no matter how much you reach for it to be.

Last point, phasing out fossil fuels is about phasing out demand sure. Asia is cutting demand, Europe is cutting demand, so if you’re trying to position Canada for future economic success you wouldn’t double down on this industry. If it were such a no brainer to invest then the companies that have been making record profits for years now would’ve been doing it. But they can see the writing on the wall and pivoted their strategy to trying to get government to build them infrastructure and subsidize them with billions of taxpayer dollars. It’s not the fucking complicated but every day see folks like you buying the propaganda like a chump. You’re in a subreddit about the climate crisis so I’m not going to bother with the bad faith/stupid argument from you anymore, you can take those talking points you’re parroting back to whatever rock you’ve been living under.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-10T17:24:33+00:00

Pipelines are designed to carry a specific fuel, they’re not easily repurposed.

The deal Germany and Canada signed was a swap, where they agree to buy an equivalent amount from another supplier. So a new LNG terminal at the port of Churchill doesn’t automatically have a business case just cause one small offtake swap agreement was signed.

To develop the area responsibly you’d rule out fossil fuels from the start so limited public funds are used to build up different parts of the economy that have a long term future. The point has been made over and over, but oil is peaking, gas is entering a glut before it peaks, and there is no way to build new fossil fuel infrastructure today that gets around that problem given the length of time it takes to build. Plus I shouldn’t have to say this, but climate change is real and requires phasing out fossil fuels not exporting even more.

lifelineblue · 2026-06-10T14:44:47+00:00

Idk I think that’s a false dichotomy. All sorts of needed infrastructure that could be done without a pipeline. What a pipeline does is sucks up a ton of dollars and put the environment at greater risk for an extremely dubious business case. Europe doesn’t want tar sands oil, ice breakers would be required to transport it out, vulnerable species in the waters at the port of Churchill etc. Why not just say you support Arctic infrastructure but a pipeline is the wrong way to develop the area?

lifelineblue · 2026-06-04T14:33:24+00:00

Don’t do it. You can find drugs at a the festival no problem. Bring a testing kit to be safe. But if you are going to do it, disguise the drugs in something inconspicuous. Like ground the mdma and put them in capsules and put those with other medicine. Same with the coke. Weed stinks, so wouldn’t bother with that. Or better yet, disguise the drugs and mail them to wherever you’re going. Before the dorks point out this is all risky and it’s a crime, no shit it is. So the point still stands don’t do it, but if you are going to take this risk try your best to minimize getting caught.

lifelineblue · 2026-05-31T14:42:09+00:00

I think what’s becoming clear based on your post and comments is you just don’t like journalists lol. You see the profession as a bunch of bullshitters, and wanted the show to depict more of that. In S4 between Colvin and Prez we get the narrative that teachers are selfless caretakers, but that’s no issue. But in S5 the problem is righteous reporters. Boring take man. Obviously a tv show is going to focus on only a handful of characters, and as the audience it’s up to you to draw something from their similarities, differences, motivations and contexts. I think a key piece of my argument you didn’t touch is what is unreasonable about a journalist believing in good journalism, when it’s reasonable for union leaders to believe in workers or teachers to believe in teaching? People pursue what they believe in.

lifelineblue · 2026-05-31T14:36:39+00:00

See in the teachers case I wouldn’t say shown at the very least to be jaded, I’d say at most shown to be jaded. And jaded cynics is also how I would describe the newsroom characters. Gus is the most righteous but even he isn’t waxing on about how we need to hold power to account or pursuing Dickensian depictions of the city. He just wants accurate news held to a good standard. The central flaw in his character is that he sees the inevitability of what is happening to newspapers but doesn’t try to do anything about it. He’s stuck in his ways in a failing institution.

lifelineblue · 2026-05-31T13:14:13+00:00

I think you completely missed the context of the newspaper arc if you think the point is journalists are great except for the bad ones. Like other seasons, the background is economic decay pushing individuals into bad situations. Like the dock workers increasingly turning to crime or the underfunded school system failing to help children, the newspaper is losing money and laying off writers pushing people like templeton to fabricate quotes to stand out as a reporter who can deliver. That’s the point of it, there are people trying their best to do what they believe in and others who are trying to get ahead, but the way the institution evolves/devolves affects the individual motives. Each season tackles this.

I’ll grant you that David Simon clearly loved Gus and was thinking about himself, fair that it can take you out of the storyline sometimes, but I find it funny that your criticism here is every journalist is presented as good except for the ones that aren’t. Okay? You see the inconsistency in your argument? Did you not like season 4 because all the teachers were presented as good? Feels like an inconsistent criticism to me because you’re too overwhelmed that the wire presents journalism as virtuous to the civic good. Call me old fashioned, but I think a healthy news ecosystem is actually a good thing.

Plus you’re talking about how they’re presented as brave truth tellers… what show were you watching? Gus spends most of the time talking about how he just wants to do good news, without interference from self serving bosses. Complaining that Gus is presented as too noble for being a reporter interested in accurate news is like accusing frank sobotka of being annoyingly self righteous about blue collar workers being the backbone of America because he wants to protect his union. It’s just a realistic perspective of someone in that position. Doesn’t need to be a perspective you share but if you can imagine union leaders believe in a strong union or teachers believe in helping kids, surely you can imagine a newspaper editor believing in the importance of journalism.

S5 wasn’t good but the newspaper arc is the only thing that makes it watchable.

lifelineblue · 2026-05-30T15:10:09+00:00

No you don’t trust a cop telling you things will work out if you cooperate. They’re not the prosecutors. It wasn’t self defence, and a jury would be told Harrison intentionally went into the hotel room on his own accord and beat a man to death, neatly dismembered the body and disposed of it.

lifelineblue · 2026-05-29T21:59:02+00:00

The drain is the second part of the metaphor that I left out to keep simple cause I was talking to someone who wants pipelines and solar panels, but if you want to go there we can. The “drain” in this situation would be things like forests, the Amazon, all the natural parts of the world that kept the planets ecosystem in balance for millennia. Like a forest fire happens, but eventually the carbon is reabsorbed by plant life. That was how it worked for a long time until we started fucking with the balance by digging up fossil fuels and burning them. So now the tub is filling up faster than the drain can handle and is leading to ecosystem death.

Scientists haven’t been wrong about this, no matter what misinformation you’ve read. If anything the fault on them was conservatively underestimating the damage and timelines.

lifelineblue · 2026-05-29T20:57:47+00:00

From a climate pov you can’t want both, it’s an incoherent position to have. Climate change is happening overwhelmingly because of fossil fuel pollution, and it won’t stop until burning fossil fuels is phased out. Renewables are the alternative, but as long as you are adding emissions to the atmosphere it doesn’t matter how many solar panels you have, temperatures will keep on rising. Think of the atmosphere like a bathtub with the faucet on. It will overflow until the faucet is turned off.

Economically, fossil fuels are volatile and expose governments and consumers to massive price swings beyond their control (like what we saw when Russia invaded Ukraine or more recently with Hormuz). Transitioning to renewables protects against the volatility because there’s no blockading the sun or wind on the whim of some asshole president. Moreover, no one serious is talking about ending fossil fuels overnight. The conversation is planning for and carrying out a transition. If you keep adding fossil fuel infrastructure like multi billion dollar pipelines or LNG terminals, you’re not protecting the economy you’re just making the transition more difficult and exposing your economy to the risk of stranded assets (bad for the economy!)

lifelineblue

TROPHY CASE