High-speed rail coming to Canada!..in 4 years...maybe

[Momo26]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/alto-hig...-expedited

Toronto to Quebec first. Thing cannot be extended just 100km more to KW? You'd capture about 1.8million more residents/potential customers along the way! Common now...

[tomh009]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/alto-hig...-expedited

Toronto to Quebec first. Thing cannot be extended just 100km more to KW? You'd capture about 1.8million more residents/potential customers along the way! Common now...

I'm OK with high frequency GO to Toronto with high-speed rail connection from there. High-speed rail won't be running nearly at the same frequency (assuming it really happens in the first place).

[ijmorlan]

Don’t worry, there will be another study but still no actual high speed rail construction, so it doesn’t really matter how far line is proposed to go.

[panamaniac]

Don’t worry, there will be another study but still no actual high speed rail construction, so it doesn’t really matter how far line is proposed to go.

In Carney we trust ...

[Momo26]

Lol oh ye of so little faith!

[danbrotherston]

Don’t worry, there will be another study but still no actual high speed rail construction, so it doesn’t really matter how far line is proposed to go.

In Carney we trust ...

Lol..can't say I've been super impressed with him to start. Very disappointing environmental track record.

[tomh009]

Lol..can't say I've been super impressed with him to start. Very disappointing environmental track record.

He's doing a balancing act with the tariff response, Canadian infrastructure, deficit spending and the environment. The latter is not winning at the moment, but we'll see what he does when the situation stabilizes.

[danbrotherston]

Lol..can't say I've been super impressed with him to start. Very disappointing environmental track record.

He's doing a balancing act with the tariff response, Canadian infrastructure, deficit spending and the environment. The latter is not winning at the moment, but we'll see what he does when the situation stabilizes.

Tell me where he is “balancing”. I’ve seen only pro oil, environmentally destructive decisions. The first thing he did was cancel the carbon tax.  That has no tariff relation.

[plam]

He's doing a balancing act with the tariff response, Canadian infrastructure, deficit spending and the environment. The latter is not winning at the moment, but we'll see what he does when the situation stabilizes.

Tell me where he is “balancing”. I’ve seen only pro oil, environmentally destructive decisions. The first thing he did was cancel the carbon tax.  That has no tariff relation.

There's a statement about "no pipelines until carbon capture". Given that carbon capture doesn't actually work....

[tomh009]

Tell me where he is “balancing”. I’ve seen only pro oil, environmentally destructive decisions. The first thing he did was cancel the carbon tax.  That has no tariff relation.

There's a statement about "no pipelines until carbon capture". Given that carbon capture doesn't actually work....

Well ... no fossil fuels is a much better solution than carbon capture. But if you are unable/unwilling to give up fossil fuels, carbon capture is much less bad than no carbon capture.

Norway does have a working CCS setup, with 30 MT stored so far. Dwarfed by the CO2 emissions from burning oil, but, as I said, still better than not doing anything.

[Rainrider22]

You can't be serious about giving up fossil fuels... do you actually.understand how much stuff other than ice engines rely on oil ?

[danbrotherston]

You can't be serious about giving up fossil fuels... do you actually.understand how much stuff other than ice engines rely on oil ?

Given that oil is a finite resource irregardless of climate change do you expect human society to just stop when it runs out?

The fact is we have two choices, a) get off fossil fuels b) end of human society. There is no third choice. Are you really suggesting we choose b?

[plam]

You can't be serious about giving up fossil fuels... do you actually.understand how much stuff other than ice engines rely on oil ?

No, really, what is the alternative if we want there to still be society? It sounds like a big step, and it is, but is what we have now sustainable for the next 200 years? And it'll get worse.

[bravado]

You can't be serious about giving up fossil fuels... do you actually.understand how much stuff other than ice engines rely on oil ?

Why does this cognitive mix-up happen so often? We want to use less fossil fuels over time. There's a space for real policy in-between 0 and 100%!

[nms]

At the risk of derailing this furhter (and mods, feel free to move this elsewhere), how much of the produced fossil fuel is used for transportation (planes, trains, automobiles, ships),  and how much is used for everything else (eg plastics production)?

This particular web page from Visualizing Energy suggests that about 10% of fossil fuels are used for non-energy uses, and mainly in petrolium (or as low as 6% depending on data source).  That would suggest that should the global economy continue down the path of inexorable decarbonizing the energy sector, that there will still be market for fossil fuels in the world, just not for burning for short term energy harvesting like moving a vehicle from A to B.

On another positive note, global solar and wind generation capacity grew faster in the first half of 2025 than energy demand grew in the same period (403TWh added, 369Wh growth in demand).

I believe the federal government said that they would not necessarily stand in the way of a new pipeline to the west coast, but they wouldn't finance it.

I look forward to the eventual electrification of the railways in Canada, including HSR and HFR.