I Take

[CHIMO]

It that the budget is one big dud from the lack of postings here?

[HeresyLives]

1. Well....

the infrastructure is okay, but no hockey arenas please, and the retraining and education ones are okay.

I’d even go for short term loans. No bailouts.

The rest is a waste of money.

And the $85 billion dollar deficit for it, is definitely NOT okay.

[daleo]

2. 85 million to graduate scholarships

And 85 million cut from the granting councils (NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR). No net gain for research, more Harper trickery.

[CHIMO]

3. Yep

Money for bricks, but not talent

TORONTO, OTTAWA -- Ottawa is giving Canadian campuses billions for brick-and-mortar projects, but yesterday's budget offered few assurances to universities that they will have the money needed to fill those refurbished labs and lecture halls with top talent.

At a time when U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to "restore science to its rightful place" with billions in new investments, leaders in the Canadian research community were left scratching their heads over Stephen Harper's response to what many fear will become a widening funding gap.

The headline numbers offered yesterday drew praise from university leaders. There is $2-billion for colleges and universities to fix their aging buildings, $87.5-million for new graduate scholarships and $750-million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which funds research infrastructure.

"This is a major investment and it is enormously welcome," McGill principal Heather Munroe-Blum said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090128.BUDGETSCIENCE28/TPStory/?query=research

So we will become the proverbial servants to the new Empire.

But even further. We have to help out those poor, poor, energy companies.

Carbon capture grabs big chunk of energy spend

OTTAWA -- The federal government has promised major spending to support efforts by oil companies and coal-dependent utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to boost Canada's nuclear industry.

But in his budget released yesterday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty gave short shrift to the country's renewable energy sector, by failing to extend a popular program that supports clean power.

In a budget that offered some $40-billion in stimulus measures over two years, the Harper government provided $2.4-billion over five years for clean energy and efficiency projects.

Much of that money is earmarked for large projects meant to demonstrate the viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which diverts carbon dioxide from smokestacks, purifies it, and pipes it underground for permanent storage. The Alberta-based oil industry has urged Ottawa to support development of CCS, a technology that producers contend would allow the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions even as the country expands its oil sands production.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090128.RBUDGETENERGY28/TPStory/?query=research

And after it all we will be ripe for the pickings.

[daleo]

4. I have read a lot on carbon sequestration

And have come to the conclusion that it is a pipe dream. At best, it might work as well as nuclear generated electricity (i.e. somewhat useful, but expensive and inefficient compared to the hype), at worst it will be a complete boondoggle.

It also shares this with nuclear power - it is a technology being pushed not so much for itself, but as cover for something else. In the early post-war period nuclear energy was really a way to get people to accept the existence of nuclear bombs ("atoms for peace"). In this age, carbon sequestration is a way to get people to accept continued dependence on dirty fossil fuels ("clean coal").

[CHIMO]

5. Yep

A lot of the hype is simply that. For instance ethanol for fuel. If it comes from sugars then the production produces tons of carbon dioxide. It will shift the carbon production from the automobile to the area that creates the ethanol. But things they don't tell you about is that the ethanol will suck up water.

On the point of clean coal. It isn't clean from beginning to end.

On shoving carbon dioxide under the earth. Well one just has to look at the energy required to shove it down there. It is all Alice in wonderland. As long as we accept it. We will have it!