100%

One could do solar and wind quicker but we can't, because we don't have any semblance of planning in our economy. So if they build the DCs now it'll happen on market principles, which means competition for exisring electricity supply with poorer customers - all of us, as well as portable gas turbines where the grid has no capacity or the price is too high.

Good regardless of DCs. If and when they have the capacity, and places where DCs can pollute without harming people, there would naturally be a lot less opposition.

Not 300m away from the nearest row of houses.

That Hamilton site is fed by gas plants in Nanticoke, so any grid strain will be addressed by massive gas burning 24/7, great for Enbridge and politicians friendly with Enbridge.

In regulation development conversations it's the industry's lobby talking to our gov't. Experience shows we tend to lose. In the "should we build" conversations, it's much easier for us to express our binary desire and for surveys to capute and relay to our gov't. We tend to win more often. It's much easier to sling loophole-ridden regulation as "we fulfilled people's desires for regulation" than let DC builds go ahead when most of us don't want them. So we scream no DCs to anyone and everyone. We use the tools we're given.

I personally would much prefer to live in a situation where private capital is subsurvient to the state abd therefore democratically enacted regulation does what we want it to do and punishes capital when it oversteps. But that's not our status quo and we can't feasibly change it for at least another 4-5 years, prolly more like 10+. So I scream no DCs to whoever would listen.