cannuck

the huge flaw in the current leftie tree hugging model is that climate is somehow a static thing. It is not. Remember the "ice age"? It was colder here then. Remember the comments about "Greenland"? It was warmer there once. And on and on it goes. Climate changes, constantly, and the swings are huge. Is there an anthropomorphic contribution? Yes, but how large that is is still questionable. We may be contributing to a trend (there is considerable debate of the CO2 related data) or not, but that is pretty much inconsequential. Mamma nature is going to take the climate wherever Mamma nature wants it. We are just along for the ride and are powerless to do much about it - just as were the dinosaurs who predeceased us. We are not just waiting around for a comet or whatever to precipitate our extinction, though. We have figured out how to reproduce to an unsustainable level all by ourselves (well, again with Mamma Nature bestowing insufficient intellect for us to understand and control that factor).

anyone with a bleeding heart for sub-saharan Africans needs to go there for a while. Believe me, that LAST thing you would do after being there is send them more money to perpetuate the status quo. Yeah, Whitey screwed over the blacks some time ago (and some do to this very day), but largely because the blacks were so busy screwing over (and slaughtering) each other, they couldn't get the collective shit together to protect themselves. Western foreign aid to Africa (and Canada is known to be the easiest sucker to tap) does little more than accommodate the new ruling masters of the continent - the Chinese. Once Africans have them firmly ensconsed, they will be (and some are already) screaming for Westerners to come back. China has no time for bleeding hearts. They are simply following in the footsteps of every other imperialist and colonial power that went before them - except without the baggage of public remorse at home.

That's what I said - plants USE CO2 to make other carbon compounds (hydrogenated ones, mostly). There will always be plants. We are the component that is very temporary, plants have been around a very long time, and will be around for a very long time in the future (unless we lose our entire atmosphere).

the carbon cycle sees CO2 used in plants, when the plants degrade, the don't turn into energy and gas, there is considerable biomass left behind, and that biomass ends up within the soil. Eventually, it will return to state of a carbonaceous mineral deposit, exactly as you point out. The oceans absorb even more CO2 than the forests, I believe. Both man and nature (we are in fact part of nature) have burned hydrocarbon biomass since hyrdocarbon biomass began to exist. The only reason we have such a phenomenal rate of resource use right now is the fact we have been stupid enough to overpopulate to the level of unsustainability. The solution is to reduce population, not to piddle away all of our resources trying to figure out how to have MORE population. on edit: I see this is about what I posted just a while ago. Guess nothing has changed in the last 24 hours.

referring to Eyeball's quote in post above mine

That is the very definition of class D airspace - where NOTHING is supposed to be flying wihtout radio communications and transponder - except for special NORDO (no radio) procedures for registered airplanes with licensed pilots in daylight.

Go talk to the Westerners who raped and murdered in West Africa. I didn't, my children didn't and my grand children will not. THAT is who is paying the bill for our "government" (and I use that term very loosely) to play games with THEIR tax dollars as we are endlessly in deficity. Those aid dollars are mostly directed to foreign aid policies that result in purchases in Quebec. The best thing we can do for the world is STOP paying people to be on the tit and get their population under control (700% worldwide increase in last century - and where we give aid is EXACTLY where most of the problem is) and become productive. The innate tribalism and corruption of Africa is supported by aid, not defeated.

Simple: the only way you can create wealth is by adding value to a resource or delivering a service in support of that. ANYTHING else you do is just wealth re-distribution. The problem with a speculative gain is that when the accounting value of an asset (real or imagined) is increase speculatively and then realized, someone needs more money to fulfill the gain - thus increase in the money supply to cover. Since money (currency and accounts) is a direct liability to the taxpayer, ANY increase in that supply that is not due to wealth that has been created should be returned to the taxpayer in the form of taxation. Some examples: building a house and making a profit on doing so constitutes wealth that was created. Re-selling that house for a profit is purely redistribution of existing money. Placing an IPO into a business moves resources from one place to another - no wealth created - yet. When that company earns money by making something or doing something useful and productive, wealth has been created - and you can see that on their P&L and balance sheet. When their public stock is traded, no wealth is created, but the book value (real value of the asset) moves from one to the other. l If it trades at a higher value than book (i.e. if "market" value is higher) no wealth is created or lost - as the company book value is not in any way affected. If that trade represents a profit, it is purely inflationary and speculative - should be taxed 99% on day one, 95% on year one, and declining 5% per year until parity with nominal tax rate.

Rue: totally excellent post. In a perfect world, EVERYONE gets lifted up along the economic ladder by corporate success (in China, this is extremely true. They didn't get to be the second largest economy on the planet and now the LARGEST private automobile market by only 1 or 2% of the people being wealthy - they are developing a HUGE middle class). Not to want to stray too far OT, but what is missing in your post and to 99.99% of observers and policy makers is the problem of distribution of wealth. The ``1%`` are not racking up their billions by participating in the orgy of production coming from the mass of `slave labour`out there, they are simply redistributing wealth in an endless rotation of speculative transactions that create no wealth. The solution is dead simple: tax the crap out of speculative gain and thus re-direct virtually all investment/financial activity into funding productive enterprise - that CREATES wealth. THAT is how you drag the masses along with economic growth.

Not at all true. Plants use CO2, turning it into carbon based organic matter that eventually returns to the soil and re-incorporates into the Earth as carbonaceous rock. Similarly, oceans are a massive carbon sink. Life on this planet is carbon based, and carbon di-oxide production from energy use (mechanical or biological) is how it is moved through the essential carbon cycle. The fact that we are producing too much CO2 to maintain balance within the ecosystem is a function of letting the population increase 700% over the last century.

Yes, and adding a fat tax charge for every little packet of sugar you take with it would serve to provide the change in behaviour the proposed measures seek.

To be effective, the measure needs to be a VISIBLE tax at point of sale. To deliver the message, there needs to be awareness, and that is how we can get the best bang for our buck. My only regret is that only sugary drinks are being targeted - but a good start. What pisses my wife off is paying GST on a City rec facilities membership. We don't have a system of isolating dedicated tax in Canada (anywhere that I am aware) so the issue is getting any benefit from the fat taxes into the hands of the sick care system (medicine) and also health care (rec facilities, promoting healthful lifestyles and foods, etc.) Forget about using family physicians. They are over loaded now, far too busy pushing drugs to do much in health care. You have to change the entire focus of their education to health care from sick business before they can be effective - and then you have to wait for the deadwood to clear from attrition.

Minister of Transport, former astronaut Marc Garneau, announced new regulations today that severely restrict recreational drone use in Canada.http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-r...nada-1.3327477"Under the new restrictions, which are effective immediately, recreational drone pilots are prohibited from flying their UAVs higher than 90 metres, within 75 metres of buildings, animals or people, or within nine kilometres of an airport. Night flights are also prohibited under the new restriction, which promises a fine of up to $3,000. Recreational users are also required to include their name, address and phone number with their drones"There will be a complete re-write of regs as the apply to UAVs overall, and IIRC, that will happen this summer some time. The one that will make city folk happy and pee off city toy drone owners is the 75 meters (250 feet) from buildings, people and animals. Pretty much kills ANY out-of-doors flight in any urban area. There is provision for commercial drones, that I assume must be licensed in some way.Aside from the obvious aviation related issues, it seems they have dumped the problems of privacy onto the aviation community by using the sledge hammer of aviation safety. That was some pretty slick political move!The upside is that I should be able to get some really nice drones for the kids to use at the farm...wait a minute, I am within 9 kms of TWO airports. Oh well, haven't missed having one so far, so won't in the future.

I like the idea of "fat tax" on refined sugar content of just about everything. Our headlong rush into obesity ends up costing the sick care system a boatload. Makes a good "user pay" tax base.

As usual, the dogmatic politically opposed poles simply dig into their trenches and mindless spew pure BS on this topic. To anyone with any kind of biological education (or an ounce of common sense), it is obviously that "life" does not begin at "birth". Similarly, while the fusion of sperm and egg do indeed form a genetically unique, living creature, the concept that this is full blown "human" life is quite a stretch. What is still missing from the issues around both the beginning of "life" and the END of "life" is a very clear definition. Do that and "choice" becomes very easy to define for everyone involved. Since the largest problem the planet has is the 700% increase in population over the last century, killing off or preventing birth of the totally unsustainable numbers of homo sapiens might seem like not such a bad idea. Personally, though, I would prefer to see that accomplished by preventing birth, not terminating what is as yet well defined as a viable life. In the meantime, I have no problem with LNG-EC being used within the time of efficacy. At the other end of "life", more than half of one's lifetime medical costs usually occur during the last few months in the event of illness. Getting a humane and realistic grasp on this problem could restore some dignity and sanity to the whole business (and that's what it is all about - making $$$$ from what will do little but delay the inevitable). Sadly, I have to remark that the old school eugeneticists had some pretty good points. Our increase in general wellness and economic success means that people who would have been hard pressed to enter into reproductive union or survive to that point in their life. Worse yet, global economic conditions now mean that cultures that still practice as much reproduction as possible are now encouraged by the promise of foreign aid to continue to reproduce in economic, climatic and political situations that would otherwise limit population growth.

Probably just another step (North of 49) in fulfilling Manifest Destiny.

Not exactly. He had sold his 7 row barley crop for which there was no quota in Canada (thus no possible sale since the Wheat Board claimed they had exclusive rights to sell wheat, oats and barley) on the US side of the border, where he not only managed a sale, but a price far higher than the government would have paid (had the allowed a sale) thus being able to pay his government demand to Farm Credit Corp. When he returned, his tractor and trailer were seized by customs, but he simply climbed into the cab and drove it home. He was charged with taking his own truck for an offense (failing to obtain an export permit) that Mr. Justice Ross Whimmer clearly stated was not required. Since sections of the Wheat Board Act for pooling and export licensing were extended by Order in Council in the early 50s to include oats and barley, and none of the morons in Ottawa thought to repeat it (expires in one year) EVERY forced sale of oats and barley by the CWB for the many decades since were completely illegal. Said same frigging morons never did extend the sections of the act that included any penalties, so the whole business of charging, never mind arresting him was also extremely illegal. The next concept in law is that you can't have an offense under one act that results in a charge under another - i.e. if what he did was not illegal, customs could not seize his vehicles. Rotten Ralphie screwed him over severely, and continued to have authorities tell him that he could be released from jail as soon as he stopped communicating with the press and Farmers For Justice. The entire Canadian legal profession sat by on their hands and let this play out (Andy's defense was conducted by Dan Creighton - not a lawyer). It was Dan's research that found the failure of the government to either legislate or re-issue the Order-in-Council. He destroyed the Crown's arguments, so the result was to simply continue to remove Andy's rights to freedom and rule of law and slam him in the clink under totally trumped up charges. And now you know the nature of the man who is entrusted with our national safety.

Since the actual problem over the last century is the 700% increase in population - and China is the ONLY country that has done a bloody thing to check their contribution, this is one instance where we really SHOULD be more like China.

Anyone believing that Canada has all of these carefully protected freedoms and rights has been watching far too much American TV. Remember, this is the party when last in power jailed a man (Andy McMechan) for the horrendous crime of selling his own barley - when it was clearly identified and agreed in court that it was not against any law in Canada. It was our current Minister of Public Safety who masterminded this theft of his freedom. BTW: that was IMHO living proof that the so-called "charter of rights and freedoms" is completely pointless. Note that there was not a single member of the legal profession in Canada with the brains and balls to stand up to such a travesty of justice.

The issue is so complex, it does not easily break down into black and white, left and right, etc. Canada has a long history of being exclusive in immigration. Few seem to remember the head tax and exclusion act barring virtually ALL Chinese immigration, and the fact that it was still nearly impossible for Chinese Canadians to get their families together until 1956 (one of my best friends and his Mother managed to get here in 1954 to join with her Canadian citizen husband - a rare exception). We mimicked the Americans in detaining Japanese families and stealing their possessions in WWII. One might remember that we didn't exactly accommodate aboriginal Canadians very gracefully either. Since then, we have welcomed people from just about everywhere in the world, with a few exceptions, but always those immigrants managed to fit in with what we seem to recognize as some sort of "Canadian values" the just grew here along the same lines as most of the rest of the Western world. If we really mean to do justice for displaced people, we should be funding camps for them to be able to return to their homes when conflict ends. We should be promoting birth control for starving Africans and helping them to develop sustainable agriculture and a host of other things. The only people (IMNO) who should be coming here are genuine refugees - who can not return to their homes for many good reasons. What we seem to have instead is a great deal of economic refugees who are using every excuse to come to the front of the line that we normally have in selecting those who have access. To add to that, those fleeing one brand of theocracy are dragging with them the very thing that they are leaving for one increment in a range of values that are very, very different from what we have come to accept - since it is Canadians collectively that have evolved the status quo as it stands. It may be abhorrent to the politically correct but this is still supposed to be a democracy. The question of who/what/how/how many immigrants get into Canada and how they are to be received is so important, it is something that should be decided by the public. I would only be satisfied if this was made a plebicite or some other process of direct democracy. I don't care WHAT party is in power, the politicos can only seem to be slaves of their partisan dogma. This is about the very definition of what we want Canada to be, and it should be the actual words of the people that are being heard.

I was once on the fence when it came to CRA and tax avoidance. Then, my closest friend had a few incredibly successful years as a property developer. He made certain the top drawer accounting firm doing his books followed tax codes to the very letter of the law. THEN: he got a letter from CRA demanding literally millions of dollars under something called the "GAR" - General Avoidance Rule. Under that rule, CRA can simply say (as they did in this case) that your tax filings were not "in the spirit" of the law so you need to give them what they "feel" is to their liking. Fought it in court for years, ended up having to pay their bill. Now, if I could see a government (ANY frigging government in this country) balancing their budget and administering the funds in a fair and equitable manner, I might (and he might have) understood. BUT: when I see the blatant political pork barreling done with my grandchildren's future earnings, and the total incompetence of public administration and "service", I have the same picture in my mind of service as when my neighbour brings his bull out of its pen to service the cows. So, PLEASE keep on avoiding tax, but for crying out loud, don't tell anyone how you are doing it.

I am one of those entrepreneurs who has to buy equipment to produce things or deliver services. AND, I have actually bought some of the cheaper Chinese made equipment and tried to make it work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in the real world, we need things that are what they claim to be, not a very poor imitation of same with documentation that makes totally false claims. Now, if you meant tooling from Taiwan, that would be a very different story. Mainland: not at all the same. There IS some very good tech that comes out of China, and SOME good products. BUT: those are the exceptions, not the rule. The technologies that make many things so much cheaper today are generally conceived and developed somewhere else, then stolen by Chinese entities under sponsorship of the Red Army hackers, commercialized with labour that has not real need to follow many of the laws and standards that we in the West are bound to.

As much as I hate any kind of subsidies (as they essentially mean government picking winners and losers - and financing this effort on the backs of their competitors' taxes) I have to sadly admit that if Ontario didn't, some other place probably would. Until governments worldwide pull back from luring business with tax breaks or subsidies, this is the sick world in which we live.

Not trying to obfuscate, but the devil is in the details. Yes, nuclear OPERATING costs, are as you mentioned, almost down to hydro levels. BUT: one should compare the whole life cycle cost of each energy system to get a real picture. For instance, coal is pretty cheap to build and operate, but if you do it to decent emissions standards, you will find that building full scale clean coal technology (as has been done only in one place on the planet - Saskpower Boundary dam) has capital costs greater than a nuke. BUT, when you take the whole cycle of decommissioning and waste management into account, nuclear is far more expensive. Not sure how to assess hydro, as it should be something you can simply replace the hardware with and keep operating - but if you had to restore the land it would be a very different story. Natural gas is really the cheapest overall with today's fuel costs, as the plants are very compact and easily decommissioned - also wellsite remediation is pretty easy to do.