Zeitgeist

You don't seem to understand cause and effect. You don't accept that it's largely because of policy that companies innovated. It comes down to cost. Oil companies receive many subsidies. There have to be incentives to go green. Only regulation/policy makes that happen. The US federal government had progressive policy on emissions reductions until recently. It's not worth discussing. Keep calling black white if it makes you feel better.

Oh I'll throw Canada under the bus on this big time, but tell me how lowering emissions standards federally in the U.S., reducing EPA protections, and refusing to stay on in the Paris Accord is going to help both America and the world that it influences, whether you like the fact of this influence or not? Are you really not interested in trying to lower emissions? Soon there may be no legislation compelling companies to cut emissions.

Your last paragraph sums up the Trump failure. The US is bargaining in trade and other foreign policy from a position of weakness because his image is antithetical to foreignness of any kind. America First may work on a domestic audience, but not a foreign one. No once is buying what he's selling except his own supporters, almost all of whom are in America. He lost Canada and most countries, certainly Mexico, Europe, S. American countries, Jina...By shunning alliances except with a power that is a security and territorial threat, Russia, Trump has made his chief foreign policy, America Alone.

How much explaining do you need? Being a big country with a big economy means having a big influence. Take some responsibility. It's harder for smaller powers to make the right moves if the bigger powers don't. Otherwise you're no better than other big belligerent powers of the past.

Trump’s actions on climate and the environment are undoing America’s progress. He set new policy and we’re already seeing the effects as countries throw in the towel on fighting climate change. The big effects are down the road.

She’s our Trade Minister. What else should she do? It’s been said many times, but obviously needs repetition: NAFTA has always been a mixed bag for Canada. Increased trade and fewer barriers are generally good for countries. Unfair trade agreements are not. So whether you call it the new NAFTA, the Trump Extortion Deal for America or anything else, we won’t sign a shit deal.

It’s quite the opposite. Policy and messaging matter.

Canada was moving in the right direction on climate change. Ontario, over 40% of Canada’s economy, was implementing cap and trade. Now Ontario and other provinces are moving against emissions cutting policies in order to remain competitive with the US. It’s a disaster for the climate. Thanks Trump. And you can bet the US won’t be accepting many climate refugees. Take a dump and let everyone else clean up the mess.

Again, you’re resting on the laurels of pre-Trump policies. I’m not sure your states will be able to make up for bad new federal environmental policy.

At a certain point the trade affronts may simply be too big for China to ignore, especially if it can’t find ample counter tariffs. A major counter measure beyond the counter tariffs may be seen as necessary to assert sovereignty and rouse national pride because the US is bringing China to its knees. Already the US has tried to block Russian arms sales to China. Yes a low US dollar would further hurt Chinese exports if China dumped US debt, but it also might tank the US economy. It’s no less self destructive to China than Trump’s tariffs are to the US. The reason it might tank the US economy is because the cost of living would soar and there are few means left to stimulate the US economy except quantitative easing. Who would buy such compromised debt bonds? It’s a highly inflationary approach.

The US’s progress on reducing emissions is due to state policies and federal policies implemented prior to Trump that he is actively dismantling. Trump is currently a menace to the climate. It’s bad signaling to other countries and a disincentive to the renewable energy sector worldwide. What a mistake to encourage more fossil fuel energy.

Why would you think that?

Of course not. I have friends and relatives down there. Nice beaches in winter. Broadway. Who wants to destroy countries and people? C'mon that's mean.

The last time the Earth heated at this rate there were no humans. That shit's science. It's not about finding articles that are agreeable. It's about facts.

With regard to Canada's productivity challenge, a big problem for us is keeping our start-ups and scaling them up. We also need to do some deregulation. The Brookings Institute suggests deregulating finance and telecommunications. I think we should deregulate the latter for sure. We should be very careful about deregulating finance, however, because that can lead to bigger problems.

I vehemently disagree. We have a short window in which to turn things around. If all emissions stopped instantly, global warming would continue for some time due to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This from nature: After roughly 1°C of global warming driven by human activity, ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are already losing mass at an increasing rate. Summer sea ice is disappearing in the Arctic and coral reefs are dying from heat stress — entire ecosystems are starting to collapse. The social impacts of climate change from intensified heatwaves, droughts and sea-level rise are inexorable and affect the poorest and weakest first. The magnitude of the challenge can be grasped by computing a budget for CO2 emissions — the maximum amount of the gas that can be released before the temperature limit is breached. After subtracting past emissions, humanity is left with a ‘carbon credit’ of between 150 and 1,050 gigatonnes (Gt; one Gt is 1 × 109 tonnes) of CO2 to meet the Paris target of 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C (see go.nature.com/2rytztf). The wide range reflects different ways of calculating the budgets using the most recent figures. At the current emission rate of 41 Gt of CO2 per year, the lower limit of this range would be crossed in 4 years, and the midpoint of 600 Gt of CO2 would be passed in 15 years. If the current rate of annual emissions stays at this level, we would have to drop them almost immediately to zero once we exhaust the budget. Such a ‘jump to distress’ is in no one’s interest. A more gradual descent would allow the global economy time to adapt smoothly. Harness momentum The good news is that it is still possible to meet the Paris temperature goals if emissions begin to fall by 2020 (see ‘Carbon crunch’). Sources: Stefan Rahmstorf/Global Carbon Project; http://go.nature.com/2RCPCRU And from Yale Climate Connections: Like any goal, the 2 degrees C limit should be ambitious but achievable. However, if it is not met, we should do everything we can to meet a 2-1/4 degrees C or 2.5 degrees C goal. These goals can be compared to the speed limits for trucks we see on a mountain descent. The speed limit (say 30 mph) will allow trucks of any type to descend with a safety margin to spare. We know that coming down the hill at 70 mph likely results in a crash at the bottom. In between those two numbers? The risk increases – and that’s where we are with climate change. If we can’t come down the hill at 30 mph, let’s try for 35 or 40 mph. Because we know that at 70 mph – or business as usual – we will have a very bad outcome, and nobody wants that.

Most of the lag in Canada's productivity relates to older industries like forestry and mining where productivity, though important, isn't as critical as it is in manufacturing. On the other hand, some of our industry could come up technologically. The auto sector isn't one of those industries. You'll also notice that some countries on that list rank relatively high, such as Trinidad and Barbados. That doesn't necessarily mean that these countries are as technologically advanced as a country like Israel. A sweat shop is a highly productive workplace. You have to dig into the data to discern whether high productivity is the result of technological innovation, hard work, poor labour conditions, or easily grown/manufactured items. A country with weak labour laws can suck the life out of workers and be quite productive in the process. I would just be careful not to misinterpret data and remember that productivity alone isn't always an indicator of advancement or high quality of life.

Canada - Literacy Adult literacy rate Between 2008 and 2014, Canada adult literacy rate remained stable at around 99 %. The description is composed by Yodatai, our digital data assistant. Have a question? Ask Yodatai › 99.0 (%) I realize that industry-related literacy is different from language proficiency. The question of training, apprenticeships and so forth is a different issue.

It’s a scary twist on the meaning of retrograde. I promise you that the return to coal, especially from big countries like China and the US, will literally destroy air and water quality, raise temperatures, and push the planet over the safe limit for human habitation. You can watch all the YouTube conspiracy videos that you want about evil globalists that contradict this, but science is science. If global annual average temperatures rise by about 4 degrees, we’re fucked. All the tax cuts in the world won’t save you.

Canada has one of the world’s most highly skilled and highly educated workforces. If Canada only had to compete based on the productivity of its manufacturing, we would do exceedingly well. Our auto plants are among the most productive in North America. The way that countries like Mexico and to some extent the US are getting around this is through low wages. Basically race to the bottom and compete on low wages instead of providing more value add in production. Because the US technocrats know they can’t compete on wages with the likes of Mexico and China, they’re trying tariffs. It’s backfiring because of the counter-tariffs. In the final analysis, the world suffers because the cost of living rises and productivity suffers. It’s as retrograde as Trump’s stance on the Paris Climate Ageement, which like the addition of tariffs, other countries will copy. America and the world have regressed.

It’s this kind of arrogance the world sees.

Time will tell. There was very little US-China trade in the 70’s.

He seemed worried about Trudeau’s remarks after the G7 Conference. Trump’s remarks on trade with Canada this week illustrate that he cares very much about the US’s biggest export market.

I think the US fed gov is taking a big gamble on this.

If Trump follow through with his threats, the tariffs and counter tariffs will damage exports for both countries, especially as the US exports more cars to Canada than Canada exports to the US. He will have more workers, companies and countries blaming him. There will be implications at the midterms and the next presidential election. Trump’s last press conference remarks on trade are more fodder for anti-Trump forces. He’s really unifying Canadians against him and giving Trudeau the next election.