speaker

BQSupporter Posted Today, 12:17 AM Harper knows he's not going to win and this will be his final campaign so he is given it all he's got. Its not his fault that Onatrio is to silly to understand that it is the Liberal Party that is the risk to national unity. But they will be in for a rude awaken when the do realize it and its too late. Once Quebec is free the CPC will be able to be much more competitve with the Liberals. Interesting post, I had thought that the BQ was the risk to national Unity. Although I can see that corruption might be the bigger risk, from whatever party gets in. I also thought that the Liberals would be the first in line to support the conservatives since the two are the closest match of any in the House. But from your post I get the impression that the BQ might support the Conservatives up to the point of separation. Did I misunderstand your thoughts

There are a couple of concerns Cameron with bio gas, and biodiesel. One is similar to your mention of the expense of oilsands fuel. I understand that there is still pretty good debate going on about how much energy it takes to produce a given amount of ethanol for example. I expect the same is true for bio diesel. the grain or oilseeds used for production of fuel come from farmers that are under pressure to sell below their cost of production, in short dumping their produce on the market to the extent that their land ends up subsidizing industries profitable production of feedstock and food. In short it is not cheap, or at least I haven't seen any gasahol companies offering to pay what this diversion away from human and livestock food would be worth if all costs are included.

I'm not sure about this but wouldn't it make sense that production of greenhouse gases would be the indicator of who should pay? If the fossil fuel industry is causing a percentage of the problem wouldn't their customers be required to pay that percentage? It always comes back to what we consume and what we are willing to pay for it. That sounds like the likely approach to me. To the extent that government is causing global warming, through federal subsidies of industry, through federally owned buildings, etc. taxes would have to go up but there is the alternative of government conerving fuel and requiring that it's subsidies go to conervation oriented businesses and individuals.

A couple of points: I can't prove that capitalism=wealth in absolute terms. I can only point out that the highest standards of living (including per capita wealth, education, freedom of thought/speech/movement etc.) have been achieved in countries that are most supportive of capitalism, while the most inhumane conditions are routinely found in countries that try hardest to rid themselves of capitalist influence. Russia has within it's territory as much natural wealth as either America or Canada has, so why aren't the Russians as rich as we are? Dearth of capitalists, perhaps? And despite lacking these capitalists, their attempts to exploit their natural resources have resulted in some of the worst environmental conditions on the planet. If you doubt me, I suggest you go for a swim in the Volga River. FYI that was the first link on a Google search using "Volga River" as the search parameters. And finally, two points about pollution credits: 1) We can't sell credits to the Americans, even if they were dumb enough to buy them. They aren't participating in Kyoto and aren't subject to any penalties for failing to meet Kyoto's targets. 2) At my last recollection, the other signatories to Kyoto were disputing the value of Canada's forests as CO2 sinks, and when push comes to shove the trees probably won't be worth nearly as much as we'd like to think they are (under that agreement). Even if we could prove by scientific means a high rate of CO2 absorbtion by our forests, it wouldn't matter to the Kyotophiles. Kyoto is not about finding pratical solutions to pollution and environmental damage. It's about strengthening the environmentalist movement's hold on international politics, and transfering wealth from productive economies that were built in freedom to unproductive economies that were built (destroyed?) under authoritarian regimes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Democratic government has more to do with environmental awareness than style of democracy. and wealth is a factor in the ability to affect political direction, and the more wealth the more power. It could be argued that under Kruschev and the Party in Russia personal wealth wasn't a factor, but I don't believe that one, but I do believe that the USSR was so wrapped up in surviving the cold war that they ignored the omens of environmental disasters by suppressing dissent. It is likely that the Russians are even wealthier than we are given the resources that haven't been exploited or dedicated yet. The fact that we have turned our wealth into consumer goods doesn't make us richer, just more ostentatious. We are selling carbon credits to American companies, or were the last I looked, Land that was in forest or agricultural production is being guaranteed as carbon sinks to Companies that are voluntarily looking for ways to lessen their impact on the globe. There just aren't enough willing to take the step voluntarily, thus the regulations. My impression is that the argument arises that anything that is presently a carbon sink shouldn't be counted as sellable credit as it is already part of the earth common. It has to be land planted now. I'm sure that Kyoto is as many things to it's proponents as it is to it's detractors. Some on both sides see it as a way to equalize the growing disparity and some see it as being what it was arranged to be, a chance to start reversing the threat of man-induced global warming

Cybercoma, are you referring to the story about northern Europe possibly seeing longer and colder winters because of the change in the atlantic currents caused by increased levels of ice melt in the Arctic, caused by global warming? Global warming is a generalized term about an overall temperature gain by the planet as a whole. It does not mean that we are all going to benefit or suffer because of being warmer. We don't understand what the worlds reaction to increased heat will be because of the complexity of interaction. What seems evident however is that global warming will cause climate change and more site specifically, increasingly erratic weather.

Here's a scenario that struck me as interesting today, if the reformed conservatives win with a minority of the seats, and the ndp was to come second, only what the liberals deserve, who would the remaining liberals support if both the two front runners could form a government with their support? My bet is that they would form a coalition with the capital C's

As CamtheCat pointed out some of the taxes that are paid at the pump go to the oil compamies, talk about subsidizing one energy source at the expense of others. that being the case why not reduce taxes at the pump and cut subsidies to the oilfield? Who would do the research into other energies? surely you wouldn't give money to existing energy companies? Good post, I'm looking forward to a reply on this one.

[ What you and BD seem to be forgetting is that the environmental movement started in and has been most effective in democratic, capitalist countries. We began addressing the problems caused by pollution decades ago, and our pollution control regulations have changed the way we interact with the environment for the better. We have managed to do this by identifying problems, putting appropriate regulations in place, encouraging manufacturers to come up with new techniques and technologies, and encouraging consumers to reward companies that produce cleaner products. Your post implies that consumers are mindless and greedy. This is simply not true. While consumers appreciate low cost and convenience, they also place a high premium on health and the cleanliness of their surroundings. Another part of the redistribution of wealth aspect is the trading of pollution credits. Please note that the idea of lowering CO2 output to 6% below 1990 is related to the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent collapse of their economy. For Russia to produce 6% less CO2 than it did in 1990 it would have to increase it's production substantially. Buying credits from Russia and other former communist countries is merely a ploy to make economic subsidies a permanent part of our government spending. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am more inclined to believe that environmentalism has been most effective in democratic and wealthy nations, you shouldn't assume that capitalism has led to wealth. The natural resources that we have are the sustainable wealth that has made capitalists rich. It is the recoghnition that our resources are not being treated in a sustainable manner that has required environmental regulations that have been resisted by kicking and screaming, single minded and greedy corporate interests. Quite a few people seem to think that pollution or carbon sequestration credits have to be purchased outside the country. While this may be true in small heavily industrialized countries I think it is fairly likely that Canada has the capacity to keep it's money within Canada, and sell credits to the States for example. There is a whale of a pile of farm and forest land in this country that could afford to absorb a bunch of carbon.

Blackdog and theloniusfleabag have each responded with good comment. i'll just add that a phenomenal quantity of the good old green goes out to consumers for their consumption in the form of propaganda, which is way better than anything goebbels or his allied counterparts could have done in the second world war, and look how successful they were. A person can't even turn around without being enviegled to buy, spend, surpass the proverbial Jones's. It's enough to leave a person somewhat befuddled about the appropriateness of their behaviour, and the wisdom of leaving responsibility for tomorrow. No, the manipulators are evident all right, and if the environmentalists are learning the tricks of the corporate system of governance who can blame them.

yes indeed, and how would you arrive at the figure?

The only really sensible thing that can be done with a city like TO is to build the mix of energy resources that best fit within the city. The only way people are going to accept that their energy requirements are sustainable is to look them in the face each day. So you tell us, how many windmills could we place in and around Toronto.

I hope you'll give us some idea of how the greens will be looking forward that will differentiate them from the other parties. that looks like one of those meaningless comments to me.

Where do Canadian Political parties lie, in relation to American parties? You assume we know more about American parties than you know about Canadian. Where do Canadian political parties lie in relation to each other? Wherever they are, especially once they get into power. It's just one lie after the other. So probably not that different from our American cousins. The reformed Conservatives as evidenced by a few of the posters on here are a pretty rabid bunch who think they are somewhat to the conservative side of bush, or would be if that's what bush wanted. When in power it's every man for himself. The Liberals are like the smart players in The Price is Right! Their policies are just enough to the liberal side of the reformed conservatives to grab the voters, and at the same time liberal enough to be just on the edge of the NDs. Their policies tend to be like that, so confused that nothing gets accomplished. When in power it's every man for himself. The ND's on the other hand originated as a party of the left but with each succeeding election edge closer to the Liberal ideal of meaning nothing while saying a great deal. Never been tested federally in power, but when in power provincially have the same tendancy to be every man for himself.

Toro, I'm not sure that the International Council for Capital formation is necessarily the best body to be looking at as being objective, If you notice from the list of speakers given Mr Otto, of the dept. of sustainability at the University of Hamburg was the only person whose presentation was not provided by the Council. However I think that the premise of the Councils release, being that our economies will be adversely affected as we accept responsibility for our pollution, and recognize that using the cheapest alternative, ie oil, coal, gas, is not going to be the best alternative in the long run. Burning them inefficiently may have been cheapest at one time but as we have improved efficiency, we have also expanded their use. to the effect of a net loss on environmental grounds. Of course trying to be sustainable is going to cost more in financial terms than not, but the environmental costs of all our actions have costs as well. we need to put some of our capital formation towards environmental re-formation.

possibly, it may be the CBC trying not to influence events. we shall wait with bated breath to see.

That's an interesting comparison. On the one hand, you have people suggesting that human error is the source of a blight on the world, and suggest that humanity rise up in the spirit of self-purification to take action to correct the problem, or face terrible consequences. There is no proof to back up this belief, other than the concensus of self-appointed experts of environmentalism that this theory is correct and the punishment for inaction is unavoidable, if in fact it isn't already too late. I'll change the word environmentalism to consumerism, On the other hand, you have the view that the position we are already taking to protect the environment is rational and sufficient and more drastic action to ward off an unlikely doomsday scenario isn't necessary. again change the word environment for economy, It's interesting how you tie the two sides together, by placing the unbelievers in cahoots with or in thrall to the evil-doers. It's a nice touch, and perfectly in keeping with the environmentalism as religion concept. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and finally change the word environmentalism for corporate/globalism. big money copulation, yes?

the attacks do seem to go both ways but so far my impression is that the ones trying to put down Kyoto are the most obnoxious. I've heard a variety of times that there has been warming periods in the past and it bears repeating that we all recognize that this may not even be the most global warming to come along. The point of the Kyoto proponents is that even if there is a major climate shift occuring now without attributing green house gas emissions, .. There is human induced climate change being added to the problem. So the fact there is natural climate change occuring is a real good reason to try our best to curb our own effect. This has nothing to do with the big Belief, at least no more than advocates of wait and see are Believers in the information paid for by the major energy suppliers.

What we have of politicians is definely not working. what we have of government is better than a lot of the other options there are around. If it's true that the people that want power are the last that should have it mandating term limits might just have the effect of putting pressure on them to be even more brazen in their thievery than they are now. Proportional representation, ie each party gets a share of the seats proportional to their share of the popular vote won't prevent the corruption, but it might make it evident to a proportionally larger segment of society. What happens with it at that point is up for debate. Government by minority has the potential of being workable and even better if the politicians came to realize that going to the polls wouldn't under any circumstances give them the free hand achieved through a majority.

I'm not sure where you get that Montgomery but I'm not sure where you get your monologue at the bottom of your posts either. Lefties like the poor? their policies put people in beaurocracy so that the working people will have more and more poor to support? I thought beaurocracies were formed in response to a need. Some sector of the society believes that we need a defense and even offensive capabilities so we get ourselves an army. By your judgement that would make the American government the biggest bunch of pinkos the world has ever seen. Not enough people were getting decent medical care so governments mandated improvements to the system, in order to do that there does have to be people to manage things. There are too many people taking advantage of others on the stock market so a securities exchange commision has to be established. mindless exploiters are denuding our landscapes so there has to be a ministry of the environment. Liberals and biker gangs are trying to rip us off so there have to be police. Are you seeing a pattern here? Sure there is inefficiencies and corruption but until people are responsible enough, and I don't see that bright day a dawning, to live in anarchy and not create the problems for the planet and it's other inhabitants we're stuck with the system. They care for the poor you say, one of the nicer things people could say about them I suppose.

Are you high? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Am I high? no, no but I am having fun with some of the great ideas floating around here. oh wait a minute I haven't stumbled into the training room for the house of sober second thought have I? Senator Speaker, No there's a job I wouldn't do if the paid me... well ... but no, that's one problem I'm not very likely to have to worry about. Just the ideas are great though, so many people watch cartoons or read the strips these days maybe it's a way to reach them about the problems we're talking about here. A full length disney style cartoon about the war against the Darth Earthdestroyer. Talking about what we could be doing with all this money the Feds have taken from us. I wonder if in the interests of cultural soverainty if the Liberals wouldn't spring for a little cash. No not likely huh? I wonder if in the interests of cultural suzerainity the American governmant might. Stranger things have happened. But if that was to happen I'd probably have to move into the states and I have no more interest in that than I do in seeing the States move in here, which is why I liked Canuck E Stans idea of using this money to buy back our economy from the crumbs in the multinationals. So I guess I'm a little torn by the number of options for this huge sum of money that is at the same time insignificant on the other scale. but hey, when one is presented with more than one potential avenue there's no saying you can't walk down each and every one.

Anthropomorphism. It works for Disney, and it can work for you too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and look how well disney did with it, now if I knew someone who could do cartoons.. something along the lines of Zena Princess Warrior, or maybe the little mermaid with a mean streak, ya never know ya just never know. On the other hand perhaps the character is already set in stone Gaia, neighbourhood loan shark, sure, you looking for a few more trillion to finance your lifestyle, heck no problem, I have a very nice fish stock off the coast of australia you can exploit and some savannah in africa that is really under utilized. Now how would you like to pay for this. Yes I can see it now.

So maybe this idea of canuck e stan's to buy out the corporations is a little ahead of it's time, the great ones always are, how about if we pay off our national debt to Mother Nature instead. I understand from talk in the street that She can be a mean old loan shark so we should start counting our kneecaps because we've been borrowing against our kids ability to pay back for quite a while now. I mean you can only ask someone who is being compromised to be patient for just so long. and then "one of these days Madge, pow right to the moon!" an air less, waterless, soylent green kind of world. pause to consider

I believe that the game everquest has an economy comparable to a small country, and I will again point out that we aren't dealing with a small country here we are dealing with the world economy. But aside from that does theeverquest rextbook style economy recognize that there is value in leaving fish in the ocean more than the fisherman gets for putting food on our table? or that there is some worth in having trees in the rainforests? or soil on our agricultural lands? or thaat people get some serious benefit from having air that we can breathe and from a climate that is less rather than more volatile? I take the expression future option value to mean that economists have considered these factors and integrated them into the models that are used to define progress. And yet curiously enough there doesn't seem to be money changing hands to preserve them but rather lots of money being spent to decrease their utility as quickly as possible. more problems than solutions.

toro ooops? that was very good, textbook stuff. Being a physical resource oriented person though I think you're wrong about the stock of utility growing in any given year let alone almost every year, and goods innovation has little impact on the majority of people in our modern world economy. As I mentioned earlier we are a relatively fortunate few. It is a safe bet to predict that the demand for oil by the multitudes will drop off at least some time before we run out. sothebys will be selling it by the gram. The challenges will be whether our weather will allow us to adapt with all that green house gas in the air, whether our world economy, and it is a world economy in the same sense that it is a world ecology, can muddle through the high prices associated with depletion of oil stocks as we try to switch to the alternatives. If our stock of utility, or our money, our value in physical resources isn't further squandered trying to maintain a lifestyle that technology may or may not be able to extend. the economy may slow? a gift for understatement.

Toro, I don't understand the last bit of your point about our constrants being technological by nature I expect you just got a little ahead of yourself and meant something else. But the earlier part about us being so well off by reason of our money, at least that's what I was referring to although it might have better been the marketplace, I disagree with you on. at least in part. While we certainly have an incredible standard of living in N America, Europe or parts of it, and small enclaves scattered throughout the rest of the world, still the vast majority of people are so far below our poverty standards that the world must look upside down to them. and our market place and our money is directly, but not wholly responsible for the conditions we are so pleased to have avoided. None of us or perhaps very few of us are responsible for the abject poverty and inhuman conditions into which the third world is manouvered, but collectively we might grab a brain and realize that as we force nations to strip their forests, minerals, agricultural lands and fishing heritage, so shall we reap.