carepov

Good. If you were one of the smart people that cut back your water consumption then your total water bill should go down. The real problem in Ottawa and most municipalities is that the infrastucture is crumbling and cities need the money to maintain/upgrade. Should funds come from your water bill or your property tax bill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/28/chris-hayess-graph-of-the-year-our-racist-criminal-justice-system-in-one-chart/ Question: How can we explain the fact that blacks and whites smoke the weed with equal frequency, however blacks are arrested 2.5 to 3.5 times as often? Answer 1: The US justice system is racist against blacks. Answer 2: I can’t think of any, can you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/29/paul-farmers-graph-of-the-year-rwandas-plummeting-child-mortality-rate/ As many lessons as possible should be taken from the work done and the real results achieved over last 20 years in Rwanda. Kudos to all Rwandans, investors and NGO partners like Paul Farmer and Partners in Health. What can other countries do to leverage the results of Rwanda?

OK, I agree and have always believed that some government energy saving schemes are failures that should be buried and not repeated. Still there are plenty of things governments, individuals and companies can do to save energy (and reduce CO2 emissions) without reducing our quality of life. Here is some additional support: http://vaclavsmil.com/uploads/smil-article-hummer-in-every-driveway-fp-201111.pdf "simply switching all Canadian furnaces to the most efficient natural gas ones could cut that country’s (growing) greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, according to energy expert Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/01/24/does-increased-energy-efficiency-just-spark-us-to-use-more/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=overconsumption-consumer-green *** [if you have not done so already, I highly recommend you Czech out other writtings of Smil, he is very informative: http://vaclavsmil.com/publications/ , http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/smil-article-ieee-20120700.pdf]

What legal costs? What tax burdens? Canada does not have income splitting, except for seniors. Marriage does not need governement, but people want marriage to be recognized by the government. When enough people ask the governement for a service, the governement's duty is to deliver that service, (as long as it respects the Charter and is at a reasonable cost, etc...), right? Insurance companies are private companies that set their own premiums. Don't married people, on average, life longer and healthier lives? AFAIK, they don't (and they shouldn't). How are they taxed differently?

Canada should lead the world and set a good example in [sensible and science-based] environmental stewardship. [Edit: I shouldn't have to add the words but you are partially correct about jelly minds.]

If Canadian resididents and companies continue to waste energy we will be at a disadvantage to other countries that conserve energy - this will cost us jobs in the long term. Would you be in favour a corbon tax if every dollar raised from it resulted in a one dollar reduction in the payroll tax?

Oh really? "Since 1980, overall water use in Canada has increased by 25.7%." http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/indicators/6wate.htm http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1

What a POS article, here's the real story for Canadian wages: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-626-x/2012008/c-g/c-g01-eng.htm and: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/disposable-personal-income I don't disagree. I am saying : when you conserve energy, your energy costs go down. If you cycle/car pool/use mass transit/live closer to work/telecommute/work 4x10 instead of 5x8, you use less gas and have more money left over. When we conserve energy, energy demand goes down. When energy demand goes down, energy prices go down - globally. Do you agree?

Marriage is a state institution because a significant amount of people want their marriage to be recognized by the state. This is what most people want and it does no harm to those that do not want it or are opposed to it. What kinds of tax advantages are there for married couples in Canada? Do corporations and joint-ownership companies have tax advantages compared to self-employed individuals? If so, is that "discriminatory" too? Married (including common-law) couples should be taxed as jointly and file one single tax return. Why should one family earning $0 + $80,000 = $80,000 pay thoudsands of dollars more in income tax compared to a family of $40,000 + $40,000 = $80,000?

OK, please verify that: "We have been getting more efficient, but not richer. The average Canadian is overall poorer than years ago, as wages have fallen in real terms, and costs of living substantially increased. Because of increased energy harvesting and consumption in the domestic US, it is making them richer and driving their energy costs down"

Of couse it can. And sometimes saving energy can make you richer. For example, if I teach my kids to turn off the lights and TV, use less water, and close the door. Or, if I spend $500 to save $100 per year. Here's an idea: let save energy in those cases where we get richer and not save energy in those cases where it makes us poorer?

I agree with all your points above. Thanks for answering my questions, I was surprised by how similiar our opinions are after you explained your position.

Are you saying that religious people support the death penalty more than non-religious people? This is getting ridiculous. The USA is one of the most religious countries in the OECD. Their money says "In God we trust." Therefore religion is to blame for: -high murder rates -teen pregnancy -high school drop-outs -drugs -discrimination -the death penalty -the Great Recession -Iraq -smelly armpits, etc... Meanwhile, all of the USA's achievements (Nobel prizes, flight, skyscrapers, National Parks, US Aid, Apple, Google, the Internet, medical advances, so many athletic and artistic achievements...) were strokes of good luck that happened despite religion. Just imagine how much better and how many more accomplishments they could have had if it was an atheist country like all the other successful atheist countries.

If I did this I would be poorer. I would never do that though - why would you ask such a question?

Yes, you are right, oppressive systems - including oppresive religious systems do hold back progress. I was thinking more in the last 100 years where the level of religiouslity seems to decline only after economic progress, no?

We were talking about nuclear power plants. You agreed that they are a good idea but cannot power cars. I am just pointing out that they can by charging the batteries of EVs. Wisely conserving energy can prevent rising energy costs by reducing demand. These claims are false.

In most economically successful/advanced societies, what came first, economic success or a decline in religiousity? I see it as the former preceding the latter, hence a decline in religion is not a cause of economic success. I think that economic success results in a decline in religiosity for some of the reasones mentioned above, also people in wealthy countries, on average: -have more choices, the more choices we have the less likely that we will choose to become involved in a religious group -are more independent, especially at younger ages. You do not need to rely on our religious community for support. You do not need to listen to your parents and grand parents. -start families later in life ...

IMO moderate religiousity is not a useful characteristic in judging a person. If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to think that religious people are intellectually beneath you. Am I right?

As stated in the report, the BAU assumes continued improvements in efficiencies at the same rate as they are currently improving. And speaking of all the improvements in energy efficiency over the past 20 years or so, what percentage are a result of government programs/regulations and what percentage came from "the market"?

Remember, we were talking about nuclear plants powering cars. This will not happen in the short term...\ When I save money on energy I get richer - not poorer. We have been getting more effiecient every year - and richer too.

They wrote that they did not do this. Do you think that they are lying?

The original (broader) point was: Sic semper erat, et sic semper erit Thus has it always been, and thus shall it ever be

Here's the study: that study. The authors compare increased savings (-23%) with BAU (+14%), and clearly stated on page 8: "BAU forecasts have incorporated expectations for greater energy efficiency". BAU savings are not double-counted.

Have a look at the chart on page 13. Most conservation efforts are not new/emerging technology. It is proven/piloted common sense stuff.