carepov

So am I. However, odds are $1.2 trillion in savings, for a $520 billion investment has economic merit and will not harm the economy. In theory, some capital will be diverted from "better" inverstments into conservation investments. However, in today's econoimic climate, people and businesses are awash in cheap capital. The reality is that more of today's idle capital will be used to invest in projects that conserve energy - boosting the economy. This will also save cash year after year and allow people and companies to make even more investments. *** Another thing that governments can do is to allow the construction of nuclear plants and pipelines.

In my experience, ROI must be > 20%. Some companies specify a payback period of 3 or even 2 years. This is not the only way. Another way is to introduce a carbon tax. The tax can be revenue-neutral with an offsetting deduction in payroll tax for example. No it is not. This is like sying that the market prices all goods and services perfectly. I find it very hard to beleive that someone can be against energy efficiency!

It did not read like that to me at all: page 12: "various approaches could reduce financial hurdles..." You are assuming that there is always a trade-off between an investment in conservation and a "better" investment. The reality is that sometimes: -people and businesses are unaware of potential conservation investments -there is a choice between conservation investment and no investment, where an extra incentive would increase economic activity and help the economy Also, the report stresses the need for a holistic approach - information and education is always a part of the solution.

Unless you consider EVs. Also, to reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in the transportation sector, you can use more natural gas vehicles, you can make investments that reduce the amount of cars on the road, you can also.... Not if it done right. It's similar to what you just wrote about natural gas prices in Canada. If the OECD countries increase energy costs but and cut energy demand this will effectively increase global energy supplies and the price of energy should go down for developing economies. First of all, the market is far from perfect (see 2008). Second, there are plenty of actions that we can take to reduce energy consumption without reducing our standard of living. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-10

The measures discussed in the report were cost effective: "such measures would result in $1.2 trillion in savings, far more than the $520 billion investment required to implement them". A good question that you often bring up is: if saving energy already saves money, why aren't we doing it already? The report effectively answers that question starting on page 8. There are barriers to implementing conservation efforts and there are various solutions that remove these barriers - while benefiting the economy.

No. Here is an expanded quote from my link: "The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that, under existing policies, total energy consumption will grow by 14 percent by 2035. That doesn't have to be the case. A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020 IOW: BAU => +14%, versus widespread "common sense" conservation => -23%, for a net savings of 37%. I've had no luck so far... it would be interesting...

Yes, I suppose that there was organized hunting... Anyways, it is hard enough to define "religion" let alone "organized religion"... The mere existence of "the anthropology of religion" supports my claim that religious beliefs existed in pre-history. Good question. What are you trying to say? When do you think that religion emerged?

I across an interesting link that strongly supports my principle argument. "A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020. What's more, such measures would result in $1.2 trillion in savings, far more than the $520 billion investment required to implement them. The corresponding reduction of greenhouse gas emissions would be like taking an entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles off the road." http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-10

Why would you even bring up "organized religion"? Can you think of anything that was organized in pre-history? The existence of religious beliefs in pre-history is the prevalent theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion If you are claiming otherwise then it is up to you to provide evidence.

The concerns are not exactly the same but there is plenty of overlap. Not exactly. Cut demand by reducing waste (conservation) and switching energy sources to hydyo and geothermal where avaialble and nuclear - and some limitted use of wind/solar others. We should moderately increase costs of fossil fuels in the OECD (carbon tax) and help poorer countries develop sustainably. Until fossil fuels run out, then what?

I agree that the real problem of under-development/poverty dwarfs the potential problem of climate change. I also agree that the eco-extremist calling for a shutdown of all fossil-fuel usage is ridiculous and harmful. However, IMO the majority of activists are not calling for an end to fossil fuel development. I do not agree with these two protesters but I do not agree with our government's stance on climate change either. There are still good reasons to concern ourselves with climate change and to limit the burning of fossil fuels. -It is unjust to future generations if we irresponsibly consume non-renewable fossil fuels -If we can cut the demand for fossil fuels, especially in the OECD, this will put downward pressure on energy prices and help poor countries develop.

So everyone agrees that religion has been a part of humanity for at least the last 25,000 years? The world of elephants is indeed fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Death_ritual

So, in your opinion, when did religion emerge?

Not all burial sites are religious. However the existance of grave sites and cerimonial burial rituals are very stong evidence for the existance of religion in prehistoric times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

Why else would anyone put the effort into creating a burial site?

How do you explain pre-historic grave sites?

Good question, when I say "practically significant", I mean useful in real life, and of couse I am biased and mostly mean, "useful in my life". When some people find out that another person is religious they judge that person as naive and of a weaker mind. I suspect that you are that kind of person because of some of the language that you use. These prejudices against religious people is common and IMO holds back progres in society. Where did I make a claim that I did not back up? When I state an opinion I clearly say "IMO...".

There may or may not be statistically significant differences between groups of religious and non-religious people. IMO however these differences are practically insignificant. And I am certain that when dealing with one individual, the fact that they are religious or not should have no influence on wether we judge that person to be moral/immoral, smart/stupid, generous/selfish, etc...

I get it, you are just not understanding me. Yes I am making intersting comparissons - just the way you are. No I am not drawing any firm conclusions, just using the data direct us towards further research. Also, be careful when you are considering Canada's density. Yes our average density is ~3.5 / sq.km, however it is important to also consider our population distribution, most people live in far denser areas:

OK, as I've said, higher IQ has a negative correlation with higher religiosity. IMO, this correlation would disappear if studies were controlled for education and income level. I did not see any of these controls in the wiki-referenced studies.

The las time Iooked, ~ two thirds of the economy of any OECD country (including Canada) was was services. Here's an interesting fact: Natural ressources make up 7% of our GDP. http://www.horizons.gc.ca/eng/content/significant-shifts-key-economic-sectors I agree with the factors, however while Canada is of course different than the EU - it is not THAT different.

1. This is not my argument. 2. If you want to continue to use the analogy perhaps you can explain why Canada is akin to a 200 lb man and the EU or the Scandanavian countries are 90 lb women. I agree that CO2 emissions is one criteria amongst many. In general, I am not in favour of high-cost CO2 reduction "solutions". I especially hate it when "alarmists" are against nuclear energy.

In the above situation you are correct - as I've said this analogy has outlived its usefullness. There is no harm in comparing any country/province to any other as long as you realize that there are differences and limitations - I certainly realize that. We should actually be more specific comparissions, for example: -What are the best ways generate electricity? -What are the best ways to heat/cool buildings? -What are the best ways to design transportation systems? -What are the best materials to use in construction? -What are the best policies that protect the environment without crippling the economy? Of course the answer to all these questions is "it depends...." - we should still be asking them, researching and comparing.

Are you (and TimG) saying that there is nothing Canada (or any country) can do to reduce CO2 emissions without a significant negative impact on the economy?

No I said that there would be no statistically significant difference in their ability think critically. You are right there would certainly be more religious people that did-beleive in evolution and this is indeed an indicator or a lack of critical thinking. However, what if the question was, "do you beleive that AGW threatens the survival of humanity?" Do you think that the results would show the atheists to be weaker? I was thinking that in an IQ or MENSA type test the results would be statistically equal.