carepov

"overall impact to the planet" is impossible to measure, therefore your idea on "hard caps" is a non-starter from wiki: Sustainable development refers to a mode of human development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while ensuring the sustainability of natural systems and the environment, so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come. To me a sustainable practice means that the practice can essentially go on forever (or at least let's say 1000 years). AFAIK: -forestry in NA and Europe is sustainable -overfishing the oceans is unsustainable but aquaculture is sustainable -agricultural practices are generally more sustainable when GM technology is used -Nuclear energy is more sustainable than burning fossil fuels and today's wind and solar -Overall, the way we humans currently live is unsustainable I agree that undeveloped areas are the cleanest. However my thesis is that overall richer countries have cleaner air and water and better environmental protection than poorer ones. I do not have data now, I will post as time permits. In the meantime, ask yourself: In which countries would you find a lake/river in a developed area and jump in and even drink the water? USA/EU/Japan, or BRIC? In rich countries, hasn't water quality dramatically improved in the last 40 years despite increased development? Which large cities have the best air quality? Where is there the most litter and garbage lying around? USA/EU/Japan, or BRIC? Where is tree coverage stable and where are forest being cut down? During the cold war, why was there so much pollution in Russia/Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe? You may have a point about exporting pollution from rich to poor countries, however, my understanding is that we are starting to see laws that prohibit this practice. Guess which places are the first to ban the export if dangerous pollutants/e-waste - the rich countries. To "save the planet" we need: -reduced waste in the West (energy, food) -switch from coal to nuclear energy -reduce poverty of the 3,000,000,000 people living on <$2/day - this means sustainable development. is needed. In this I agree with the aproach of the Millennium Goals

I saw the interview in French and it was poorly translated. He said: "Le Canada c'est notre pays". This is more like: "Canada is our country." a subltle but important difference. IMO he has a good chance at becoming the next PM but if the economy remains solid I think that the CPC will win another majority. Voters will forget all the recent scandals and will prefer the status quo as they did in recent elections in Manitoba, Alberta and BC. Also, LIV (low-information voters) will be duped by CPC adds claiming that Trudeau is a "separatist in over his head".

This is not a story about inequality - it is about poverty. IMO, one of the best investments our society can make is in reducing child poverty, the key message is: "A nutritious diet and access to opportunities for recreation could do more for health care than building more hospitals, Stanwich said." In other words, an ounce of prevention...

Bonjour Speedy, As long as you dress warm, you would certainly enjoy: http://festivalvoyageur.mb.ca/ French is alive and well in Manitoba: http://joiedevivremanitoba.com/fr I am not so sure about the rest of Western Canada, but check out: http://www.ouestcanadien.ca/ http://www.tourismealberta.ca/ http://www.sasktourism.com/lang/french.htm http://fr.britishcolumbia.travel/default.aspx?CC=CAFR&SI=1

Are you being facetious? If yes, then good one, haha. If you are serious, well, yes let's indeed look at the ship building contracts: Canada: Design only = $250,000,000 + tax (Total cost = ??) 30 % union membership Similar ships in Scandinavia: Total cost (design AND build) = $100,000,000 57-82 % union membership (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem-labor-trade-union-membership) What do you think of that?

You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. -I am not a follower of the cult of GDP. -I abhor waste -I am advocating for for sustainable human development that reduces global poverty Again, where are lakes, rivers, oceans and forests cleanest most protected? Where are the strictest environmental laws and regulations (including those that deal with e-waste and prevent their export)? Why do these places protect the environment? What are your ideas on how to "save the environment"?

You are wrong. I am not on the left side.

Well I think that you were wrong - Harper cleaned-up Liberal votes in Ontario. NDP policies: where do I start... It may be a minor issue but I think it is a sign that a lot of poor policy would follow. One of Layton's first campaign promises was to cap credit card interest rates. Very counterproductive IMO. Harper is the "devil we know" and honestly he is not too bad - in many ways even better than Chretien, IMO. By the way, Trudeau has categorically ruled out this possibility, so I think you are wasting your breath on this issue.

Thanks for your views on media bias. If its OK with you, lets just agree to disagree. More importantly we both seem to agree that one should be sceptical no matter what the source. Regarding left/right, what about people (like me) that sometime like government and sometimes dislike government depending on the issue and sometimes like private enterprise and sometimes dislike private enterprise again, depending on the issue?

Is your drinking water acidic or basic? Mine is neutral. Given the diameter of a circle can you calculate its circumference? I can. Do you see what I am getting at? Theoretically, no one is objective, but practically objectivity exists. In my practical view, the CBC (specifically The National and Canadian election coverage), MacLean's, Foreign Affairs, Statistics Canada, the US department of Labour, the UN Human Development Reports, Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com are unbiased. I also like Amnesty International except I am not sure if they are biased against Israel. I am always sceptical of all media reports but even more so when I sense bias. jacee, TimG and jbg, I appreciate many of your posts and ideas, but respectfully you three have demonstrated you own bias and therefore I highly doubt that your opinions on bias in the media are worth much. One thing that you have in common is the overuse of the terms political left/right. When used in moderation left/right is sometimes useful but when comments such as media "dislikes right wing parties immensely" that is a ridiculous (and extremely biased) claim.

Well I like media that is unbiased, that is my niche. Anyways, WSJ is criticising Obama for his handling of Sandra, great. What's the problem again?

Firstly I am sceptical of your claim that "on average the editors and journalists dislike right wing parties". Most of my sources are unbiased. More importantly, with so many choices of news outlets, averages do not matter. You may have had a point if there was a limitted number of news sources but this is not the case. The best argument to prove my case was the comments by Mrs. Frum following the Obama re-election and Karl Rove/Tea Party embarrassment. Frum spoke about the "right wing media bubble". You see, even if 1000 left wing news sources were out there all you need is Fox and a few other sources to fill the appetite of the right-wing delusionary types. Yes I am saying that the facts on the ground between Katrina and Sandra are very different. Is Fox news criticising Obama about Sandra? Surely they would not hold back?

Human population is not dictated by the environment just like every other species. The key drivers of driving down birth rates are: -Education of women -Increased human development Paradoxically, the lower the infant/maternal mortality and the longer the life expectancy - the lower the birth rate/population growth. This is a proven relationship across many countries. Also, I would argue that to "save the environment" we need more human development and a greater standard of living. Again it seems paradoxical but think about it: where are the cleanest cities? Where are lakes, rivers, oceans and forests most protected? Where are the strictest environmental laws?

I disagree that media bias is a problem for the following reasons: -People are free to choose from thousands of news sources, biased left, biased right or unbiased, or any combination thereof -IMO, mainstream media mainly reflects public interest/opinion - it does not really determine public interest/opinions I also disagree that, all else being equal, that media coverage of Sandy would be any different with Bush in power.

Unfortunately I think that you are right and Canadians will continue to vote based of the very effective CPC "education ad campaign". I have not lost all hope yet. Ironically, some of the best "ammo" and "dirt" against the CPC is their own "educational ad campaign".

Thanks for the response. I sympathize with what you are saying. My message to you regarding reactionary posts and to those advocating reactionary environmental policies is the same: follow the principle "first, do no harm".

Again, you are being dismissive and I will add illogical. Unlike your examples, ocean acidification is a potential problem that is very likely caused by human activity that we can potentially act on. We should at least study it. As I said, we agree on many points. Au contraire, "environmental delusions" can only be changed by logical arguments. IMO, your posts only help to re-enforce "environmental delusions". When persuading people to support sensible ideas and policies that we likely agree on (eg: humans are a part of nature, GMOs, aquaculture, responsible forestry, nuclear energy, less obsession with global warming...) your posts, despite your good intentions, are making the problem of ongoing "environmental delusions" worse.

It is even harder to believe how the CPC and their supporters are relentlessly attacking him. There are two of us here at work that are fiscally-conservative-independent voters that have concluded we have no choice but to vote against the CPC because of their "low-blow" tactics of using out-of-context images and quotes in attack ads. I hope that Trudeau's "stay positve" gamble pays off and a majority of Canadians will agree with our view.

I agree with you that most publications, including National Geographic, are sensationalist however your dismissive response does not seem right either. There are valid concerns of declining pH (remember the scale is logarithmic) and these concerns should be studied. IMO, ocean acidification is a POTENTIAL problem. On the other hand, there are REAL issues facing the oceans and environment. Two that are mentioned in the OP links are overfishing (especially the type that drags nets across the ocean floor) and agricultural runoff. Tragically some (not all) "environmentalists" are stand stubbornly against two practical responses to these issues – aquaculture and modern agriculture (GMO and other technology to increase yields and reduce runoff). These well-intentioned “environmentalists” that oppose remedies to the problems that they care so much about or worse yet that advocate “solutions” that would worsen the environment vex me to no end. How can we get society to focus on the REAL problems and move forward? I agree with many of your ideas but think that your dismissive approach is not helping.

In your opinion, how much money should Canada spend on defence annually?

I agree we don't have an apples to apples comparison, but Canada's ships are costing 250 million for DESIGN ONLY - comparable ships are 100 million TOTAL price (including the design). What am I missing here? Do you think that our shipbuilding program is a wise allocation of our resources?

Wow I am baffled by how the design of a ship can cost $250,000,000 plus tax when similar ships are designed and built for $100,000,000. What do you think about this Derek? I also do not know why the opposition has not asked more about this.

Bad idea, IMO. I am planning on voting Liberal. With your proposed plan I would vote CPC as I dislike NDP policies more than I dislike Harper. I have a feeling that more than half of Liberal voters would feel this way giving Harper >50% of the popular vote.

Whoa, that's quite the rant... I hope that the human race will eliminate war - if the current trends of reduced acceptance of military and civilian casualties continues then I am sure the human race will be ready for life without war. I am sure that you have good reasons to be pessimistic, but think about what your predecessors saw in wars such as the American civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, today's world is quite a bit better, no? Don't forget, the CPC are currently aiming to cut defence spending (~9% of federal budget) as well targeting other spending.

Yes I agree a professional Canadian military is needed - but the point I was making was that our security depends on our relationship with the USA - and extra 10 icebreakers, 25 airplanes and 10 helicopters has absolutely no impact on our security nor does it change the fact that, if we ever faced a real enemy we would be dependant on the USA to defend us. (a very big IF, perhaps even negligible as Charon suggests) I also agree that we should be ready to assist in coalition warfare. This supports my point about making the Canadian military more specialized by avoiding duplication of capabilities within NATO countries. Perhaps Canada would take a stronger role in military/police training. Yes, revisit the past, but do not limit this to military matters. Perhaps Canada's best contributions could come in the diplomatic sphere - to help avoid/shorten future conflicts. Canada is well positioned to act as a bridge between the US and other ideologies - this work would be much more valuable to the US than some military hardware. One example is the freeing of the Iran hostages.