myata

Certainly not! To start a full blown war, in which over 1000 civilians have perished, for kidnapping of 3 (three) soldiers (Lebanon) was only a legitimate "right to defend itself". Nobody on the right (Bush, Harper) had any problem with that. As Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Such are our "morals" we simply can't resist to instill onto the whole world.

Romeo Dallaire makes some good points on Khadr's case: CBC story. Highlights: 1) We can't have it both ways: cuddly child soldiers in Africa, vile terrorirsts when it hits home; even though that's what some of us like to do (and very likely capable of compreheding). 2) It's very likely not the last case we'll be dealing with the issue; we better figure out now how far our respect for "rights" and "law" should and does go. And at what point it should be allowed to be trumped by fear? And who we'll become when we allow it to be trumped by fear?

Of course, Iran made a statement that the attacks will be launched if Iran itself is attacked. As mused extensively by both US and Israel. But who cares about the truth, right? And it's a high war crime to resist democratic liberation anyways.

That's because the principle of (Harper's) Tories is, the rights aren't for everybody, but for those who deserve them (and they'll judge who's deserving, of course). While Liberals struggle to figure out what their principles are in the first place.

No need to get inflated. The post was addressed specifically to Argus's rightful indignation with foreign practices, while his own proposal hardly amounted to less. You raise good questions, but they'd have to be addressed in another discussion.

And, inspired by their advances, we may just consider borrowing some of their ideas? Of course we won't be doing it on the grounds of their, authoritarian, undemocratic, laws and morals; but in the the name of freedom, liberty and democracy.

Congrats on undigging another speculative batch of useless words in the internet dump. You can bring them out dozen apiece and hardly make any point. The difference between the approaches is very clear. One is designed to control the total level of emissions; the other isn't. At times, such as eg. economy slowdown, resourse price fluctuation etc, the "arch of measures" may even appear to be doing something. That illusion will quickly disappear when the economy picks up again; for the simple reason that there's nothing in this approach that creates any connection between GHG emissions and economic incentive. And of course US role in the most recent "development" can be called "leadership". The paper and internet will suffer anything, just try. That would be the kind of leadership that'd hold everybody up "my way or no way". Really. Kyoto had precise timed medium term targets. This recent pseudo development has neither. Nada. Just as the part with 80%. What an argument. Sometime in the future, someone else may be in control. So I'll just sit up and do nothing now. If that's how our old ancestors at the dawn of human history had felt about this whole evolution, we'd probably still wander the dry plains of Africa, in our natural fur skins. Granted, with the right kind of "leadership" we may yet come down to that end. I agree with the accountability part though. If only that came out of this whole plan, it'd at least worth the paper it was written on. Timely, precise and correct information on each country's progress (or lack thereof) is extremely hard to find.

Wow, made somebody happy today (not by any intent, but it's the result that counts). Brought warmth to a fellow human's heart. What a wonderful day!

This was the first statement made in the context of the exchange: "It had a target. Specific measurable target in the set timeframe. Something the new glorious initiative doesn't. What else can be added? " Which was challenged, without any substantiation. Substantiation that I can ask one more time, if you like: did Canada have specific, numerical target under Kyoto accord? Please feel free to investigate. I'll lend you as much time as I could spare (can't promise much - but check with your logic / language (in the area of basic reading comprehension) instructor).

OK, You must one of those people who think that the world was made yesterday. Or at least when you were born. Who and why would need those "scrubbers" if they weren't asked to? Who'd bother to spend money to install and run them, if there wasn't a legislation with heavy fines (ie $$) for non-compliance? .... There you go, you know the word. Now, think of a big emitter with couple of hundred meg at $40/tonne. Perhaps, it would make sense after all to invest once into refining and installing the sequestration technology, then saving big dough on carbon tax forever after. A drool. Unless you can claim to be able to know the future. In which case you'd be in a permanent luxury cruise, too busy with upscale entertainment to be typing into internet forum. Spilkes in oil prices happened before (1973, 1979, when it trippled) and in real terms, oil price isn't even at its all time high: Wikipedia. >>>>>>>> Correction: it is at all time high. As it was in 1973 and 1979 (and in 18-something). The graph only shows info till 2006. >>>>>>>> The bottom line is that the only relation we know to exist between carbon in the ground and in that in the air, is that the former (ground) was "sequestred" by all the different lifeforms over the billions of years, from the latter (air). Now that we're working hard on releasing it back up, we may eventually make it happen. That would be (by the law of conservation) about same time when this planet (or at least its atmosphere) would look like it has never yet seen the life of the day. A drool. Why would one do that ("fix the supply")? Because that what they want to think? Or maybe because they can see through the ground, and times ahead? What if couple of huge reserves is discovered e.g in Arctic, or Siberia, or Antarctic, etc? Because they now have the incentive to do even better. 100 Meg x $40 / tonne = $4 billion / year, annually. I'm not sure about exact numbers, but obviously, there's now a big buck to be made by reducing carbon emissions. Same as a big buck has made industry to introduce asid emissions removal technologies couple decades back. It's plain and simple a question of incentive. No price on emissions - no incentive to improve. Period. No it doesn't pollute because it's using clear hydro energy (in your own example). The price is set on the unwanted commodity (GHG). Less commodity - less buck; more commodity - more buck. It's up to you to figure out how to pay less, if that's what you want of course. And most certainly, geographical variations can be looked into. E.g. by investing some of the green tax into developing clean energy sources where they aren't abundant. Why would anyone do that? We want more clean energy. We want renewables to be paying less, to make them more attractive to more users. And to give the incentives to carbon based energy industry to improve their technology to stay in competion. That comment was about "suspicions". I can't help with your feelings, uncertainties and worries, sorry. On geographical differences, see above. All this is nice and well. But the time has come when it's very clear that a strong signal must be send, through the market, to all players, to start looking at their use of carbon. The measures you listed just aren't adequate for that. Wow. First you complain about poor mother, when pointed out that she may not be so bad after all, you turn around with this "wealth transfer". Hard to please you, go figure. But of course, it's nothing to do with the "wealth transfer". It's mitigation of possible negative effects of policy on the most vulnerable. OK, good start. That won't ever happen in Canada, already. Yes. And who's gonna examine those super gazziolions of untility bills (including verification that they aren't phony)? How much would that cost? Did somebody complain about cost of bureaucracy here, a minute ago?

My, look who's yapping. Cute!

It's not the language, it the ability to read (and comprehend) all what is stated. Not selectively according to your understanding (or the need to make a point, counting on that nobody would bother to check).

Wait! In the rash to run, you forgot to answer the question. Again.

You certainly meant something like this: "none of the Liberal fan boys on this thread seem to actually be able to think logically". Oh no, I forgot, the insults, attack ads and the like, they are all reserved for the exclusive use by the Harper fan boys. I'll respond to the rest a more convenient time. Warning: because its using a lot of unsubstantiated outofmyownhead drool, and my time is limited, I won't be able to address that kind of argument with any level of detail, and will instead just use short reference of the following format: "drool".

I know, misrepresenting information just an innocent trick. That's OK, I don't mind to see you play, there's nothing serious about it (i.e your position in this discussion), after all, right? Report does list mitigation as objective #2 (#1 is protecting vulnerable elements of the society). I wonder if the original poster, and yourself, parroting him, even bothered to glanced through it. But anyways, it's quite obvouis that there isn't any credible ground for your position left anymore, if you're reduced to picking up second hand trash as a substitute for a meaningful argument.

OK, This is as clueless as it gets. Companies will dump poisonous waste into public environment till they are tasked (by the society, via regulation or legislation) not too. Carbon emissions are now recognized as unwanted commodity by the the society. Somebody has to pay. Even further demonstrates the lack of slightest clue. There's energy usage and energy usage. If oil (or coal) happens to be cheap today, the complanies will continue to burn at hearts desire and focus their efforts on adding bells and whistles to their gadgets instead. The goals is to reduce GHG emissions and the plan addresses the goal via setting a price on GHG. Companies that are interested to improve their efficiency will save. Those who run "business as usual" will pay. Of course, it's way above our heads to grasp that there won't be a single fix for all problems in the world. The plan addresses the problem of raising carbon emissions. Energy efficiency is another, probably as important, but different part of the successful strategy to combat climat change. I'm not going to address your phobias, for that there's medical help. But most certainly, it won't be neutral for every taxpayer. Taxpayers what use a lot of carbon heavy services will have to pay for it. It's very easy: carbon emissions aren't wanted. There must be a clue to every that it isn't wanted. And the clue is the price. Sure, regional differences could be an issue. No plan is perfect. It's not the reason to sit back and do nothing. BTW there're special allowances for those on low income, please read the plan. In the longer run, it'll create a positive (for the environment, specifically CO2 emissions) differentiator for consumption: ie. energy derived from clean sources would hopefully cost less. Giving us in Ontario the incentive to use more clean energy. Given the businesses that create clean energy the incentive and resources to expand. And driving those who won't adapt out of business. It's simple and it'll work because of that. That would be a nice solution, only practically unworkable due to its complexity (e.g. auditing actual energy use for each individual consumer - how'd that happen? Or would I just write whatever gives me greatest tax break?). Those who use more (including waste more) will be paying more. Don't bring this "single mom" gumbubble again it's dumb because the plan says very clearly that there will be special allowances for those on low income. For the rest, the statement is very clear, we can't continue to dump GHG as if it costs nothing and means nothing. And the only way to make it clear to evrybody is to put a price on it.

In addition to that, the guy was 15 years old when the alleged crime occured. One can't credibly fuss about abstract child soldiers somewhere in Africa, and pretend case doesn't exist closer to home. That's a hallmark of Harpers' politics though, nobody should be surprised anymore.

You make it sound as if certain Mr. P. "endorsed" this: "No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established" while according to your own link, all he said was this: " [P.] said that India has realised the climate change threat..." Whatever remarks Mr. P. made on other occasions, there's nothing contradictory (at least from the information provided) about this one.

Read ... not read ... how does that have anything to do with the fact that Canada had real specific Kyoto targets? Yes or no? Or try another diversion?

Great, have you tried to apply for a Nobel prize yet?

OMG did you really have to say that? Now I'm not going to sleep, knowing full well that you won't trust me anymore... sniff.. BTW I was so sad that I just typed this secret phrase: "Canada Kyoto target" (make sure to type exactly as shown) into my browser window (it said something like Doodle ... or Noodle??) and it came up with some numbers... which may answer some of your questions... so sorry...can't talk anymore... bye, now.

Unless we're talking about this kind of Purely Oral lidership:Harper on developed world.

If "showing the lead" meant good talking, this world would be swimming in great leaders. Here's one, in the most recent cermon on what others should be doing to address the problem we created: Harper on developed world (CBC). Great inspirational talk. Not a dime to show for it.

Who's in the Sussex drive now?

OK, so we can be on the same page. The question remaining is, who should show the lead? Canada to China and India, or vice versa??