segnosaur

Ummm... have you actually read the bill? I have. Nothing about banning products there. Ummmm... did you actually think that perhaps the people 'in the industry' might actually have an incentive to, I don't know, lie? After all, if I make herbal viagra laced with rat poison, its in my best interests to try to claim the government is trying to surpess my freedoms, rather than risk loosing customers. Lets see, if you read what the bill includes: - restrictions against tampering with products - Prevents people from selling harmfull products - Prevents people from making misleading claims - Ensures products are prepared in a sanitary manner - Ensures licensed pharmacists dispense prescription medication I've read this bill from start to finish... there is nothing about banning any products. Please point to any section that would prevent the sale of something that A: Posed no health risk, and B: did not make false claims. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...8126&file=4 Again, try reading the text of the bill. Bill C-484 specifically states: 238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant, Notice that section mentioning "committing an offense against the mother"? Guess what... a legal abortion wouldn't count... shooting a pregnant woman in the belly would. The law is written to specifically punish people who abuse pregnant women who actually want their children. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...1&File=27#1 You made the claim, it is your responsibility to provide references. Frankly, I figure the reason you won't provide references is because you don't have any, and if you did they would probably show you taking their 'study' out of context. Makers of "Burnout revenge"? That doesn't exactly sound like a group that would actually be making a controlled, scientific study now, does it? You see, I have a scientific background... I like to know that data I'm working with is collected in a proper manner. Of course, I do find it very ironic that you would complain about someone not wanting to change their "stubborn" mind set... given the fact that you've been given multiple references, none of which have changed your opinions. Now, repeat after me... "The Plural of anecdote is not data". Got it? You know, I had a friend who saw big foot. It was his personal experience, so it must be true, is it not?

But those aren't your options. Your options are: - Take back 40 and give back 20 (green shift plan + natural increase in energy prices) - Take 20 and give back none (natural increase in energy sector) You don't seem to understand 2 basic concepts... that energy prices are always going to increase (over the long term), and that the green shift plan is not going to (or at least should not) be giving people back more than it takes. (Its supposed to be revenue neutral for the government.)

You know, you could have simply read the Liberal green plan... they actually have tables there that show tax cuts for people in different income brackets/family sizes. I've already stated this multiple times in the past, but I'll do so again... try single person, no family, with an income between 40k-50k, living in Ontario. Result? tax rebate of between $300 and $350. As for my 'costs'... I'm using natural gas, which should (according to the green shift plan, page 30, right hand paragraph, at the very top, in case you can't find it) add $228 to $266 or so per year to my costs... However, since I'm located in Ontario, electrical rate payers here will also end up paying approximately $1 billion for hydro (according to Dalton McGuinty). Divide that by 4.39 million households, gives a total electrical usage of approximately $227 per household. (And yes, I do recognize that some of that cost for hydro will be payed for in part by businesses; however, they will likely pass that extra cost on to me in terms of higher prices). Of course, in all this I haven't even included increases to the cost of items and services that might result due to the tax. Even with the income tax cut, I end up paying between $100 and $200 more out of my pocket than I get back. And for what, to convince me to use energy wisely? I already do that (putting furnace on a timer, using CF lights, etc.) To convince me to use more efficient appliances? If I could have afforded them in the first place I would have already bought them. To convince me to switch from coal-generated electricity to nuclear? Sorry, I don't exactly have any sort of control over that.

I realize that. But I will see a tax cut. But if the price of energy and other products rises due to the carbon tax, you won't be any better off. And, lets say you do end up better off (i.e. your tax cuts are greater than the carbon tax)... Will the amount be enough to actually allow you to purchase newer, more efficient appliances within a reasonable time frame? After all, you're talking about $5-10 thousand for a furnace, fridge, washer, dryer, and perhaps a stove or dishwasher. If you're not saving enough to actually purchase those devices, then why even bother with the green plan? After all, its supposed to be a plan to save energy, not 'help the poor'. Well, if the point of the tax is to get people to use non carbon based energy sources, then yes it is the right message. I, as a resident of Ontario, have no control over how my electricity is generated. I have taken steps to reduce my usage, but I don't have the ability to, for example, build my own nuclear reactor. If you are going to punish people for overconsumption, then punish them for things that they actually have control over. I can control whether I turn lights out when I'm not in the room. I cannot control whether that light is powered by coal, nuclear or hydro. The Liberal plan is basically punishing people due to where they live. And you really think the right message is "waste all you want... you're in Quebec"? Exactly. At least with the liberal plan I see some return on the additional cost of energy. The industry based energy increases occuring right now? I simply pay more. I really don't think you understand what the Liberal plan means. Being all happy just because you get an income tax cut is not beneficial if you end up loosing all that money over higher energy prices. That's what the Liberal plan is supposed to do.

That was before the significant industrialization of China and India. It was also before many of the oil fields started dwindling. They are not likely to be going up 'slowly' anymore. Even Al Gore says prices will go up dramatically for oil and coal. Do you not trust Al Gore? Consumption taxes are regressive taxes used as a drag on consumption. Yes, I know what consumption taxes are. Still waiting to hear why they are needed when people like Al Gore are saying energy prices are going up anyways. Because it isn't just about heating homes but on things like the size of your home which people can find alternatives for. Really? Strange... a while ago (on the other thread) you balked at the idea that adding taxes on gas (to discourage consumption) was wrong, because people need transportation, and we've designed our cities around using gas. Now, you are talking about whole-sale changes to our urban infrastructure. Care to explain why one major change in infrastructure is good (tearing down all those big houses to replace them with small ones), while other changes are not good? Totally irrelevant. I pointed out that the U.S., even if they did go with nuclear, would still need either fossil fuel or hydroelectric based generation. Either they get hydro from Canada, or they burn fossil fuels. Sorry, there's no way around that fact, and there won't be until someone actually comes up with an economical alternative power source. Doesn't matter if their stated goal is 'energy independence', or economics. Yes, there is a certain amount of 'load shedding' which could occur... but not every company is willing to do that, and I doubt very much whether such rolling blackouts would actually be good for our economy. And those various studies still determined that the effects could vary by car. The study I referred to earlier covered many different models of car, more than enough to cover the various ranges of car models. Yes, some cars may be better than handling ethanol than others... but do you really think that all vehicles in Minnesota just happen to be vehicles that don't handle ethanol well? Heck, your comparison doesn't even make logical sense... Yes, alcohol does have a lower energy content per gallon; however, you're suggesting that a 10% ethanol mix actually causes a 13% decrease in mileage? That would mean that the ethanol actually provided NO energy at all. (If you look at the specific energy capacities of gas vs. alcohol, a 10% mixture would have about 3-4% less energy than pure gas, pretty much in line with what the studies have said.) Why? Do you think cars are signficantly different in Canada than the U.S.? Heck, even YOUR experience showed that the difference is only about 1% off from the U.S. experience. Have you tried running it through the Liberal website? Well, DUH!!! Yes, I ran it through the Liberal web site. I told you EXACTLY where I got my figures from when I first brought this up. Most figures came directly from the Liberal web site (both the green plan document, and their 'calculation' web pages). What I didn't get from the Liberal web site, I got from either quotes from Dalton McGuinty (verified by government figures from places like StatsCan). Personally, I think its rather incredible... you accuse me of having 'untrustworthy' numbers... yet from the sounds of it you haven't even bothered reading/looking at my calculations. To me, that shows your not actually interested in anything that might challenge your beliefs, regardless of how accurate they are. Doesn't reflect on you very well. You can say you did your part then. Then why am I being punished by having to pay more in taxes? I thought the idea was that we were supposed to reward people for good behavior, not punish them. You are assuming, of course, that housing developments with geothermal heating/cooling will not also continue to have gas lines for other uses (such as hot water heating), or a furnace to suplament the geothermal. (I'm not sure if houses are built with geothermal only or if they also contain furnaces for additional heating.) There is already a program for that in Manitoba that I support. I personally think it should be a low interest loan... Ah I get it... so subsidies are alright, as long as they're ones you happen to agree with. As for it being in the form of a 'low interest loan'... you DO know that those are an expense to the government; basically, the difference between the interest that they collect on the 'low interest loan' and what they'd get by paying off more of the debt, or even investing it. Labeling it a 'loan' does not mean that magically there is no cost to the government.

Where did I say I had a 'set' floor price? I said the average price is going to trend upwards. That's ALL we need to know, and that's all we really need to provide the needed incentive to develop new energy sources. So in other words, it is pretty much coming out of your butt. Still waiting to hear why a consumption tax is needed when prices were going up anyways. Big difference between smoking and energy usage... Smoking is a completely optional activity, and has a clearly defined 'alternative' which is cheap... i.e. not smoking. On the other hand, we NEED to use energy, both domestically (gotta have lights and hydro) and industrially. And the possible 'alternatives' are either uneconomical, or just don't exist. Another big difference... the limited supply and increasing demand ensures that the price of oil will trend upwards (with occasional fluctuations due to speculation and world events). With tobacco, there was no big huge rise in demand, and more than enough farmland to continue growing the needed crops. Taxes on smoking were the only way that prices were going to go up for the product. But the argument for this carbon tax is that it would encourage people to use 'alternatives'. Things like wind or solar are not competitive, so that leaves Nuclear. So why dump an extra tax on businesses for something that's outside of their control (namely how their provincial utility is generating its electricity) Actually, I suggested that was one way to interpret the argument you were making. So so many things wrong with that argument... - It assumes that McCain will get elected. (Obama has suggested that he's OK with nuclear, but has expressed reservations) - It assumes that whomever becomes president would actually have the political capital to build those plants (to some people, 'nuclear' is something to be feared) - It assumes that even once those plants are built, it will be enough to satisfy all their demands There is one other problem.... it ignores the nature of nuclear power generation. Nuclear plants are designed to run near peak capacity at all times. (There's just no way to 'throttle' them back.) As a result, they are great for handling base load... however, they are very poor at handling any sort of spikes in power consumption. Even if the U.S. had all sorts of new nuclear capacity, they'd still need either gas or hydroelectric power to handle peak demand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant) So, while you can suggest that the U.S. should "meet their own needs", such an attitude doesn't help reduce the carbon emissions for all of north america. The solution I was promoting and have been for a long time now was for Canada's needs. I rejected a carbon tax. I don't have a problem with an environmental tax where warranted. I didn't classify it as a 'carbon tax'. (I even pointed to the environmental problems.) But what I was told was that we shouldn't tax hydro because its 'green'. (I'm assuming it was you making that argument but I'll have to go back and make sure.) At no point did you say "Hydro also causes problems... lets tax it". The percentage was significantly different that it makes me wonder the role ethanol. You see, this is where a logical person would try to apply Occam's razor... the idea that the simplest solution is the most likely. So, which makes more sense: That multiple studies done my researchers (who were dealing with a single geographic region) would greatly underestimate the loss of milelage caused by a switch to ethanol, or that two different states might have multiple factors that affect fuel consumption? Then point out where my numbers are wrong. I went through the problem of doing my calculations. I pointed out exactly where I was getting the values from (even providing references). With all that, you should have no problem pointing out what exactly you don't trust about them. And in my case, I will never benefit. Ever. Still haven't seen you actually provide any numbers giving the up-front cost of geothermal. Nor have I seen you indicate whether you'd be willing to provide subsidies if the cost of geothermal made its use uneconomical for new homeowners.

Hey, you make some statement (about mid-price or whatever in one post) its pretty reasonable (unless you actually make an effort to inform people otherwise) that you still believe in the statement you made. A general rule is... those who make the claims are responsible for proving it. Really? Hmmm.... found a front load washer (a Matag with the same capacity) on the Sears web site that would save you over 30% on energy usage per year. Once again, you're tossing around vague terms (like 'good energy efficiency') without providing any sort of clear definition of what exactly that is. You also seem to assume that 'good energy efficiency' is a black/white concept. Usually it is not. Its a relative concept. There is no such thing as saying 'This appliance is efficient (or not)", all you can do is compare two appliances.

A few major problems with your argument: - Your tax cuts may be 1300, but you will not see anywhere near that amount of money. Those tax cuts will be offset by an increase in energy prices. You may only get a small fraction of that 1300 to actually buy that new washing machine. (I've actually pointed that out many times in the past) - While you're trying to save up for that brand new washer (and even after you manage to buy it), you'll continue to pay extra for the energy to run your dryer, your fridge, and your furnace. As a result, your energy costs will continue to go up, even if you manage to replace that one appliance. I calculated my potential benefits a while ago. While I would receive about a $300 tax cut, I would end up paying about $500 more for the carbon tax (due to my province and home heating method). Net result: I end up paying extra. Now, a long time ago, I did admit that there would actually be some people who benefit. People in places like Quebec (where they generate almost all their electricity through hydroelectricity) would end up seeing their tax cuts becoming greater than their added energy expenses. But to me, that's a problem with the Liberal plan... its rewarding people not for good energy use practices, but simply based on the province they live in. Someone in Quebec can actually waste MORE energy under the Liberal plan and be awarded for it. Not exactly the right message we should be sending now, is it? If you believe the Liberals, the carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral". That means people will still pay the same (on average). No more money in people's pockets. Of course, as energy prices continue to rise we'll still end up paying more to the energy companies, in addition to any carbon tax.

Given the way many people tend to bring up random, unsupported claims, I'm not about to make any assumptions. Really? And where are your calculations on that? Or are you just making an assumption. And if it is true that you wouldn't see any savings, then what does that say about the usefulness of the Green Plan? You made the assumption earlier that the green plan would get people to save energy by getting 'efficient' appliances. But if people aren't going to actually purchase the more expensive models (or if they can't afford to given the small nature of the tax cuts) then how exactly are you going to get them to be more efficient? Actually, yes it does. Top load washers are cheaper than front load washers. But they cost less. Also also applies to dryers. And Fridges. I've shown example after example of it. Hey, I understand the concept. Just have to see how people will be able to afford that 'new' washer (regardless of its efficiency) given the size of the proposed Liberal tax cuts. If people can't afford the new high efficiency appliances now, why can they afford them when they're only getting tiny tax cuts, and still have to pay higher energy costs?

Earlier on in this thread, I pointed out a flaw in the Liberal plan... if taxing the use of fossil fuels is good way to discourage use, then why are they not directing tax increases at areas (such as transportation) where there is a certain amount of discretionary use, as opposed to things like home heating (where its rather a requirement for people to heat their homes). Of course, liberal supporters started criticizing me, questioning why I considered driving to be 'discretionary' rather than mandatory. The following exchange was typical... Discretionary? In what way? Our economy is now completely linked to gas usage for transportation. You think that is optional now? Here is a survey (done in the U.S.) which shows that people do indeed drive less as gas prices increase... http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true Nearly half of respondents to a Reuters/Zogby poll of likely voters ...said they are driving less to compensate for record U.S. gasoline prices So, if people are able to 'drive less', then their use is, at least in part, discretionary, is it not? Not that all such use is optional, but at least some of it is. And here's the proof.

Well, you'll have to excuse me if you keep changing the nature of your arguments without warning me. I'm still amazed at how some family who before had to consider a small washing machine is now able to afford this nice big 4.2 cubic foot model, when before you seemed so sure they didn't need the bigger model. Why is it a 'good deal'? What are you defining as a 'good deal'? The expensive one uses less energy. It would cost less to operate over the course of its life. So where are you drawing the line between 'good deal' and 'not a good deal'? Or are you just tossing around random unquantifiable terms around because you think they support your argument? Why are you assuming that? Appliance manufacturers don't change models every year. And even when they do update models, they aren't necessarily more efficient. If I buy my $1399 model now, and the Liberals manage to bring their plan in, I end up paying more to run that washer, even if it takes a few years for the plan to be implemented. The only way I can avoid paying more for the Liberal carbon tax is to buy the more expensive model. How do I do that if the proposed tax cuts don't give me enough of a rebate to afford the new washer? Earlier on, you suggested people could save money because gas furnaces are more efficient than they were a decade or two ago. Yet today, the efficiency of a 'mid range' furnace is not significantly different than the efficiency of furnaces from a few decades ago. Why not? You use less electricity, you save money on a year by year basis. But you just said you would not se a return on their investment. So which is it? Are we going to save energy and money going for the more expensive model or not?

There's speculation in the market. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that we have a commodity with a fixed supply and an ever increasing demand. Even with occasional speculative bubbles, the ultimate cost will go up. Even Al Gore said as much. Where is that from, Based on the statistics of "pulling opinions out of my butt"? At least I can point to the fact that the U.S. is currently engaging in many areas of alternative development, without any carbon tax, with lower gas prices, and in many cases without government subsidies. What can you point to to prove your point? There are companies now who could do it. They don't have to be Canadian companies. I never claimed that they had to be Canadian companies, or even that they had to use the CANDU reactor. The issue was that building a nuclear plant is outside the abilities of most business in Canada (or even the U.S.), so that expecting them to go 'green' (when other alternatives are either heavily subsidized or uneconomical) is currently an impossible goal. Uhhh... no, there isn't. The U.S. generates about 3 million GWh/year from fossil fuels. Canada itself generates only about 350,000 GWh/year from Hydro, only around 10% of what the U.S. uses. Furthermore, Canada itself generates around 160,000 GWh from fossil fuel... if we replaced that coal/gas generated electricity with home grown hydro, that would only leave 190,000 GWh for export to the the U.S., only about 6% of its requirements. Ah, but what about untapped potential? Well, lets see... Manitoba has about 5000MW of untapped potential...They currently generate 4200MW, so they could in theory more than double the potential output. Lets be generous and say that our entire hydro output could be doubled, country-wide. This would still only give about 540,000 GWh for the U.S. (after replacing Canada's coal/gas generators), less than 20% of what the U.S. needs to replace its fossil fuel generators. They'd still have to generate 2,400 GWh of electricity from coal/gas. And that's ignoring any increases in demand from population growth. Now, perhaps you're assuming that we'd keep selling the U.S. the same amount of power as we do now, and only use new generating plants for our needs. But again, that doesn't help the problem of global emissions, since any new demands in the U.S. would need to be filled (in part) by fossil fuels. Total emissions for North America would go down the same whether we kept the power to offset our own needs, or sold the power to offset American needs. http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industr...stics/index.htm http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.as...d=4&PgId=26 http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/CA-elc.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Hydro Ah, but in the other thread, when I criticized the Liberal plan for not taxing hydro, you rejected my suggestion. Actually, there are other differences that may come into play... population densities (about a 40% difference) might change driving patterns, higher per-capita incomes in Minnesota (about 15% higher) may allow people to purchase larger vehicles. (I don't know what the relative numbers of SUVs vs. sedans is in the 2 states). I was referring to other countries. Brazil apparently has ended their subsidies years ago. I'd rather have an actual study rather than anecdotal evidence. Why is that necessary? You can look the figures up for yourself. Most of them are right in the Liberal green plan. Or do you not trust the figures given in the green plan? Do you doubt that there are single people with mid-level incomes living in Ontario? Or are you just being difficult so you don't have to admit that there are some people who are going to end up worse off? (Heck, even economists who support the Liberal green plan admit not everyone will benefit.) It cost Manitoba $180 million for a 225 mw natural gas plant in 2002. They are talking about a 500 mw plant now if they can't get their hydro projects done on time. The price tag was listed as around $500 million. Ah, I see... but then, the issue we were talking about for the subsidies was for geothermal. (I assumed the $500 million ws the cost of a geothermal plant, while you were saying it was for a generator.) Of course, if you were to try installing geothermal for 50k homes, it would cost between $750million, and $1.5 billion. So, you could in theory have to triple the cost of an electrical plant.

Many in the New Democratic Party (including its leader Jack Layton) wants Canada to remove its troops from Afghanistan. I'm not sure, but the fact that the plane is shaped like Layton (and the soldiers are entering through the 'mouth') but the cartoon could be referring to the use of empty rhetoric by the NDP... they think they can 'fix' Afghanistan without actually doing anything to directly stop the violence.) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/09/...fghanistan.html Although Canada has a free trade deal with the U.S., the U.S. has continued to apply taxes to certain lumber products imported from Canada. (Most, but not all, court rulings have agreed that, under our free trade rules, the U.S. shouldn't be taxing the lumber.) A year or 2 ago, the government under Harper managed to come to an agreement with the U.S. government over these taxes. (Under the deal, we got some of the money back from the states, but not all. Some taxes are removed, but only under certain conditions.) Critics of the deal suggest that there shouldn't be any taxes, and by accepting the deal we're selling out and giving up when we're morally right. (Or, accepting the 'trojan horse' into our castle.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._lumber_dispute I think this is just supposed to be some comment on the way the government handles people who disagree with their policies. Problem is, it just doesn't seem to be that funny. I think what this cartoon is related to the stance that Dion has stated... that Canada should end its actual combat mission in Afghanistan, and instead concentrate on 'reconstruction'. (We'd keep some people in Afghanistan, but they wouldn't actually be fighting the enemy. Instead, we'd be training people, rebuilding schools, etc.) The problem with that belief is that it ignores the fact that unless we actually fight the Taliban, they may be able to return to power (and thus all the reconstruction would be a waste.) The cartoon appears to support that belief, by showing how 'silly' it is to insist on 'non combat' in situations where combat is actually expected/required.

That's because Libertarians are concerned with more than just a single issue. They believe in minimal government intervention in both social issues (where the NDP would be a mixed bag, supporting some freedoms but taking away others) and in economic issues (where NDP financial policies would definitely be seen as a threat to 'freedom'.) I've met Libertarians before. They aren't a one issue party. (I'm not a member myself, since I believe some of their ideals go too far, but I support the general concept.)

The gas price as we have seen in the last week also fluctuates downwards. The carbon tax remains a fixed cost that encourages seeking non-carbon alternatives or even greater energy efficiencies. I never denied that gas prices might fluctuate downwards (at least over short periods of time). But supplies are limited (in this case fixed), and demand is increasing. Even if oil is currently overpriced at $140/barrel, its still not likely to fall much below $100. Ever taken economics? If not, I'd suggest looking into supply and demand curves As for alternatives, companies and labs are already working on them. Even in the U.S. (where gas is cheaper than here) we hear of companies working on things like oil-from-bacteria/algae, wind farms, etc. Whatever little 'incentive' is provided by a carbon tax isn't needed (and certainly not worth the type of tinkering with our economy that would result.) Nuclear can be done by private companies. Canada's problem is that government would like provinces to use AECL. They may be able to do the job but the need is now. I never claimed that private companies couldn't get involved in nuclear power generation (although it might be a political nightmare). But it would require very high capital costs, and I doubt a company like "Joe's Underwear Factory" would be able to afford their own CANDU. I'm not opposed to the improving east-west transmission... it would improve grid reliability, and give more flexibility to consumers and providers. But if the goal is to reduce total CO2 emissions, an east-west transmission line would do nothing. Why? Because the Canadian grids are already linked to the U.S. grids. (Quebec sells a lot of its hydro power to the U.S.). If Quebec or Manitoba decide to sell power to Ontario (rather than the U.S.) it might reduce the amount of CO2 we emit here. But, that will also mean that in the U.S. they will have to use more coal or oil in their electrical generation to make up the difference. End result: the same amount of CO2 gets emitted globally. (And as far as I can tell, the U.S./Canada border doesn't prevent CO2 from passing from one country to another.) About the only thing that WILL increase is the amount of smugness coming from Canada. I actually did suggest (in another thread) that, if you believed that taxation to reduce usage was a good thing, you should also support taxing hydro consumption. At least if you reduced all electrical usage (even 'clean' hydro) it would reduce the need to use fossil fuels to fill the gap. I'd love to hear more independent Canadian studies on mileage done. I am still calculating it for the year but it has been consistently at the 5% level so far. As soon as the change happened, I calculated kms travelled, litres consumed and cost of the gas purchased. I haven't done anything different in terms of driving. But wait a second... if you did your calculations as soon as the change happened then how do you know what your fuel efficiency was before the change? And are you absolutely sure that the gas stations you were filling up with weren't already adding ethanol even before they were mandated? (And did the change happen prior to the summer? If so, the fact that you'd be driving with either the windows down or the air conditioning on will harm your fuel efficiency.) To be honest, I have no major complaint about your claims of fuel efficiency. Like I said, the studies I've seen look at fleet efficiencies. Maybe your cars are mutants. And they are withing a percent or 2 of tests. Actually, no, there wouldn't be. At least as far as fuel efficiency goes. All 'alcohols' are basically just strings of carbon molecules, with hydrogen molecules (plus an oxygen molecule) attached. In fact, alcohol molecules look remarkably like the hydrocarbon molecules from oil (the difference is, the alcohol contains the extra oxygen, the oil molecules don't.) Ethanol is basically Ethyl Alcohol, which means that its got 2 carbon atoms. (Methyl alcohol only has one carbon, butanol has 4.) But it doesn't matter how the ethanol is formed... the ethyl alcohol molecule formed by fermenting corn will be identical to the molecule formed by fermenting grains. The only thing that might change is the economics... in many areas, corn requires more intensive crop cultivation, so I suspect (although this is just a guess) its use will impact food prices more. You mean through subsidies? Granted, there are sometimes subsidies given, but not all ethanol plants receive such subsidies. Some are built by companies raising the capital themselves. I'd have to see far more evidence of those characteristics to see if that is the true outcome. Ummm... what exactly do you need to see? I've already stated that even if you don't believe those were my particular details, none of the things that I've stated are really that outlandish. You can even go and look at the statistics yourself. I've stated that I'm single (certainly not that unusual), have a mid-level income (so you can figure out how much tax rebate I'd get from the green plan) with a gas furnace, living in Ontario. If you don't believe its me, could you at least admit that there will be middle income single people in Ontario with a gas furnace will end up paying more than they get back? I've given the sources for my figures... have you found any problems with my calculations? If it costs $500 million for a new plant, pipelines and equipment to supply a community of 50,000 people with heat, I think it is worth looking into geothermal and solar as an alternative. Just out of curiosity, where exactly are you getting that $500 million figure from? And you still haven't answered my question... would you be in favor of subsidies for the installation to help people install that?

That's right. Another method is to put principle before self interest and trump economics with virtue. You know, I have no idea what exactly you're trying to argue here. Are you still trying to claim that unless I am willing to actually willing to 'break the law' then I have no right to complain about my freedoms being infringed? By your logic, any black person prior to 1955 who actually complied with any segregation laws didn't really have any right to complain. Anyone who "went to the back of the bus" deserved to be there just because they weren't willing to be arrested. By the way, still haven't heard just how much crack you sell. You turn yourself over to the cops yet? Or are you a hypocrite?

Still waiting to hear about all those freedoms (apart from drug use) that are going to be taken away by the conservatives. You've been challenged multiple times to explain which freedoms. Still haven't seen you respond. I'm sure you've got such an awesome list that its just taking you a long time to actually compile your response. Is that it? Or is it that you've become so focused on that one issue (drug use) that you'd be just has happy if all Canadians were rounded up into concentration camps, as long as they could continue to use drugs? Also waiting to see some sort of evidence that people actually perform better on video games when they are under the influence of marijuana. You do have evidence for that, don't you? Its not just some urban legend or fairy tail based on something that you've misheard at some time?

Go tell it to Rosa Parks. What's your point? I never claimed that civil disobedience was not effective, or that its morally wrong. What I said was: - Civil disobedience is not the ONLY method for enacting changes in the law. For every Rosa Parks, there are probably a dozen important figures (and hundreds of minor figures) who didn't draw the same attention, but worked behind the scenes to enact changes. - Emery shouldn't be lumped in with people like Parks (based on the fact that he was willing to take a plea), nor should the majority of drug users (since most drug users prefer to keep their activities hidden) Once again, why exactly does someone have to be willing to get arrested in order to claim they 'support' certain rights? Oh, and by the way.... just how much crack do you sell? Since you criticized ME for not going around to shout racist statements, and you support the right to use drugs, then you should be willing to use/sell all sorts of drugs (like crack). Furthermore, you should also be willing to report yourself to the cops so that you can get arrested in order to publicize your ideas. I have no idea why the cops refused. Of course, there are probably a lot of laws on the books that the cops don't bother enforcing (jaywalking, speeding if people are only going 10 km/h over the limit, etc.) Perhaps many cops agree that using drugs is not significant. Perhaps they may disagree with drug use, but assume that the penalty that he would get would be so minor that it wouldn't be worth the time/effort to arrest him. Or perhaps they want to stop drug use but recognize Emery's actions as some sort of cheap publicity stunt. A couple of possibilities.... - Some other individual may have been arrested in some other city, for laws involving racial segregation, resulting in very similar court cases and precidents - Segregation probably would have ended anyways, through a combination of multiple smaller legal changes, and the cops simply ignoring existing laws (Remember, the parks case wasn't the first one to challenge racism in the U.S.)

Who violates the law? Ummm.... I'm not really sure what the point of your question is. I'm referring to the people who use drugs.... they are violating a law (even if it may be an unfair/unnecessary one) Several reasons... - Because for the most part I do not have the resources to violate the law in the first place, nor the resources to mount a legal defense if I do get arrested. I don't have access to a major media outlet to challenge government organizations like the CRTC, or gag laws, or to set up a business in quebec to test their sign laws, or one of several areas where our freedom of speech is being violated - Because, I currently have no need to engage in things that violate free speech laws. I believe that people should have the right to say "All redheaded stepchildren are evil" (or whatever might get me in trouble with various human rights commissions)... however, I don't actually believe that; so me uttering those words would basically be a lie on my part. - Because, I have other responsibilities in my life, and feel I can better enact change in other ways First of all, I notice that you seem to be concentrating on this one element of potential rights abuses. I have, in fact, gave several areas where the NDP would further erode my freedoms, including economic freedoms. Secondly, your argument (that I should be willing to actually get arrested in order to justify my sense of free rights) is a bogus argument. The fact is, I actually do take steps to try to advance the cause of freedom... - I vote for the party which is most likely to enact change in the direction that gives greater freedom - I have written to my MP over particular censorship laws that I felt strongly about - I have done my best to educate people regarding the issues. I do not feel its necessary to engage in cheap 'publicity stunts' in order to try to bring about the freedoms I wish I had. (In fact, while Emery was willing to risk arrest, most drug users probably don't have such high-minded principles, pun intended, preferring to keep their drug use hidden from the authorities with the goal of avoiding prison. Heck, even Emery wasn't all that idealistic, given the fact that he was willing to accept a plea deal with the American government, and is fighting extradition there. If he really thought that freedom was so important, why doesn't he turn himself over to the U.S. and say "Do your worse, I know I'm in the right"?)

I have provided a reference to articles written by university faculty that shows that use of marijuana does indeed cause impairment. If you actually have evidence that that study was flawed, please present it. I'm sure you'll be quite willing to provide a reference, from scientific studies, confirming that people currently under the influence of marijuana continue to have good reflexes/co-ordination. By the way, time and time again, you've made mistakes in this thread, including: - False claims that a person wouldn't be arrested for impaired driving if using prescription drugs (they would... I provided a reference too.) - False claims that C-51 prohibits 'natural medicine'. (It doesn't; it just deals with false claims/contamination) - False claims that marijuana doesn't cause impairment (it does, even if it does cause users to avoid driving) - Claiming its OK to drive when using marijuana, but also mentioning that you should have the right to use anything (does that include driving while under the influence of heroin?) In addition, you made the claim that the conservatives are a "a huge threat to individual liberties" (your exact words). You've been challenged to provide examples/evidence for what rights (apart from drug use) are actually in immediate danger. I'm still waiting to hear what's been threatened. Or have you actually realized that you don't actually have a leg to stand on? Once again... if you think you should have the right to use marijuana... fine. But don't claim that libertarians and those that favor general freedom should support the NDP. Some of us freedom-lovers realize that there's more to freedom than just the right to use drugs. And until the NDP starts to support policies that allow me to maintain more economic freedom (lower taxation/spending) and more freedom of speech, you can't claim that they're a party that truly favors 'freedom'.

But that wasn't the argument you were making. When you first posted your 'examples', you were looking only at the energy ratings. You did not claim that the larger one was more efficient. (In fact, just the opposite, in an earlier post on Jul 18 2008, 01:32 PM you even claimed that a smaller dryer was more efficient, based only on the energy guide.) And when you did finally mention capacity, (in your post on Jul 21 2008, 12:26 PM) you did not refer to the efficiency of the larger design, but only to it being a 'feature'. But you didn't explain. Maybe you just weren't communicating properly, but when you just keep chanting "efficient", you're not really providing anything useful. Wait a second.... Earlier on, you were claiming that a 'mid range' price was under $700. Now you're saying that an item that costs twice as much is also 'mid range'? What exactly are you classifying as mid range right now? Oh, and by the way, just wondering... how does the total energy usage (including capacity) of that 'cheaper' washer compare to that $700 model you mentioned earlier? Frankly, I think the problem is you seem to be willing to stretch the phrase 'mid level' and 'efficient' so much that the terms loose all meaning. Anything that you think is 'good enough' to justify your argument becomes mid-level. Well, lets see... if you currently have the 1399 model, and all of a sudden the carbon tax drives up the cost of your electricity, then what are you going to do? You'll either have to suck it up and buy the more expensive model (for the small efficiency advantage it provides), or get stuck paying more due to the carbon tax. Either way, you get screwed. And unfortunately for a large number of people the Liberal plan doesn't cut taxes enough to justify the purchase of more expensive products. Which was the whole point of my argument. Or they could replace it with an equivalent top load washer at exactly the same efficiency as their old one for even less money. If you are actually unconvinced, then try actually demonstrating that you

And we have also seen large increases in GDP and population in that time. Like I said before, you are claiming that this green plan will somehow prevent emissions, more than the effects of naturally higher gas prices. Still looking for evidence from you that that would actually happen. I'm not about to get into cap and trade right now. (I'm not necessarily in favour of it, regardless of who proposes it.) And what exactly are those alternatives? You've already criticized ethanol to cut transportation. Wind power? Solar? Both currently depend on large subsidies. Hydro? Not only are pretty much all resources in use already, it causes its own environmental problems. About the only option is nuclear, and since the development of nuclear plants is pretty much out of the hands of your average company, its up to the provincial utilities. If the cost of using a 'green alternative' drives up prices, it will make your company less competitive. Ah, the insulting right wing tone again. I'm one of the few people who isn't anonymous here. Perhaps you would like to come out from the shadows yourself. Ah ok, so maybe I shouldn't have called you anonymous. (I just never really cared about your real identity.) But the point is, you're still only one person, giving nothing but a personal anecdote. The same type of 'evidence' provided by faith healers and snake oil salesmen. I think I'll stick to studies from people who A: have looked at a large number of vehicles, and B: have actually done more in depth study into the issue. I gave you all the information you need to verify my study. I gave my approximate income. I gave my province of residence. I gave details about how I heat my home. Everything you need to verify my figures. Even if you doubt my own personal details (heck, I could actually be Steven Harper posting here...), none of the values I gave were unusual. Even if you don't thing I personally would be negatively affected by the carbon tax, there's enough information there to show that there will be some people affected by the tax. How do you define 'much different'? Pretty vague term. Remember, the difference between the numbers I quoted and the numbers you gave were withing 1-2%. Do you not think its possible that you might have driven just a LITTLE differently? And how do you know exactly what your MPG is? Do you have a gas usage guage on your car? You just basing that on the number of times you have to fill up in a week? Do you actually count the number of KM traveled and the number of litres consumed? It is still money I'd rather not spend for a program... what do yo mean 'spend for a program'? I've shown that, in pretty much every scenario, you'd actually end up saving money in the end through decreased gas prices (Even if corn isn't the best way to manufacture ethanol). Ah, nice. Glad to see the tone is still there. If a couple of hundred bucks means a lot, you should hate the Tories for how they changes the income trust. Cost a lot of people a whole lot more than a couple of hundred bucks. Whether or not the changes to the income trust was wrong is a totally different issue. If I have a finger chopped off, do I not have a right to complain, even if there are people out there who have had an entire hand chopped off? While one case is obviously worse than the other, does not mean that both situations are ones that we should strive for. Since we are doubting anonymous posters, I don't know what we know anything of your case. As I've said before... I've given all the details that you would need to verify at least the numbers in my case. Even if you don't believe that its an accurate representation of myself, the situation I gave (income, province of residence, home heating method), etc. are certainly not unusual. So at least you can say that someone matching those characteristics would be negatively affected. What type of thermal heating are you referring to? Geothermal? Passive solar? Geothermal costs approximately $15-30k. Are you in favor of subsidies for that? http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuse...eothermal#intro You know, with the possible liberal tax cut of someone in my income level of around $300, it would take me around 50 years to save up enough to actually pay for such a system.

Really? And I don't like the idea that some politician in the NDP may end up being given the right to control what I do with my property and/or money. I work a solid 40 hours a week. I make decisions that often involve scrimping in order to guarantee my future. And here the NDP wants (through higher taxes and social spending) to tell me what's going to happen with the money I've earned. Once again, other than drugs, just what 'personal freedoms' do you really think are in jepordy? Except the NDP, through their ideas of higher taxes/social spending, would seek to take away your property. So you may still have your pot plants, but you won't have any other money left in the bank. Actually, no, they don't. Bill C-51 does not make natural health products illegal. (In fact, the idea that it does was started by a company that just happens to sell so called 'natural health care products'. This is rather like expecting an unbiased opinion on the health effects of smoking from a cigarette manufacturer.) What C-51 does do is that it allows better enforcement to ensure makers of 'natural' products are not A: making bogus claims (such as having sugar pills cure cancer), and that B: their products are actually safe (i.e. not contaminated). When a big drug manufacturer wants to market something new, they have to prove that it works, and that, as well as they can tell, it does not actually harm anyone (Yes, mistakes do sometimes get made, but the vast majority of drugs have no unexpected consequences once they are made available.) Personally, I'd prefer to know that if I take a vitamin pill its not actually contaminated with rat poison. (As much as I think government should be limited in scope, I do think that ensuring the safety of our food and medicine is something they should be involved in.) http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/topics/alter...on-summer-leave Basically, what people want to do is prevent cases like the following: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-d...5321684868.html ...a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies. Actually, there is evidence that it 'impairs' people. For example, from: http://www.ukcia.org/research/DoseRelatedRiskOfCrashes.pdf The degree of performance impairment observed in experimental studies after doses up to 300g/kg THC were equivalent to the impairing effect of an alcohol dose producing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥0.05 g/dl. (Note that this study does have a 'drug and alcohol awareness' logo on it... however, the authors of the study are from mainstream universities.) Now, it is true that there is less evidence that its a large factor in actual collisions, possibly because people using pot are possibly less likely to engage in risky behaviors like driving). However, it does cause impairment. Edited to add: There is one more problem with your posting. Here, you are claiming that pot does not cause impairment during driving. Its debatable (although there is evidence proving your wrong). But earlier on you claimed that you are in favor of using any type of drug you see fit. I'm assuming that includes drugs like Heroin and PCP, narcotics that definitely would cause impaired driving. Actually, I believe that most jurisdictions can lay charges for "driving while impared" even if you are taking prescription or over the counter medications. For example, after a quick search, I found in manitoba: (from: http://www.mpi.mb.ca/PDFs/DVL_PDFs/DH_DrivingImpaired.pdf) Tranquillizers, antidepressants, sleeping pills and similar drugs can affect driving ability even if taken in the prescribed dosage. Accordingly, if you continue to drive while impaired by any medication, you can be charged with driving while impaired First of all, even if one person is charged unnecessarily, then to me its to much. Secondly, the effect of charging that one individual can and does have an effect on all of us, from the chilling effect on other free speech to the lack of ability to engage in dialog on the ideas that might have been presented. In that case, you are actually against freedom of speech, because the freedom of speech involves the right to say things that are distasteful. I also pointed out the massive subsidies to the CBC, in addition to the cost of the drug registry. Subsidies to the CBC (which are taken out of my tax money, even though I don't think I've used any of their services for years) dwarf those figures you gave for drug enforcement. I never said that all such actions would result in jail time. (Come to think of it, in a lot of cases, drug use wouldn't either... since judges often give probation or small fines.) But some would. Your example of someone 'working under the table' would end up in jail, if they were caught and refused to pay any outstanding taxes. Except you don't obtain wealth from society. Wealth is generated by the actions of the individuals within society.

Funny, McCain and T. Boone Pickens disagree. Before you go praising T. Boone Pickens as an expert, keep in mind that his wind farms do enjoy government subsidies. As for McCain, he's also a big fan of nuclear power, and plans to build up to 100 nuclear plants in the coming years, starting with 45 to be finished in about 20 years. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nucl...&dist=msr_4

First of all, technically I never actually called you 'retarded'. I claimed the way people like you repeated statements over and over again without actually providing anything substantial was "like a retarded parrot repeating something". It was the repeating statements I was criticizing with that statement, not you. (My apologies to any avian posters on this board.) You could be the most intelligent person in the world. But if you're not actually providing any real clear logical argument and simply repeating the word "efficiency" over and over again, there's no real way to debate. As for considering you 'ignorant'... well, considering I gave so much evidence that your interpretation of the energuide figures was wrong, aren't I at least justified? After all, the smart thing to do would have been to say "You know, you're right, I misunderstood the math behind it". As for you being "interested in debate"... to be honest, I find that rather, ahem, unlikely. In the beginning it seemed promising... you actually put forward actual points that haven't been addressed before. But then, rather than actually advancing those points, you feel back into the old trap of repeating falsehoods that had already been proven wrong. I'm quote interested in debate, and I respect people that have opinions that differ from mine, if they are able to articulate those opinions and actually provide something useful. Sometimes I end up actually changing my opinions based on facts others may present in a debate. Even if I don't change my opinions, I can still respect a good debater (and I always respect someone of that quality). Unfortunately, having someone repeat stuff that has been debunked over and over again isn't really convincing or useful. Hopefully some day you'll actually understand the difference between debate and rote repetition.