segnosaur

We have also seen similar drops in Carbon emissions in the U.S. The fact that emissions have gone down in both countries (while at the same time population has gone up) suggests quite strongly that people and businesses are interested in finding efficiencies, without the carbon tax. Problem with your argument is that you're assuming there are alternatives. There are not. If a company wants to make money, it will have to use energy (as efficiently as possible, but still use it). Once they've already reached their peak efficiency, the only way they can get further savings is by actually cutting production (and thus loosing jobs). Guess you'd be happy with that wouldn't you. So, once again, what businesses are actually sitting around deliberately trying to reduce profits by not cutting energy usage? My Mazda and Toyota, both very new cars, are getting 5 to 6% less fuel efficiency. It is certainly noticeable to me that they are not getting as good mileage. Well, you'll have to excuse me, but I'm more likely to believe multiple experts from a wide variety of reputable sources rather than one anonymous poster who doesn't even seem to understand basic economics. Maybe your cars aren't getting less efficiency, but you just think they are because higher gas prices keep you from filling up as often, or because your driving habits have changed slightly. (Higher gas prices might keep someone from taking long road trips on vacation, which would mean a higher portion of their driving involves in-city commuting, which would give a lower mileage.) Unless you are driving the exact same distance you were before, on the exact same roads, with the exact same traffic patterns, your claim is nothing more than an unverified anecdote. Or maybe your car actually is getting less efficiency but its because they're a year older (and thus may be out of tune.) Or maybe Mazda's do have a greater drop in mileage with ethanol. (After all, the studies I've referred to looked at several cars, so they were looking at fleet averages rather than just your car.) Heck, even if you're right and you have seen your mileage go down by 5-6%, you'd still save money. (If I applied that much of a decrease to my driving situation, I'd save between $87-88 per year in gas, still more than I would be paying for the food increase... and that's assuming a worst case scenario; i.e. assuming the low end of the estimate for the effects of ethanol on gas prices as well as underestimating my gas usage). Yes, I do... Of course, if I was in a 2 car family, there would likely be more actual driving done (and thus more money saved). Of course, with the extra person you'd also have a higher food budget, so things would likely balance out. Back to the original point though... The idea that ethanol production is going to drive up the cost of of Canadian's living expenses appears to be incorrect. The total amount of increase is likely very small and in many cases is offset by savings from gas price decreases. And even if food prices DO go up, it could be less than the cost of the Liberal 'green plan'. Not exactly. I've already provided a reference to show that the overall savings is around 25%. (i.e. if you use/burn 1 Mj of energy to produce and transport the corn, you end up with 1.25 units of energy.) This is not a very good return on investment, but it still means you are ahead of the game, if only slightly. (And as I've said before, the byproduct of the fermentation process can be used as cattle feed, eliminating the need to grow food specifically for livestock.) I'm afraid I don't consider a couple of hundred bucks getting whacked. First of all, are you at least admitting that I (and many others) will be negatively affected by the carbon tax? Secondly, nice to see you're so well off that a 'couple of hundred bucks' is nothing to you, but it does mean something to me. I'm already doing my best to provide for myself. That 'couple of hundred bucks' would have been my groceries for most of the month. Its the cost to go visit my elderly parents, twice. Why do you hate my parents? Except, as I demonstrated in the other thread, the Liberal tax cuts would not likely be enough (at least in my case) to offset the cost of new appliances that would be more efficient than my existing ones. That might work for something where a product usage is completely voluntary (such as cigarettes), or where there are alternatives. However, given our current level of technology though, there are no significant alternatives. Most significant sources of hydro have been tapped, Wind and solar are, currently, not economically viable (even with the carbon tax). Nuclear is definitely an option, and Ontario is currently building new reactors, but they will probably take a decade to come on line, and it won't totally eliminate the need for electrical generation from fossil fuels.

I'd be careful about claims about the number of times the registry is used. After all, many of those checks are routine, and there is no guarantee that the police actually use the information when they actually enter someone's house, etc. I rather suspect most police treat every situation as one where firearms could be involved. Because even if costs are 'under control', the costs are not actually zero (and whatever they are paying into the registry could be better spent in other areas) Because there are still inaccuracies in the system which limits its usefulness and, if someone puts too much trust in the system could end up in trouble? Because many people are worried about such information being lost/stolen? Because the registry may not be effective? From: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...84-53957b01a6a0 The auditor general's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. It wasn't my intention to derail this thread by specifically targeting the Liberals and their spending. I probably could have also pointed to cost overruns in the U.S. military. Heck, even the Canadian military has had some unexpected bills (such as unexpected cost increases for its latest helicopter purchases). I just picked the gun registry because A: it was Canadian, and most people could identify with it, and B: it gives one of the best examples of expenses being out of line of original estimates. (I still remember, back when the Liberals first suggested it would 'only' cost $35 million, that some friends of mine thought it was crazy when I suggested the costs could be many times that.) The point was... sometimes people are wrong with their predictions, and sometimes they're right.

I've already pointed out that I think the Liberals are wrong. Except you repeatedly refer to it as as the policy by the conservative party. Anyone who read your posts and nothing else would end up thinking that electing the Liberals would somehow change things. Its deceptive. A lie by omission. More in keeping with Michael Moore rather than honest political discourse. It would be like me saying "Harper is against eating babies". That is true. I'm also pretty sure that Dion is against eating babies too... but if I only mention Harper being against it, it gives a false sense of the truth. Do you really think such deceptions are a good way to make you and the Liberals seem virtuous? The excise tax was going into general revenues and very little if any was used for highway construction. The fact that the excise tax was going into general revenue is irrelevant. In fact, I can't really think of too many examples where certain taxes are specifically earmarked for particular projects. Even if the excise tax does go into general revenue, a portion of it does find its way into building or maintaining our transportation system, either directly (e.g. federal employees that deal with various road issues), or indirectly through transfers to provinces (who usually have a more direct role in actually building and maintaining roads, not to mention policing). If the excise tax is replaced with the 'carbon tax', then people aren't really paying for their use of the public road network. i.e. you have a public 'good' that is being consumed that the users are not paying for.

I have no need to give proof. It isn't me that's trying to put forward a set of policies. It is you (or at least the Liberal party that you seem to support). Since you're making the claim 'this is necessary', then its up to you to provide proof. Kind of like being an athiest... I do not need to prove that there is no god... the assumption is that, since there's no proof either way, that no god exists. If a Christian/Muslim/Raelian wants me to believe in a higher power, then its up to them to provide the evidence. Of course, I could point out that I've already established that emissions are dropping without a carbon tax. I've pointed out the existance of supply/demand curves and explained their relevance in another thread. That's a lot more proof than you've ever given. You can't even answer a simple question... do you really think there are business men sitting around who have decided they'll earn less profit because they want to waste energy? I wouldn't count on it...given the fact that the president of the world bank has already taken steps to distance the organization from the report, and pretty much every report has numbers that are far lower than the 75%. (At this point we don't even know if that 75% refers to the cost of all food, or just certain items based on corn or soy, or if he even took into account the greater efficiency in the use of byproducts that could occur in the U.S.). Ethanol does give poorer mileage, but the drop is not that great. From: http://autorepair.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/aa102100a_2.htm Ethanol contains 97% of the energy that pure gasoline has. But because the combustion efficiency is increased, the slight reduction in energy content is compensated for. Most users will not notice the decrease, if any, and many people have reported an increase in fuel milage. From: http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/otherfuels/...05_07_final.pdf (remember, this is an oil lobby group, so you wouldn't expect them to be pro-ethanol) Recent data published by the Coordinating Research Council on a fleet of 12 California-certified model year 2001-2003 cars and light trucks suggests that the fuel economy penalty for 10% by volume ethanol blend is on the order 1.4%. From: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs...97/1035/OPINION Iowa State University Professor Larry Johnson estimates that E10 delivers 96.4 percent of the miles per gallon of gasoline... Lets assume the worst case scenario of the references given... that you loose 4% efficiency. Instead of getting $93/year in savings, I end up only getting $89 back. If my food expenses have gone up $75 (basically 5 times more than the CD Howe estimates), I'm still ending up with $14 more in my pocket. Heck, even if food prices have gone up $225 per capita (bascially, 75% instead of 5%), I end up loosing $136, but that's STILL less than the amount I'd be out under the Liberal green shift plan. Of course, I could point out some of the other benefits of using Ethanol... reduction in CO, benzene and hydrocarbon emissions (which, in theory, can also contribute to global warming). I really have no idea why your car has seen its gas mileage decrease. Did you ever think that it could have some cause other than the use of ethanol? (I have no idea where you live, or where you fill up, or what type of car you drive; remember, some provinces have been mandating the use of ethanol for years, and some service stations have already been adding it to their gas.) I GAVE you an example... myself. I pointed out the amount I'd be paying in carbon tax (based on where I live and my type of fuel), and how much of a tax cut I'd expect to get back based on the green plan. I found that I'd be paying more than I'd be getting back, with no potential 'efficiencies' for saving money. I've already published the figures... twice... on this forum. At no point have you or any other fan of the Liberals ever pointed out any sort of problem with my calculations. McCallum's argument fails when he suggests And consumption patterns on the Prairies are not radically different from the rest of Canada.. The problem with that argument, as I've stated many times before, is that electricity consumed in the prairies is going to be generated via fossil fuels, whereas electricity consumed in Quebec (or Newfoundland) is going to be generated by hydro. The fact that there is a difference in the ability to generate electricity via hydro (based only on geographic 'luck') does mean that people in different provinces are going to be affected differently. If you actually read the article and used some logic, you would have identified that. (I've pointed out that problem more than once). You know, sometimes people overemphasize dangers and/or risks. On the other hand, sometimes such concerns are warranted (gun registry anyone?) I've always said right from the start... this 'green shift' may not necessarily bankrupt me or cause serious harm, but that doesn't mean that even a bill with minor flaws (and no redeeming characteristics) should be supported.

Most of this goes towards fighting pot and I'm pretty certain this doesn't count prosecution and incarceration etc etc, and Harper proposes to throw even more money at this hopeless moral engineering project. I never claimed that there were no expenses involved with the 'drug war', or that that money was well spent. But if you compare it to the total government budget (including discretionary areas that the government shouldn't be involved in) its a fairly minor expense. (Compare that $400 million against the $1 billion gun registry program, or the $1 billion/year subsidy to the CBC.) Actually, people can go to jail for trying to exercise those particular rights. If I try to publish something that (for example) violates a court-ordered gag law, I can be thrown in jail for contempt of court. If I decide that I should have more control over my finances, and start to withhold some of my taxes, I will be fined by CRA, and if I don't pay the fine will probably end up in prison. The only reason why you have the government "kicking down people's doors" over drug offenses (and not over free-speech or economic issues) is that the people who use drugs do violate the law, (even if its an unfair law). In the case of free speech or economic rights, people may disagree with the laws, but they still usually follow them begrudgingly.

As I've said many times before... "prove by authority" is no proof at all. Paul Volcker is not posting here. I cannot challenge him to validate his analysis. For all I know he has no proof to back up his claims. If you can't justify your stance on issues using actual original data without running off and saying "Some economist said X", then why exactly are you posting here? Well, if the increase is actually 25%, that means an extra $75 in food expenses, still far less than what the Liberal's green plan is going to cost me. Not only that, but according to the U.S. department of energy, the use of ethanol has helped keep gas prices lower than they would have otherwise (by approximately $.20-.30/gallon). My car gets around 30 mpg. I drive approximately 14000 miles/year. Over the course of the year, I use up around 466 gallons of gas. Even if I use the low value for the department of energy estimates, I'm saving $93/year. (Of course this is the U.S. where they have lower gas prices already... in Canada, I may end up saving more, because of the multiplier effect of our GST.) What does this mean? Well, the overall effect on my pocket book by the ethanol plan (even if you assume the food expenses are 5 times higher than estimated) is that I actually GET BACK $18/year. http://www.doe.gov/6335.htm You might think that, but then you'd be thinking wrong. Your basing your arguments on basically half truths and total lack of evidence. You see, the problem here (which I've already explained before), is that the proposed tax cuts by the Liberals are aimed at the entire country, even in Quebec where they generate so much of their electricity by hydro. Someone in Quebec will benefit, quite handily, but not because they're actually making an effort to save energy or use alternatives. They just lucked out. People in many other parts of the country get royally screwed, only they may not realize it because they haven't actually looked at what the numbers mean to them personally. If the tax cuts were directed at parts of the country that are currently forced to use fossil fuels due to a lack of alternatives, then maybe the green shift plan would have some merit. Of course, this isn't going to drive me into bankrupcy. Its a small annoyance having to pay more for no reason. But its not going to do anything to make me save energy, since I've already taken steps to minimize my energy usage.

By the way, if you are truly against subsidies to help out "alternative" sources of energy, then how do you feel about the 'incentives' (i.e. subsidies) that the Liberals plan to offer producers of renewable power? (The conservatives had partially cut those incentives, but the Liberals plan to reverse the cuts.) http://www.liberal.ca/story_13107_e.aspx

I feel the same way about the Liberal Green Shift plan... its going to cause all sorts of distortions in the economy, drive up costs for many people who are already at the lowest possible level of energy usage. Its a lot of money to pay for a policy that doesn't work. Of course, I already pointed out that if the CD How estimates are right, it would only add about $15 to the cost of my food bill, as opposed to around $150-200 increase to my general expenses with the green shift plan.

I'm not necessarily a fan of the subsidies... however, at least here in North America the subsidies may not necessarily be needed. In this one study, its suggested that Corn Based ethanol becomes competitive with no subsidies when oil is above $50/barrel. See: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag/Gallag...)PowerPoint.pdf (page 18). Or, here's another way to look at things... in the U.S. there is a $.51/gallon subsidy on ethanol. Ethanol futures are at around $2.30/gallon. Without the subsidy, the cost would have been $2.81. This is less than the current average price of gas of around $4/gallon. http://www.fna.ca/index.php?option=com_con...89&Itemid=1 http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=239461 That doesn't mean that I expect the subsidies to disappear... after all, they're politically popular with all political parties... just that they're not needed.

You know, I used to think it was a mistake using corn for ethanol... but, right now, I'm not so sure. You see, it turns out that while corn may not be as efficient at producing ethanol as things like switchgrass, it does have an advantage... the result of the fermentation process for corn is a type of mash that can be used as cattle feed. In fact, one rancher has managed to reduce his expenses by several hundred thousand dollars by using this mash. There's even one farm that: Grows corn, ferments it to produce ethanol, takes the mash byproduct to feed to cattle, then uses the cattle manure to generate natural gas to use to power the fermentation process. So, at least in the U.S. (and possibly Canada) we may not necessarily giving up food for fuel... we might simply end up taking corn that MIGHT have been used to feed cattle, and instead of feeding them directly we'd be feeding them whatever is left after fermentation. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=87782087 http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx2036.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa53...09/ai_n21478803

How does that counter my original point that it is possible to buy an energy efficient appliance in the middle price range? How exactly are you defining "energy efficient"? Certainly not with any definition I've seen. This whole issue started with an argument (I believe it was by you) that the carbon tax would encourage people to buy newer more efficient appliances. The problem with your argument is that those 'mid price range' appliances are not necessarily any more efficient than the older appliances that many people already had. In order to get something that will significantly decrease your energy usage, you will have to spend money, and in some cases a lot more money. I've also illustrated how the Liberal plan would not give enough money back to people in the form of tax cuts to allow them to afford those new appliances. At one point, you suggested it might encourage people to replace their old 75% efficient gas furnaces with newer ones... except you didn't seem to realize that the new ones that are mid-range price are not really any more efficient (only by a few percent)... and to get a high efficiency furnace you have to spend hundreds of dollars more. (I even provided references for that.) Any example you gave was bogus... you tried to claim that a 'mid price range' washer/dryer was just as good as a more expensive one; however, all you did was demonstrate your ignorance about how energy ratings are actually calculated. Your 'mid price range' washer, in reality, was using 20-30% more energy than the more expensive one. (And I provided the actual calculations for that.) Now, if you want to actually demonstrate how people will actually be able to afford all those wonderful appliances, by all means do so. But frankly, trying to claim you can get lower cost appliances that are just as good as more expensive ones is a waste of time... Not only are you assuming that they can afford even those cheaper appliances (not necessarily true), but time and time again I've shown how cheaper is almost never more efficient. Even your examples showed that.

No, you were quite clear. The problem is, you're so focused on the issue of drug usage that you've developed tunnel vision to any other issues of personal rights in our society. (As Pliny said in his post, He has a special interest and does not see beyond that.. Well, first of all, when we're dealing with the issue of rights and freedoms, we have to deal with both current and potential future violations of our rights. (Dealing with one issue, by bringing in a government which will attack other freedoms does not necessarily get us any further ahead.) Secondly, it may be your opinion that prohibition is the biggest violation, but that is basically a personal opinion of yours. (Since there's no real way to guage the value of particular freedoms, I guess your opinion can't necessarily be wrong.) However, I see that there are much more serious abuses of freedom occurring right now, including: - Violations of freedoms of speech/expression, as illustrated by the actions of the human rights commissions, CRTC regulations, various news reporting gag laws, actions by Canada Customs w.r.t. Little Sister's book store - Violations against various economic rights (which, while not actually part of our constitution, probably should be)... including excessive taxation/spending, violation of property rights, right to work laws, etc. Why do I consider these violations more important? Because, for most people, prohibition laws really only affect recreation... yeah, you might deserve the right to use use your body as you see fit, but the effect on the rest of daily life is rather minimal. However, the violations to our rights of free speech and property are much more significant... not only do they affect all Canadians, but they also will have a much more significant impact on a person to person basis, since they affect political discourse, and the ability to support yourself. While the NDP may support your freedom to use drugs, they will likely continue many of the other abuses of freedom, and even introduce many abuses of their own. Ummm... no, they are not a 'huge threat'. Just what exactly do you think they are threatening to curtail? (Keep in mind that we're dealing with Canada here.. in the U.S., the 'right wing' may have a strong religious influence, but that is not the case here in Canada.) Abortion rights? Sorry, there may be some anti-abortionists in the conservative party, but they are in a minority, and it is unlikely they will ever be able to force a change in government policy Censorship? Again, the number of 'social conservatives' who would want to censor movies/TV/etc. is in the minority. And in some areas, they're actually MORE likely to be on the side of free speech than the NDP Freedom of religion? Again, not an issue. The claim that the conservatives are somehow going to turn Canada into Prison Camp North is nothing more than empty political rhetoric and doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Well, it looks like my skepticism was justified... The World Bank has now gone on to distance itself from that particular report, stating: ...Mitchell is still getting input from peer reviewers and the paper is still being finalized. As a result, the Bank chose not to use a specific figure in the Spring Meetings and G8 papers. As World Bank boss Robert Zoellick said today in Japan: “That’s an internal study...So, my own view is that that is probably at the far end. You see other people talk about ranges of 20 percent, 25 percent." http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...orld-bank-says/

That was me that made the point. And I was referring to overall energy consumption rather than just carbon emissions. Ah, but remember electricity is a fungible product... a kwh generated by hydro works just the same as a kwh generated by burning coal or natural gas. True, an electric dryer powered by hydro-electric power may be zero emissions, but the optimum use of energy would have you to use a gas dryer (even in places with lots of hydro, like in Quebec), and then take any excess hydro not used to power the dryer and use it to offset the coal/gas electrical plants in other parts of the country.

Hey, I knew what you were doing... it just didn't make any sense. For the 2 washers you gave: - Washer 1, cost $699, energy rating 142 kwh/yr, capacity 3.1 c.f. - Washer 2, cost $2999, energy rating 142 kwh/yr, capacity 4.2 c.f. Both washers have the same 'efficiency', but washer 2 has the capability to wash 35% more clothing per wash. If you had to wash (for example) 100 cubic feet of clothing per year, washer 1 would require you to do 32 loads... washer 2 would only require you to do 23 loads. This would mean you'd end up with a 28% energy savings by buying the more expensive washer. (Not only that, but by requiring fewer washes, you'd extend the life of your washing machine and wouldn't require a replacement as soon, along with any energy consumption that would be required.) Would that be worth the extra costs? Maybe, maybe not... but it still demonstrates the fact that: - When dealing with energy efficiency, capacity is often as important (if not more so) than actual efficiency ratings - Higher capacity machines are often more expensive, but save energy Now, would the extra $2000 be worth the 28% energy savings? Guess it depends on how much you want to save the environment. Define what you mean by 'different efficiency ratings'. When I talk about how higher efficiency designs tend to cost more, I'm talking about major design changes along with major efficiency changes... I'm not talking about just a 1 or 2% change... I'm talking about savings like > 10%, along with fairly significant design changes (e.g. front load washer vs. top load washer, bottom-freezer fridge vs. top-freezer fridge, etc.) I'm sure you can find plenty of cases where item X may save you 1% over item Y, but those types of changes are swamped when comparing items where designs have radically changed to achieve efficiency. Actually, I've already looked at many examples. I've even posted some for you. And what I've found is that in pretty much any case I've seen where the features (especially capacity) and manufacturer are the same, the more energy efficient design is always more expensive than the less efficient design.

Why exactly do you keep labeling this a 'Tory policy'? Its been pointed out to you in the past that the ethanol policy has been supported by members of several parties (including the Federal liberals, and various provincial parties including the Ontario NDP.) I always find it ironic how you can both criticize the Conservative policy on energy, and then turn around and complain that they haven't spoken on the subject. Perhaps you should wait until they actually release their policy before condeming it. Again another ironic/hypocritical statement... Liberal carbon tax = good since it discourages fossil fuel consumption Conservative plans increasing gas price = bad, even though supposedly discouraging fuel consumption is a good thing And before you return to that argument about how the carbon tax would 'replace' the excise tax, remember that at least part of the excise taxes go to highway maintenance/policing/etc. Removing the excise tax means that these items aren't going to be paid for through tax revenue, since the 'carbon tax' is meant to offset the tax cuts. First of all, keep in mind that the world bank report has not actually been released... rather hard to debate the merits of a report when you don't actually have access to the report. (And supposedly other reports that look at longer terms don't show quite the cost impacts.) Secondly, I've already pointed out that its not necessarily the use of 'ethanol' which is the problem. Its the use of crops like corn to produce ethanol. Requiring that fuel contains a certain percentage of ethanol isn't a problem. We should just be more active in finding alternatives to corn or wheat. Switchgrass has the potential of 20 times the energy yield that corn-derived ethanol does, and can be grown on land that is less suitable for crop production. At the very least we could eliminate any import taxes on foreign produced ethanol (allowing us to import ethanol from sugar cane, which doesn't have the same effect on world food prices.) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-...hanol-than-corn Brazil has been mandating higher levels of ethanol in its fuel for years, and the price of ethanol there (based on sugar cane) has been competitive with oil even when oil was a fraction of its current price. (And this is done without increasing food prices.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

I did, I understand, I still see the energy ratings as a good indicator of efficiency... In that case, you don't understand. The government itself said that the energy ratings are only useful in comparing efficiency of items of the same size. Do you really need me to go find the quote and point it out to you again? What you don't seem to understand is that those other factors (mainly capacity) so greatly affect the overall energy use that the given energy efficiency is basically a non-factor. Face it... you made a bogus claim, you got your ass handed to you by real evidence, and you're just trying to make it seem like you actually had some idea that you knew what you were talking about. And when you can't rely on actual facts and logic, you resort to bogus claims and repeated statements like a retarded parrot on crack. Yes, I understand... you're willing to take a flawed argument and apply it to a situation that is irrelevant. Personally, I like to actually look at things logically... you need to look at overall energy usage of the item when actually functioning. Tell me, the next time you buy a fridge, are you going to buy the Kenmore 1.7 cubic foot fridge? After all, it has an energy usage of 298kwh/year. That's much better than the more full-sized 9.1 cubic foot fridge with a usage of 376 kwh/yr. But wait, you actually have a family and need something bigger than 1.7 cubic feet? Well, I guess you're screwed then. After all, if a little thing like, oh, capacity isn't important, you should be happy with the smaller fridge.

Yes, Pakistan is a mess... They need Pakistan's help (and they have indeed gotten some assistance)... but if they demand to much (or even try to station military personnel there), they run the risk of alienating the significant radical islamic population which could result in the moderately pro-U.S. government getting overthrown and replaced with an anti-U.S. Islamic republic.

Nobody is claiming that Bin Laden wasn't a key figure in 9/11 or in terrorism in general. And while it is true that without bin laden there wouldn't have been a 9/11 (or a subsequent invasion of Afghanistan), its also true that without followers of Bin Laden, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 either. And without the existence of terrorist training camps that were harbored by the Taliban, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 either. Bin Laden didn't operate in a vacuum... he's a target, but not the only target. Without all the support he received, bin Laden wouldn't have been effective. Going after his supporters is also fair game. Actually they were published, and I have provided references to such articles which were published before the invasion. Ahem... from http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/1...wers/index.html The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

Well, lets see... A $450 million increase in the price of food will probably mean that I end up paying an extra $15 for my food per year. (Assuming a population of around 30 million with extra costs spread evenly amongst people... granted, children do eat less than adults, but then I did use a lower figure for the population.) On the other hand, when you look at the Liberal green plan, while I will save approximately $300 in taxes, I'll also have to pay $228-266 more per year for natural gas (from the Liberal green plan), and approximately $200/year on electricity (based on the estimated $1 billion cost to ontario, divided by ~4.5 million households). Thus, as a result of the Liberal green shift, I'll end up paying between $128 and $166 per year. (Lets use $150 as the midway point.) And that's JUST in energy costs. That doesn't include any price increases from products affected by the carbon taxes. So, what should I complain about more... something that will cost me $15, or something that will cost me $150?

Actually, no, it doesn't indicate a trend. I've already pointed out the flaw in the way the energy usages is tested... they use a standard load that doesn't take into account greater efficiencies that occur when appliances with larger capacities are used with more than the 'standard load'. Please... go to the government website. Educate yourself. Please. Doesn't take too much effort. And I gave you a link right to the pages that explain everything. Retarded statement, and it doesn't get any less retarded the more you repeat it. If the appliance you are purchasing does not have the feature you require, then why even bother buying it? Heck, if the washer/dryer you buy won't fit the clothes you need to wash, then its energy usage is 0 kwh/yr. Hey, look! I need to haul a load of freight across the country! Instead of using an 18 wheeler, I'll use a Honda Civic because its more fuel efficient! Weee!!!!

What a retarded statement... really, it is. First of all, I notice that you've totally ignored the fact that your claims of 'efficiency' are basically due to you misusing energy use statistics. I suggest you actually spend some time researching the links I provided. Having a lower kwh/yr rating does NOT mean an item is more efficient in real life usage. Even the government admits that. Educate yourself. Secondly, while your mid range washer may have 'features'... they may not have the features you require. Compare apples to apples, not apples to turds. Having a really energy efficient washer is not going to be of any benefit if it's not big enough to wash the clothes that I have.

First of all, I've already demonstrated how your claims of efficiency on lower cost items is flawed. (Basically, you're misusing the quoted energy usage.) Secondly, while brand names do factor into prices, brand is also related to quality. Buying a cheaper (but possibly more efficient) brand won't be any more efficient in the long run if the item must be replaced sooner. But the most efficient versions will usually cost more. About the only way that you can find versions that are cheaper and more energy efficient is by giving up features that you may actually need, or by buying a version thats will require replacement earlier than expected. Your argument is like saying my Honda Civic is better at hauling fright as a Mac Truck because it happens to use less gas, without considering that usually a Mac Truck is needed because of its extra capacity.

Let me explain once again.... While the NDP may want to promote freedom for drug use (something that I admit might be a good idea), they are also in favor of limiting economic freedoms (through higher tax rates, social programs, etc.) They are not in favour of all individual liberties... they are in favor of some liberties, but opposed to others. The only people who can claim they are truly in favor of individual freedoms are the Libertarians. Everyone else (including your pro-pot NDP) wants to curtail some freedom; they just happen to want to curtail freedoms in ways that you happen to agree with.

Again, a very bad example... The more expensive washer has a different finish (for some reason, appliances with a stainless steel finish are more expensive), has electronic controls, and is by a company that many believe produces more reliable products. As for capacity, it certainly is important. As I pointed out in another post, efficiency ratings are based on handling a standard sized load... on a large washer, your kind of 'wasting' its capacity. Using a larger capacity washer is more energy efficient in the long run, its just that there's no guarantee that a person would save enough energy to justify the added expense before the machine would need to be replaced. While you are right, you're also irrelevant. If people want brand X, with a certain capacity and/or set of features, getting an energy efficient version of that item is almost always going to cost more than a less efficient version. No, you can't. Or at least not very often, if you actually care about the actual features of the appliance you're buying.