hitops

I'd love for Neil to put him money where his mouth his, and deplete his fortune buying electric cars for as many as possible. Until he does that, he is just a buzzing annoyance with no credibility.

It's hypocritical, because Neil's carbon footprint in touring, traveling, equipment and sound, the people he needs to move around, recording and distributing albums, etc, is probably 100 - 1000x that of the average Canadian. Dear Neil: Guess what, you don't distribute your albums worldwide in a Prius. And unless you want us to believe you tow your entire entourage, stage and equipment in that prius, kindly shut your big mouth you hypocritical jerk. For all of us to live Neil's lifestyle and live in properties like his, the increase use of fossil fuels to make that happen is beyond enormous. As usual, another celebrity proposing solutions that don't affect their lifestyle at all, but make a big difference for the little people. Who cares if thousand of oil sands workers have to lose their jobs? Neil still has millions of dollars. Very, very well said.

Naturally, you can't actually dispute it. That graph shows falling real wages genius. Are you trying to make my point, or yours? It ends in 2011, if you continued it to 2013, it would show the same decline which began several years ago as shown in this graph. You understand how pointless this graph is right? - It doesn't account for increased costs of living - It doesn't account for loss of purchasing power from the fall in our dollar - It doesn't account for the vastly increased costs of future mortgage debt - It tells us that with a growing population, the total income increases. This says nothing about the financial situation per capita. The fact that's it's not in per capita terms is the biggest flaw. - Canadians debt to income ratio is around 170%, an all-time high and surpassing that of the US right before the housing crisis. - According to the same study, 51% of Canadians cannot come up with $10,000 in an emergency. - 59% of Canadians are retiring in debt, according to CIBC. This has never happened before. http://newsroom.bmo.com/press-releases/bmo-annual-rainy-day-survey-majority-of-canadians-tsx-bmo-201308070890662001 You talking about an unrelated issue, and trying to tie it to something it does not fit. Yes, if you turn your lights off, you use less money. No, forcing everyone to turn their lights off does not help poor countries. One is voluntary, one is coercive. For poor countries to improve, they need development. That means economic activity with the rest of the world. Tons of lights on in factories everywhere, illuminating tons of people building things, running plants and providing services is what will best help them. Forcing a reduction in that, will just mean less opportunities, and less development in poor countries.

Real wages falling, costs of living increasing in Canada: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadian-paycheques-failing-to-keep-pace-with-cost-of-living/article4180793/ Natural gas excess making energy cheaper: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/electricity-declines-50-in-u-s-as-shale-brings-natural-gas-glut-energy.html Stabilizing oil prices: http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart The effect of shale oil on American labor market, wages etc http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/05/08/north-dakotas-oil-boom-ripples-through-wages-unemployment-miles-away/ Recent article on US oil prices http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579239831640276094 When your energy costs go down, your prosperity goes up in real terms. It's not hard to understand, if you spend less on gas to get to work, you have more money left over.

I'm a physician in the Canadian system. It's not means-tested in any way. It's far from free, as we pay for it through (mostly provincial) taxes, but it is much cheaper per person than in the US. There are also other costs not covered by the government like many prescription drugs or your travel costs for treatment. In rural areas, those cost can be substantial. Also just want to clarify, it's not socialized health care. It's socialized insurance, through a single payer, and hospitals are government funded. But most physicians bill per unit of work, so their work volume translates into their paycheck. Fees are however set by the government.

Neil Young has an enormous carbon footprint compared to the average person. The energy use to travel all over the place, tour with a band, perform concerts, and record and distribute albums dwarfs that of most people. When he stops those activities, I might take him seriously. In the meantime, the oil sands support the jobs of many, many average people who do not have millions of dollars like Niel Young to fall back on.

This accomplishes absolutely nothing for poor people in other countries. It just makes us less prosperous and therefore makes them less prosperous. They are demonstrably true, and very easy to verify. Just look at incomes over the last 30 years. It's also a fact that energy costs are decreasing because of falling natural gas and stabilizing oil prices.

A lesson in the logic of those opposed to oil projects: "I don't want any pipelines" --- "hey why are there so many more accidents by rail causing spills???" "We shouldn't allow the use of any new ports" --- "hey why are more ships clogging our available ports, causing spills???" It's active, willful refusal to connect the dots. Don't expect this to improve.

There is no realistic conceivable chance in the near or remote future of nuclear power, powering cars. Any chance that there is, will be retarded, not advanced, by limiting fossil fuel consumption today. The problem with your premise is that you won't save money on energy by limited consumption of energy, you will save less. If consumption goes down, that necessitates that cost has gone up. Ergo, your cost goes up. There has been on development that has reduced your energy costs - the massive rise of fraking, the opposite of limiting consumption. We have been getting more efficient, but not richer. The average Canadian is overall poorer than years ago, as wages have fallen in real terms, and costs of living substantially increased. Because of increased energy harvesting and consumption in the domestic US, it is making them richer and driving their energy costs down.

No, not EV's. They are not even close to sustainable vs cost. The only realistic EV's that come anywhere close are Tesla, and those are $70,000+, require massive fossil fuel combustion to build, and power from your local fossil fuel burning plant to charge. That's the problem, there is no way to 'do it right'. There is only one way to reduce our consumption, and that is to make us poorer. When people are poorer, they consume less. That can happen by increasing cost of oil, increased taxes, or other financial hardship. This will have the OPPOSITE effect on poor people, because their prosperity is dependent on ours. When we have more cash to spare, we export more from them, use more labor in their countries, buy more manufacturered products from them, etc. Blindly making ourselves poorer will not help, it will hurt them. The truly poor do not need slightly cheaper gas. They need work and opportunity. That comes from collectively global prosperity, not self-punishment. But regardless, increased prosperity and innovation has ALSO led to cheaper gas as well. None of those things are helped by limiting fossil fuel consumption right now, they are all hindered by it. We desperately need cheaper fuels to sustain more productivity, more wealth, and therefore more innovation to make all those technologies better for the future. Reducing FF consumption will just retard that process, not advance it.

You're joking right? Stability and security is absolutely necessary for development, which is either the state or civil society, usually both. Just look at the many places on earth with tremendous resources and total lack of development. And China's development is, just like everyone else, completely about increasing fuel consumption. They are the dirtiest, most polluting country on the planet right now, due to full-speed ahead coal burning. You're missing the point that while you don't need fossil fuels within your own borders, you need it from somewhere. The world runs on fossil fuels. You've got in backwards, reduced exports to the US means increased supply here. That would translate in reduced prices, just as it has. That means reduced profits for producers, but that's the risk they take.

I agree those are good sources for static power needs, but you cannot run cars on them. Those are opposing goals. Increasing costs in the OECD will reduce, not improve poor countries development. The market will adapt, as it always has. No manipulation is required, the market will automatically price in reductions in supply, and incentivize new technological development and use accordingly. The perfect example was when this argument was used to rail about peak oil. Well that's pretty much disappeared now, due to market action. We don't need our governments to forcibly reduce our standard of living, the natural ebb and flow of available resources and their consequent effect on pricing will make that happen on it's own when or if it's necessary.

I don't really know what you're talking about, but I'm guessing you were probably one of the people warning of 'peak oil' too. What happened with that? You making the exact same argument this time, I guess because this time we are 'really' running out right?

They say precisely that in the CBC interview. Even when Evan tries to ask them about security, they go right into how climate change is affecting the poor, etc etc and he has to redirect them.

Things are bad in plenty of places. That doesn't change the fact that in most of the world, things are far, far better than they were 50 or 100 years ago. This is due to fossil-fuel based prosperity and the actions of the market. The good has far outweighed the bad. With perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions, life expectancy, literacy, mortality rates, education and access to health care is far better today than 50 years ago. By focusing on the fact that health care is poor in many place, you are ignoring the fact that previously it was non-existent. How do we support those privileges? Politically with our systems, and economically with our development which is based on fossil fuel consumption. We are saying the same thing.

Absolutely, lack of development is an elephant compared to the ant of 'rising waters' of whatever other sexy issue is worth reporting. Your concerns in bullet points actually have nothing to do with climate change, but more to do with over-consumption of resources (and presumably, their subsequent reduce supply). I believe it is unjust to future generations if we limit development and put ourselves at a future disadvantage by cutting fossil fuels. The only way to cut demand is to increase costs or limit prosperity. This to is unfair to future generations, as the young get most impacted by such measures (due to reduced economic activity and jobs). We develop with fossil fuels, there is no other way to do it today. When we develop we get richer, more productive and more innovative. That is how we will invent, develop and market newer, more efficient, less consuming energy methods. Willfully making ourselves poorer will just retard that process. Natural gas prices went into free-fall due to fracking, and oil has stabilized/dropped as well. This didn't happen from limited our consumption so others could have it cheaper, it happened from full-speed ahead development to unlock new sources of energy. This is the most effective method.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/protester-sean-devlin-tells-how-he-got-onstage-with-pm-1.2486133 That's kind of embarrassing for Harper's security detail, but beyond that, this is just another example of pure unadulterated ignorance. Climate justice? The irony could not be more profound. What poor countries want to do is develop. If you tell them no to fossil fuels, they cannot. By saying we limit fossil fuel production, basically you condemn the poor to permanent misery with no chance of development. It's the ultimate in arrogance, and a kind of truly disgusting neo-colonialism. The negative effect of rising waters or other weather changes on poor people is nearly non-existent compared to the negative effect of a policy of preventing fossil-fuel based development (the only kind currently available). And for what? A theory of climate change we barely understand, based on shaky assumptions at best.

Actually the law hasn't even been finalized yet, and they were leaving even when it was proposed. When it comes into effect, obviously this trend will increase. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9404209/Frances-proposed-tax-hikes-spark-exodus-of-wealthy.html As for your other points, you are the only one making them, not me. When you have something other than a strawman to represent my point, I can respond.

If you believe what you supposedly do, that the gap between rich and poor is much larger in the US, then it's a simple math problem. By your own logic, this should be self evident. German wages are supported by the facts that Germany is one of the only developed nations that still makes money by building and selling things. The French economy is now contracting. They now have a 16-years high rate of unemployment at 11%, 26% for youth. The credit rating has been downgraded. Hollande's approval rating is now 15%. They have the some of the developed world's least productive, best compensated workers. Millionaires who pay hugely disproportionate taxes are leaving due to the yet greater tax just approved. Exercise in logic: where do you think this is going? Has anyone argued for not helping disabled people? The issue today is not that disabled people need help, but that there is massive fraud in disability. Having Down's syndrome or the loss or both arms used to mean disabled. Today it means you could not control yourself and got massively fat and now your back hurts a little, so you are 'disabled'. That's exactly the point. Those hard working immigrant groups do well no matter what, and did so long before the behemoth expansion of the scope of government. You don't need a massive social system to help them, their own cultural attitudes accomplish that just fine. Those same traits were found in our culture a few generations back, with the same results.....the results which we live off today but are gradually screwing away in a march to socialism. On the corruption index, western Europe is pretty similar to Canada and US. You mentioned France, so of note France has a worse score than the US, and Spain and Italy both have much worse scores. Scandinavia has the best scores, which is somewhat expected for very white, very developed, small economies. A lot of back scratching rather than ability, would mean damage to the bottom line of corporations. They have no incentive to do so, no rational incentive that makes any sense. CEO's are not hired by their 3 best friends, they are hired by boards of perhaps 15 - 30 people, all with large stakes in the performance of the company. There is simply no rational, logically reason they would deliberately hurt themselves by hiring anyone but the best they can get. You've missed the point. It doesn't matter whether he remains a multimillionaire. His companies bad decisions belong to his company, not you. It's a free country, if you don't like it, don't buy from them. You are under no oligation whatsoever to contribute or take losses from any company (except a few). But we are all under mandatory obligation to take losses from a bloated government. One has choice, the other dose not. THAT is what is truly offensive. And the companies we must take losses from?.....are the ones with government backstopping, like the housing sector for example.

That could be asked of any job. But the number moving on doesn't matter as long as their are more than enough qualified and capable applicants to fill the need. If the turnover becomes too great to maintain a qualified force or there are unfilled positions, the wages need to be raised. Yes, they would. And they do, every year. Firefighters don't, because there is an abundance of uneducated, basically healthy eligible people everywhere there is a need for them. Remember your 8 hour wait in emergency, and grandma's 9 month wait for hip replacement? So do most Canadians. Remember the time there were not enough firefighters to handle all the fires and mangled cars?........oh right that never happened. And thus, the logic of it.

You don't seem able to address the facts pointed out to you that there are nations with strong democracies with significant private education systems, and nations with universal and exclusive public education systems which are outright dictatorships.

You are relying on assumption that moving from one quintile in Europe is the same as doing so in the US. It's not, because people have more opportunity to earn more in the US, the quintiles are larger. You need to move up higher on the ladder to move quintiles in the US, so the apparent mobility is lower when using that kind of assessment. There is no definition of a moral wage in Germany, it's conceptual. If the workers can demand those kinds of wages, let them demand them or go elsewhere. There is no need for government to artificially manipulate it. No you are mispresenting the reality of the European welfare state, by pointing to only the most effective systems. The reality is that most European nations who attempt such systems are sinking under them. The ones you selected are not the most comprehensive ones. Furthermore, you selected some of the nations with the whitest, most homogenous populations. Those nations do better on every metric, not just economic outcomes, so such a selection muddies the waters. You have avoided the largest, most relevant examples of more multicultural because they are economic disasters. Many systems that you probably believe help me other than you or me, actually just hurt the majority in the long term. Anytime you have a white, homogenous population with high education levels and a western Judeao-Christion cultural heritage, you get those results. This is true everywhere. That's not because of their government. You take the same ethnic demographic groups in the US or Canada and evaluate their mobility and success, and you will get the same or better results. Now before you go accusing me of being racist because this is easier than trying to be relevant to the discussion, note that Asian and Indian immigrants to the west perform even better. Cultural attitudes are far more important than government systems. Corruption is always a problem. You don't avoid that with more government, actually you usually increase it. When gov can give out goodies, corporations and individuals will try to get them. More gov = more goodies = more attempts to get them. The idea that CEO pay is actually making life more expensive for you, is laughable. It's a drop in a bathtub, compared to the total cost of providing you goods and services and has literally no impact on pricing. Let's take a favorite target, exxon mobile. Revenues are nearly 400 billion, with 30 billion in profits. The CEO makes $40M. This salary to profits ratio is roughly 0.1%. The value they add matters a great deal to shareholders, which is why they hire him/her. Not because they are secret BFF's lol. I'm just trying to imaging shareholders deciding they should hire a guy with no ability because he's in the 'in-club'. "Hey why don't we potentially devastate our portfolios by hiring this well-connected guy with no clear ability to make this corp a success. Ya ok!" lol you're in bizarre world in this one. There is literally no incentive to do that. I suspect you have no experience in business or investing whatsoever. Nobody begrudges Steve Jobs. He took apple stock from $17 to $700. Many billions in profitability and shareholder value is easily worth many millions in compensation. The guy before him didn't do that, and guy after him is losing stock value. CEO's matter. It's not a secret conspiracy just because that confirms your inner narrative. It anyone could do it, anyone would do it, and you'd see billion-dollar companies being founded by Joe Blow all the time. You don't.

If there are many applicants for the job, it's only fair and responsible to the taxpayer paying the bill to lower the wages. It's exploitation to make us pay for something when we could get it at a lower cost. Will I want those services when I'm in trouble? Yes. Will those personnel also be available at lower wages? Also yes, as evidence by the many applicants for those jobs.

You need a citation to know that the middle class was born in America and more people entered into it from poverty than anywhere else? I suppose you also need proof that we breath oxygen. Maybe what you're talking about is the current decline in median incomes over the last few years. This decline parallels well the increase in size and scope of government. Guess what happens when you have no minimum wage, such as in places like Austria, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark? I'll let you try to figure it out.....although I'm not holding my breath. If you're saying we imitate this, I'm all for it. Perhaps we should shoot for Switzerland since they are the lowest rate according to you......the country with no national health service and almost no government contribution to unemployment insurance. The one where the planning for unemployment insurance is up to the individual? The host of safe haven banking for world elite and corporations? The nation that recently rejected a CEO pay cap by a margin of 2:1? Great example, sounds consistent with your values and really makes your point! It figures you would try to pick the absolute best European countries that in know way reflect the large safety nets you are talking about, and avoid the ones with the big safety nets which are currently economic disasters such as France and Spain. Unlike the nation you mention, they have huge comprehension social systems, health care, generous workers protections, mass unionization etc. They run unemployment rates of 27% and 11% respectively, and people are running from them like the plague. No we don't. Nope, many of us don't want much of that. Get it through your fat head that we don't want more government, with more employees. We could government services in half and eliminate whole department, and be better for it. Government workers get wages, benefits and pensions that similar private sector workers do not, yet are forced to fund. It's disgusting and unethical. And before you froth over CEO pay, I don't have to pay any CEO one dime I don't want to. I HAVE to pay government workers, whether I want to or not. That's why there's no comparison.

Are you dumb enough to ask question like this? Apparently. It makes no difference what the CEO makes. Large companies are run by boards, not secret cabals of conspirators. Boards hire CEO's to make money, not to be friends with. If they suck, they dumb them. Welcome to business 101, a world you have no passing familiarity with. Your theory makes no sense at all, as it would run against the very incentives you criticize corporation for having.