marksman

co2 isn't a pollutant in the sense of toxic waste oozing into the local water supply but massive amounts being emitted into the atmosphere can still be harmful. Certain people'll try to convince you that any talk of addressing carbon emissions means a tax. That's not true. Effective plans combine research into alternate energy sources and research into improved energy efficiency and incentives to use energy efficient goods and services and subsidies to industry to offset any price on carbon and flexible plans to offset emissions in different ways etc. Many of these measures are very capitalistic by using the market to sort out the best way to do things once the true costs are internalized.

Now look who's waving their magical technology wand around predicting where technology'll be in the next few decades. So you don't want to set a target that would incentivize people to develop renewables or adopt renewables as they become available. It looks like you're "for" encouraging renewables so long as you're not actually encouraging renewables.

I've never said either of those things. Once more - I've never said we need to magically alter fuel so that burning oil no longer produces co2. In terms of your "real option" this is exactly why people're trying to adopt alternate energy sources and improve things like energy efficiency and fuel efficiency. We've got the ability to start doing that right now. Wind farms are technically feasible. I've read your post on that but nothing you've said contradicts the basic idea that windfarms can produce energy locally that'd help offset traditional fossil fuel generators. Numerous solar facilities of different types have been or are currently being built. Again the technology exists for us to start moving in these directions. Saying that technology doesn't exist is an act of imagination. It doesn't exist to replace all of our energy needs by next week but luckily no one's proposing that except people who like to create strawmen arguments to denounce all efforts to move to alternative energy sources. And you seem to have a problem understanding even medium level economics. You've claimed that reducing the number of cars on the road will lead to less research into life saving drugs. I'm still waiting for the evidence. Energy and transportation are important for an economy but there's nothing that says that transportation's got to be gas guzzling SUVs. Promoting stricter fuel efficiency standards won't destroy the economy. Nor will promoting public transit prevent drug research. And since you seem to have this all or nothing attitude to everything for the record I'm not saying that every Canadian should throw away their cars and only use public transit no matter where they are. Public transit in cities doesn't have to be expensive and can solve a number of problems. Your simplistic view of the economy would also advocate making any good or service legal so that we can increase economic activity and pay for more luxuries. Your theory of economics also assumes that any increase in electricity or fuel prices would automatically mean that its things like healthcare that get cut and not spending on actual luxury items like jewelry or expensive cars. This'd have an effect on the economy but it wouldn't prevent drug companies from developing new drugs. Seeing that you and your favourite blog entry have already misinterpreted what activists/scientists are calling for then I'm not sure your claim is credible. Not to mention that many of these activists/scientists are calling for the economically reasonable and technically feasible plans being implemented in places like the EU. And the voluntary measures companies are getting involved with here in North America.

I don't think that's a good enough reason to make something illegal. Prohibiting playing baseball wouldn't harm anyone but why should it be against the law? Do you support criminalizing the entire smoking industry?

They're different that's correct. I guess I'm not as concerned with the differences because to me saying "don't vote for him because he'll destroy the economy and you'll lose your house" sounds more or less the same as "don't vote for him because he'll destroy public healthcare and you'll be unable to get medical treatment". It's all ridiculous. I'm more optimistic about the average Canadian. I think negative campaigning's part of a vicious cycle where people expect less because of it and stop paying attention and then that encourages more negative campaigning. If we've got politicians who ran good campaigns and talked about issues then maybe people would care more and pay attention. I'm not willing to write off Canadian voters yet. You're right in a way because there'll always be people who've got no idea why they're voting for something. I think that with real leaders those types of voters might be in the minority. It'll probably be really depressing for me if we actually had real leaders running a campaign and Canadian voters still didn't think their votes through. "Luckily" I doubt we'll be getting a crop of real leaders any time soon. We may disagree on things like the GST and Flaherty but I'm glad you're 1 of the few that seems to look at the good and the bad before voting. It's the people who ignore any possible faults of their chosen candidate that I don't get. Like saying Harper's such an honest and accountable guy except that he's just like every other politician. I'm still undecided on my vote right now but leaning towards Liberal. I think Canada needs to start doing something to address carbon emissions and unfortunately the Green Shift is the only game in town right now. The reason I haven't decided yet is that I haven't had a chance to go through the recently released platform and it seems like Dion's been going on a promise making spree. My problem with Harper is mostly the hypocrisy but also a few other things. I don't like politicians that cut programs that help poor people get access to the courts. Or politicians who try to avoid or control reporters.

This is either wishful thinking or willful blindness. There're a number of economical and feasible options for beginning to move to renewable energy sources and less carbon emitting energy sources. No one's claiming that we go carbon free in 1 year and the technology exists to start moving. I doubt all those power producers were just sitting around thinking about those economically and technically feasible options but decided not to implement them because they were just waiting for a trading scheme. But I'm sure many tried the same arguments you're trying now.

Thank you but The Simpsons already gave me an overly simplistic overview of how an economy works You're parroting the same arguments manufacturers used to use against proposals to control car emissions decades ago. You'll notice that we've still got lots of cars despite how those measures were impossible and would make cars too expensive to manufacture and buy. Maybe you can explain how moving to renewable energy sources takes away cheap and convenient transportation. Or why it's only cars that can provide cheap and convenient transportation and not things like public transit. And then maybe make another attempt to explain how things like life saving drug research depends on lots of SUVs on the roads. Just because 2 things are part of the economy doesn't mean they're related in the way you claim.

It's all in how you phrase it. You can also see my last post for how I think both parties use scare tactics and legitimate tactics to address the same issues. Some people say Harper hates the environment. Other people point out that his plans haven't addressed any of the real problems and that by promoting intensity targets he's really promoting a policy that'd increase emissions not reduce them. The 1st is a scare tactic. The 2nd is legitimate. Some people say Dion's policies will be bad for the economy and make legitimate points about it. That's not a scare tactic. Other people do use scare tactics and try to say that a vote for Dion is a gamble and that he's weak without ever pointing to an actual policy or fact. The whole "Dion is weak" campaign is a scare tactic. It doesn't address any policy but does bring to mind the idea of what happens when we're attacked or something horrible happens. I'm saying the exact opposite of that! So I'll have to explain what I mean. We should be talking about policies and not focusing on image. I've talked about this in another topic. Take the issue of drug use. How does a party justify it's drug policies? Does it talk about actual statistics and how programs can be tailored to fix problems or does the party say if your kids use pot they'll end up addicted to crack and'll turn into monsters? The 2nd justification is a scare tactic to justify a policy. National security is another example. Parties who say we need more military spending because terrorists will attack us are trying to scare people into voting for that policy. Fear shouldn't be used to justify increased spending on the military or anything else. There're legitimate reasons to increase military spending. I'm trying to say that we'll always have an element of scare tactics when it comes to things like a leader's capabilities at least so long as candidates insist on attacking personal characteristics. That's bad but not as bad as using scare tactics to justify policies on specific issues. If the only reason you've got to justify a policy is that bad things might happen then your policy needs to be rethought. Canadian politics right now is extremely insulting to Canadians. Idiotic personal attacks and even stupider comments made by candidates of all parties. Justifications for policies on all sides that high school students could probably poke holes in. And the partisan attacking done by all parties and their supporters is ridiculous. I don't think Canadians would buy that crap if they had a choice. But we don't have that choice. No one's been able to show that they're worthy of a vote so instead people vote for what they think is the least worst choice.

CPC saying that voting for Dion is like gambling and that he's a weak leader that'll destroy the economy is a scare tactic. CPC questioning the amount of spending and questioning its effect on the economy isn't a scare tactic. They use both. Liberals saying that Harper has hidden agendas and that he'll destroy the country is a scare tactic. Liberals questioning actual comments made by CPC candidates isn't a scare tactic. Questioning why Harper won't disclose a party policy on issues like abortion isn't a scare tactic. They use both. The only way the left is without question the ideology of fear is if you're so partisan that you're blind to the fact that all parties use scare tactics. But when talking about ideologies in general at least lately the policies of the right seem more often promoted with scare tactics than the policies of the left.

The Liberals aren't the only party that parachutes in candidates all the parties do that. Even in this election I read a list of "celebrity candidates" and all parties had about the same number. Unless the article just stopped counting at some point which is possible. It's true that with local candidates the local party members have a say in who becomes the candidate. The thing is you've still got to be a party member. So when you say that with PR the politicians would make the choice not voters I can't help but thinking that voters don't make any choice right now either. It's party members. There's a difference where local party members would choose local candidates and the higher up party members would choose the generic list of candidates but I'm still not sure that's a big deal. If you support the party then don't you trust the higher ups in your own party? They're the ones who set the priorities once they're in power anyway so if you don't trust those higher up party members there's a problem isn't there? In either system it's not voters choosing anything. It's all party members.

Here's what the blog said Is it pedantic to point out that the assumption behind the whole article isn't accurate? I think so. No one's saying get rid of fossil fuels completely and no one's saying get rid of fossil fuels completely by 2018. Regarding Al Gore's comments Gore has said that the US should embark on a 10 year plan to eliminate fossil fuels in electricity generation much like the 10 year plan to go to the moon. Cars aren't used for electricity generation so it's unreasonable to assume that we'd have to get rid of cars to meet that goal. The technology to go to the moon didn't exist when the goal was announced and that plan was mocked but with concerted effort the goal was achieved in 8 years. Gore's calling for the same motivation and effort and if the US put those resources into the problem I'm sure they'd at least be pretty close to the goal in 10 years. Without having to leave people to die in the path of hurricanes. So there's a big difference between what's actually being proposed and what the blogger "supposes" in his "response". Go ahead and show how the number of cars on the road directly leads to healthcare and food. Car use in cities could be reduced with no affect at all on healthcare or food production. There is no correlation between the number of SUVs on the road and the number of life saving drug therapies being researched. No wonder you thought the blog was thoughtful.

The point was that how we measure our standard of life doesn't always take into account our actual standard of life or how our standard of life will increase or decrease the standard of life of future generations. Counting the number of cars we've got is 1 example. Saying we've got a higher standard of life because we've got more cars per family doesn't reflect the health effects of heavy car use and doesn't change the fact that many people live equally long lives and happy lives while needing only 1 car in their family. I can partially answer your question anyway. The number of cars is only 1 factor affecting smog. The switch from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline made it possible to reliably use catalytic converters that helped remove nitrogen oxide from car exhaust. Stricter emissions standards for cars are now in place. Contributions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from other sources have been reduced. Of some relevance to the discussion is that 1 way these emissions are being reduced is through the US air pollution trading scheme that limits sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generators. Looks like emissions trading schemes can and do work without destroying the economy.

Your posts all sound like you've got a superiority complex just because you're from the west but then you've accused people from the east and Toronto of being stupid for having similar viewpoints. Seems like a contradiction. Instead of hiring people from the west because they aren't from the east maybe you'd like to try hiring the best people for the job no matter where they're from. To paraphrase you just because someone's from the east doesn't mean they don't know how to work as a team in a business office and it doesn't mean that they automatically think all westerners are idiots. Most people I know from Toronto and ON don't think the world revolves around them despite the popularity of that view outside of Toronto and ON. Obviously Toronto gets a lot of attention compared to other cities but it's hard not to when you've got a population of that size. Why should people from Toronto be insulted for being proud of their home? If Albertans can be proud of Alberta why doesn't the same apply to Ontario? I'd rather not see government run as a business. Businesses are run for 1 reason only to make a profit. I don't think the government should be making profits off its citizens. Examples like Enron AIG Fanny Mae etc also stand out as excellent examples of how a government shouldn't act.

And right now the Conservatives are trying to scare voters away from the Liberals. When it comes to discussing specific parties that's why it isn't a question of which party uses scare tactics - the questions are which party uses scare tactics more and how does a party use scare tactics? The how question's more important. Do the parties use the scare tactics simply to get votes like by saying a particular leader "is scary" or do they use them to justify policies? I think using people's fear to justify policies is much worse.

Sorry I should've said that I wasn't limiting myself to any 1 political party but to arguments that I've heard from right wing type people in general. In Canada even the wars on terror and drugs have less fear mongering than in the US where the immigration issue does come up more often with political parties using fear tactics.

I'm sure that depends on what you mean by taking action to reduce illegal drug use in the 1st place. Pushing mandatory sentences is a poor strategy compared to almost any other strategy out there.

War on terror? War on drugs? Stop immigration before immigrants destroy the Canadian way of life? I'm sure both sides use fear tactics sometimes but it does seem like it's used more often to support right wing policies.

I suggest you get some facts before continuing to write nonsense about history and immigration. You don't need to have 1000 posts to see what a number of people on this topic think about some of your posts. Still nothing here worthwhile. You're writing nonsense about asian atheists Hiroshima and complaining to Americans. Get some facts and then try to come up with rational arguments got it donkey?

I guess all those economists are wrong when they say that taxing something affects its consumption and we can ignore any science regarding the effects of greenhouse gasses. You said the magic phrase "tax grab" therefore there's no point in looking at the policy. That'd just be crazy.

Well buddy my point's that you're full of hot air. You don't like Asian immigrants because their "history is wrought with tyrannies and abuse" but Europe's history can also be called that. Even in your post the only European you call by name is considered a tyrant by some. So buddy old pal 1 of your reasons for not wanting Asian immigrants should also be taken into consideration for European immigrants. But don't worry it looks like people here gave up on the hope that reality would enter into your reasoning a long time ago. Your spin on history is also quite interesting but not worth debating.

I'm guessing you're not in the film or tv production business

If everyone used that way of thinking then noone could ever complain about anyone else. Every party's run dirty campaigns therefore no one can accuse anyone of anything. Maybe that's not a bad idea. What'd be revolutionary is people approaching every party that runs negative campaigns no matter who the party is and complaining. I'm not holding my breath though.

If you're willing to assume anything then I suppose you can say any position is reasonable. Policies being considered and implemented around the world aren't saying we go to nothing by 2050. So you're saying the blog's scenario is reasonable because some people are promoting a plan of action that no one's even trying to implement. If the basic assumption is unreasonable then the conclusions from that assumption are also unreasonable. Advocating for increased energy efficiency investing in renewable energy and reducing co2 emissions isn't the same as saying everyone must stop driving and we'll leave people to die rather than attempt to evacuate them from hurricanes. There's more to standard of living than only trying to equate it to life expectancy. Building infrastructure that allows people to live longer and more comfortably isn't wasteful but that's not how standard of living is so often measured. It's measured by how many cars you've got or how many computers per family. Many times this measure doesn't take into account the longer term effects of what happens when you've got to dispose of all those computers or the health effects that'll cause. We're already seeing health problems around old technology dumps. Same goes for the cars stats. It's great to say we've got such a high standard of living because everyone's got 1.7 cars but then we complain about smog in big cities and the apparent increase in asthma in kids. We've been measuring standard of living by how much we consume rather than looking at the total picture. I'm ok with changing how we live so that future generations live more comfortably rather than saying I need more stuff now so that I'm comfortable in the short term and the future be damned.

I can see the points about less local representation and bigger government but not the last point about who appoints the candidates. The party already appoints who they want in the ridings so why are the list candidates any different? There're arguments that say that's democracy. If there're enough people who want to vote for a party then why shouldn't they get a voice? I might not like their views but they're entitled to have them and voice them in parliament if they get votes. Other arguments against PR systems say PR parliaments get less accomplished and you're constantly having shifting coalitions. Majority governments are rare. Then again people use the same argument to say that PR is a good thing so maybe it just depends on your point of view.

The "thoughtful" blog basically says that if you think co2 is a problem then you've got to be willing to throw people into the paths of hurricanes. That's an unrealistic scenario. The price of energy in Canada is 1 of the lowest in the world. Somehow other countries still have cars and helicopters. Technology doesn't have to suddenly appear and we shouldn't expect it to since it's slowly being developed and introduced. At 1 point it was too expensive to extract oil from the tar sands. Not any more. The same thing is happening with electric cars. At 1 point the idea of a car that could run only on electricity for any amount of time was unthinkable. And now GM releases a car that can do that. Stricter fuel efficiency requirements for cars are within reach right now. Solar and wind power generation is feasible right now and can take some of the burden. Any plan to reduce co2 emissions that's being proposed and has a chance of being implemented doesn't start with completely banning fossil fuels or with crippling emissions reductions requirements. These things are phased in slowly. What makes you think our standard of living should be maintained where it's at now? If our way of living is wasteful then maybe it should change.