ReeferMadness

Research is going on but given what's at stake, it's insufficient. In Canada, we have the most anti-science government in modern history. What science is being funded is mainly applied science, in conjunction with corporations. Battery research may not pay off for a decade or more.

Knock yourself out. Really. Knock yourself out.

Really, Tim? Then why don't you share your sources? Look up, buddy. You've provided lots of long-winded pontificating but nothing to back it up. You have nerve questioning my link when all you have is unsubstantiated, unqualified opinion. I don't even read your replies anymore - there's no substance to them.

And your opinion is based on what?

It has to be a gradual process - and that's the point. We need some leadership on this front and you can't simply make policy decisions simply based on what is cheapest today. Solar has a marginal electricity cost of 0. How do you beat that? As for the the choice between wealth and the environment, I'm not sure that there really needs to be a choice. In Australia, solar and battery storage are already cheaper than grid energy. That's right - the only big disadvantage to solar (intermittent power) has been addressed. Granted that Australia has a combination of ample solar power and high grid prices but this is new technology. Prices will tumble. If we project into the future and look at the optimal energy sources short - mid term, we should be investing heavily in battery technology. We need them for grid backup and for electric vehicles. Now that wind and solar are as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, its only power storage that is preventing us from planning a major shift. Governments and universities should be getting in front of this to fund the research.

It seems like there is some controversy over this poll.

I assume by pragmatism, you mean unsubstantiated, alarmist opinion. They're not a boondoggle. I look at this forum and see people trading unresearched opinions on technical subjects and I have to wonder. Does anyone read anymore?

I understand that If you are born to a parent with British citizenship, you are automatically a British citizen. Even if you were born elsewhere and have never even been there.

Back to the OP, here is what Frank Graves of Ekos believes that Harper meant: Dog whistle politics.

Maybe you're right. I've never followed the party that closely and am going mostly by gut feel. I always had the sense that Layton belonged in the centre of the NDP but Mulcair is much more to the centre. Mulcair gave a glowing tribute to Thatcher and free markets, which I can't see Layton doing. I think that Trudeau is more left than most of his party. And Harper is definitely to the far right.

C24 is an absolutely abhorrent piece of legislation. I wonder how many Harper supporters are actually affected by it and don't even realize it. There are a lot of people who are dual citizens despite being born in Canada. I'm still proud of my country but I've become decidedly less proud over the past decade. I honestly thought we were better than this.

As an "old stock Canadian", I feel like I should apologize on behalf of our "old stock Prime Minister". I'd like to say that he meant well and his heart is in the right place; but I'm not even remotely confident either of those things are true.

That's a good point. For peace keeping to succeed, there first needs to be peace to keep. Unless you have forces that are technologically and numerically vastly superior, you can't get between two sides that really want to fight.

That statement might be true in the scientific community but I don't think it's a contextually accurate statement of the attitude of society at large. And it certainly bears no resemblance to how our political class thinks, based on what was discussed in yesterday's debate on the economy. The population is in denial. People don't want to think about the ramifications of climate change because it's so big. They don't want to know that their cheap trips to Mexico and Cuba might well ruin the lives of their children. They're afraid that environmentalists are telling them they have to go back and live in caves. That's why the issue is so toxic that none of the 3 big parties are willing to address it in an honest way. (Actually, there is a theory that one of them is a Christian fundamentalist whose views may be informed by a biblical view of the world but that's even scarier). That's why this document is important. It demonstrates that there is a strong possibility that we can consume roughly the same amount of energy but do so in a way that is sustainable. So, whether this is the best solution is really a secondary issue. The first challenge is political. We need to get the public past their fear to look at the problem in the cold light of day.

Then it's a really bad idea to be growing nuclear energy in the middle of an unstable world. Take the subsidies away from nuclear energy and invest it in research for better battery technology and/or other grid storage. Electric cars and renewable energy are the way to go for the short to medium term.

Mulcair is no Layton in the same way Layton was no Broadbent (I know there were people in the middle but I don't recall). The shift has been going on for a long time. But the difference to me is that Layton still occupied territory on the left end of the spectrum. Mulcair has moved them so far that I see them as being right of the Liberals on most things.

The issues with nuclear energy are so numerous, this topic deserves its own thread. I don't think nuclear energy is cheap or safe, particularly when you consider the wastes will be dangerous for thousands of years. Furthermore, nuclear power plants, which are inherently complex, extremely expensive single points of failure, make for a bad systems design. Contrast that with solar and wind, which are inherently simple and distributed, making for a naturally redundant, distributed system. Leave a solar installation alone and come back in 25 years. It will probably be still producing power and the worst case will be that it doesn't. Try that with a nuclear reactor. But the most damning thing about nuclear energy is this: The most dangerous aspect of climate change is the one that is rarely discussed. When (not if) the impacts of climate change start to be felt in a serious way, people aren't going to just lie down and die peacefully. There will almost certainly be wars (some think this is already happening). Nuclear reactors produce plutonium and they distribute the technology and know-how that can be used to make nuclear weapons. A number of the countries now known to have nuclear weapons started by pursuing nuclear power "for peaceful purposes". Think of what happens if you multiply the mess in the middle east by 10 and then assume that most of the countries involved have nukes.

Shhhh. The adults are speaking now.

Interesting read - thank you for the link. I interpreted the manifesto and supporting document as a convincing argument that there is a possible future where we can live without fossil fuels, not necessarily that this is the only or even the best possible future. I think it would be amazing if we could turn the corner and debate how to leave fossil fuels behind. However, as you will see if you hang around here, there are many who can't even contemplate that possibility. And even among those who do, many cling to nuclear, which could turn out to be even worse. It would be tragic if the three groups (and I don't think they are as 'distinct' as the author claims) start to squabble amongst themselves. I only perused the document briefly but I think there is no single right answer and the best approach is to combine elements of each.

No. It's the price we pay for having a voting system that's a leftover from the 19th century. In 2015, we have the technology to create constituencies on other bases than simply geography. HoC representation is based on geography and then we select senators based on a larger geographic area. On top of that, we have provincial governments. All of the governmental institutions are based on geography. The country only barely survived in 1995.

I've already posted my link on this which shows that the position is supported by scholars across Canada. But speaking of Church, Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what science supports his government.

You're hilarious. I've already posted a link (see above) to the document that supports the manifesto and it was authored, reviewed and critiqued by scholars across Canada. Meanwhile, your hero Harper has eliminated the Office of the National Science Advisor and muzzled scientists; and his idea of a great Minister of Science and Technology is an insurance executive. So, you tell me. Where is the scientific support for Harper's government?

On this point, we agree fully. Great. We have a system today that leaves millions of voters unrepresented and puts strains on national unity by artificially painting regions under the color of a single party. Conservatives in Victoria, Toronto and Quebec. Liberals on the prairies. NDP supporters in the Maritimes. If you look at the HoC, you would get the impression they don't exist. They do exist and they deserve representation.

I don't believe the point of an electoral system is to pick "a guy". The point of an electoral system is to represent the views of Canadians. Even Canadians who have different views than me. Sorry to disappoint you.

The problem with the way economists view the world is that they can only see value when money changes hands. Many of the most brilliant scientists, mathematicians, artists and musicians were either unappreciated or not fully appreciated during their own times. There's a lot more money to be made making minor improvements to smart phones than there is pioneering new science. If automation can free people to pursue their dreams without having to find someone who will pay for each thing they do, we can spark a new human renaissance. But small-minded people like this guy will do their best to block it.