Evening Star

Hm, well, FWIW, at least Swedish sources seem to think/claim so: http://www.thelocal.se/9444/20071218/ http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/54762 This 2005 BBC article states that France, Sweden, and the UK met their targets: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269921.stm Jbg might be right about "1990 levels" being an unfair measure though.

I read the interview. It's not as one-sided as GWPF's introduction makes it sound, based on a quote taken out of context. He definitely still seems to think climate policy is driven by environmental concerns but he also believes that countries that can afford it and that have benefited the most, historically, from burning fossil fuels should carry the larger share of the burden of change: Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his perspective, he is not 'admitting' that climate change policy is just a cover for a redistributive economic agenda. He thinks that some level of redistribution is necessary in order to make C02 reductions work without causing too much economic suffering in LDCs.

A number of European countries have been complying without great economic suffering, haven't they? Sweden exceeded their targets while remaining one of the most prosperous countries.

But, I mean, for real? Including the WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, ...?

Some combination of short-sightedness, fiscal concerns, and political expediency, I'm guessing? It's unsurprising when governments break promises and has little to do with the specific Conservative policies about scientist-media communication that were the original topic of this thread.

"suspect" <> "unresearched"

Kyoto isn't exactly unresearched. The IPCC does study peer-reviewed, published scientific research, whether or not you like their findings.

It may help reduce the risk of similar events in the future.

So why is it good for the US to have a higher dollar? Is it just because their export market is more diversified? (It probably is.) Who does the UK mostly trade with? I'm openly admitting I don't know much about trade. I'm actually curious.

Sounds good to me...

It always seems to be taken as a good sign for the US or UK when their currencies are worth more though, doesn't it? Why is it so different? (A high Cdn $ is good for me in any case.) It seems kind of incredible that different sources could provide such widely varying figures for the same countries' public debt-to-GDP ratios.

Maybe you were replying to someone else though.

Wait, I wasn't in fantasy land just now. I was commenting on Harper's proposed bill.

Argus, your first link doesn't work for me.

Shorter term limits for appointed senators is the worst-sounding idea I've heard in a while. Aside from its unconstitutionality, it just seems to thwart whatever purpose our current Senate is supposed to serve, without any of the potential advantages of an elected Senate. All this could do, even if it were constitutional, is give even more control to the sitting PM, AFAICT. At least the current Senate system provides some check and balance to the current PM and Commons by preserving people appointed by past PMs.

Which would you recommend?

I was surprised that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio actually seems to be much worse than America's: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Also, what do you mean by real pollution?

So, after some sober second thought, I guess I don't really have a major problem with the Senate's role, as defined by the constitution. ToadBrother and g_bambino made some good points. (I'm impressed by the constitutional knowledge around here btw!) I still think it was against at least the spirit of what the Senate should be for them to have called a snap vote on this bill and defeated it on second reading, before it even went to a committee for debate. (How recently has that happened and resulted in a defeat of legislation?) What do you guys think of the idea of an upper house that's more like the British House of Lords, with much more limited ability to reject bills? In any case, I agree that the epic constitutional reform process is the last thing anyone needs right now. This actually was the second time that the bill was submitted. It died on the floor the first time because of the last election: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-reintroduces-greenhouse-gas-bill/article970993/ I can actually see what you're saying here. Something like how I can never really understand why anyone wants Canada to participate in a war in Afghanistan because I don't see what our military could accomplish there if the US military can't win the war in a reasonable timespan? I guess it's the principle that, as humans who share the climate change problem and probably share the responsibility for it, we should do our part? That it would be more difficult for us to expect the US (who produce close to 20% of CO2 emissions) or China to reduce their emissions if we don't show that we can do it ourselves? I should admit that I haven't studied the bill closely though. It seemed good on first blush. Perhaps Harper is right that it is flawed because it does not actually present measures that would make it possible for us to reduce our emissions that much? I don't actually know what the economic impact would be. Are there studies that show that it could actually produce the level of unemployment and inflation that you are suggesting? Could emissions be reduced by developing green-energy technology, which could potentially create jobs?

When did I claim anything about the Senate's constitutionally defined powers? All I said was that I thought this was unfortunate, by which I meant that I don't like it, mainly because I liked the bill itself. Oh, I guess I agreed with Nicky that I'd prefer for the Senate to debate and suggest changes to legislation instead of actually voting it down. I freely acknowledge that there's not really any common-law tradition stipulating that's what the Senate should do. You're completely right about the constitutional and legal issues, TB. G_Bambino, if your point is that Senators are appointed on the recommendations of democratically elected officials, I suppose you've got me there. If anything, I guess it's actually kind of neat that we have a living document of Canadian political history changing more gradually in the Senate.

"I, and a number of other people, would feel a little less resentful if an elected Senate, as opposed to an unelected Senate, vetoed a bill that passed the Commons. This is because it seems more legitimate in my eyes for a democratically elected body to have that power." Better? (Of course, this is complicated by the fact that I'd actually prefer a less powerful unelected Senate or no Senate at all to an elected one.)

Are you just saying that rich people can dodge income taxes with creative bookkeeping? I don't specialize in economics so I don't think I'm following you.

Yes.

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

You're losing me, admittedly. This is from Wild Bill's post 13, with which you agreed in post 14: It seemed to me that he was talking about income distribution and income tax revenue. I was pointing out that income is in fact concentrated towards the top, not among the working class.