-1=e^ipi

You didn't really explain why you disagree. Wait, you are complaining about the overall transfer of money from the position of Quebec, when Quebec overwhelmingly is a net receiver in terms of transfer payments and equalization? Really? This is a generalization. Some francophones prefer financial incentives, some anglophones do not. Not all people of 'one nation' think alike.

Hey, I don't support cap-and-trade either. Taxing CO2 emissions makes more sense. But in it's defense, if emissions are more expensive, due to having to buy credits, then there is a lower incentive to emit CO2, thus you get less emissions. Also, what matters is global emissions, so trading credits between different states/provinces is not unreasonable if it allows emissions to be reduced at a lower cost. Of course, what Wynne wants to do is implement cap-and-trade on top of the regulatory approach already implemented. As opposed to replace the regulatory approach with cap-and-trade. I'm just saying that in comparison to the idiotic regulatory approaches that reduce emissions at $250 per ton CO2, a cap-and-trade system with a $15/ton CO2 cost, or even a $50/ton level that Trudeau wants to implement is far more cost effective. We need to stop banning pipelines, stop banning coal plants, stop subsidizing renewable energy, and instead just have a single pigouvian tax to internalize the externalities of CO2 emissions. That's the most cost effective way to do things.

With respect to Ontario's insanely stupid energy policy, I saw it claimed recently that the cost to reduce emissions for Ontario has been about $250 per metric ton. This is all through the 'regulatory approach' that Steven Harper seemed to advocate during the last general. A tax, or even cap-and-trade, are far more cost effective.

But she can't due to her race and sex. Since it's 2016.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, to be honest. I think Vietnam or some south-east Asian country has the government appoint people to deal with municipal issues rather than have municipal elections. That sounds like a better approach as you could generally get more competent people to deal with municipal issues (those with the correct academic background and experience) and also coordinate municipal and national policy. I don't really care about seeing this federation as one nation or not. I just care about having good policy. And coordinating economic, educational, health and environmental policy makes sense regardless of if you want a socialist or libertarian government. How about environmental policy, especially with respect to CO2 emissions? The current situation in Canada is crazy. You have Ontario and Quebec with inefficient cap-and-trade systems, some provinces (including Ontario) approach the issue with inefficient 'regulatory approaches', BC and now Alberta taxing CO2 emissions, and then a few provinces and territories refusing to do anything. There should be a single national Pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions, and other CO2 reduction policy like regulatory approaches should be abolished because they are not as cost-effective. Preferably there should be a single global Pigouvian tax.

By that logic, health care should be a municipal responsibility. Because what if Montreal wanted higher standards than Quebec city? Yes, it would all be wonderful if everyone agreed on everything and we all came to a consensus. But in reality, there is political disagreement. That is why we have a democracy, cause you aren't going to get 100% of everyone to agree on everything. So you want a system that has irrational preference for the status quo and makes it very difficult to change bad policy? Like what? Move towards a European health care system, which tends to perform better than the Canadian health care systems? Oh the horror! Lower wait times! Look, the main issue isn't about a more privatized vs a more communal health care system. The issue is that you cannot coordinate health and economic policy effectively.

Usually runaway would be defined as a point where the increase in temperature due to feedbacks from a temperature increase exceed the temperature increase itself. If this occurs locally (and by local I mean within a local range of global temperature values) then it would count as runaway warming without needing to have temperatures increase indefinitely. You also have to remember that different parts of the earth warm at different rates. Equatorial regions tend to warm at only 2/3 the rate of the global temperature. But in any case, runaway global warming is not physical. There are amplifying feedbacks, they just are not strong enough to cause runaway global warming. Edit: sorry for typo

@ Bonam - I think this link was taken down: http://climatephys.org/2012/07/31/the-water-vapor-feedback-and-runaway-greenhouse/ But from what I recall, it demonstrated that runaway warming doesn't occur until 647 K, when the oceans would start to boil. Even though water boils at 100 C, by the time global temperatures would get to 100 C, pressure increases, which increases the boiling point further. Runaway global warming can also occur in 2 billion years when the brightness of the sun increases sufficiently. The amount of water air can contain increases roughly exponentially via the clausius-clapeyron relation. But the radiative forcing due to water vapour concentrations is roughly a logarithmic function of concentrations. So the water vapour feedback is roughly linear. If you still think runaway global warming would occur from increasing global temperatures by 15-20 C, then do you have a source or calculations that can support it?

Runaway global warming is not physical for earth, at least not for 2 billion years. We would need a much brighter sun to get feedbacks large enough for runaway warming. Yes, there will be warming, but not runaway. That's the mainstream scientific position.

All hate speech should be legal.

I'm saying maybe we should rethink the mandate. Especially health. Why have health be a provincial responsibility instead of a federal responsibility? People move around within the country. Which means the benefits of say Ontario helping the health of Children may end up in say Alberta when the child is older and is working in Alberta. The result is that there is an incentive for provinces to provide less health care then is optimal due to these non-internalized spillover effects. There are very large links between the health of the population, and the population's ability to earn income. Thus, economy and health care are very strong linked. By having the federal government mostly deal strongly with economic issues while having health care as purely a provincial responsibility, it makes it extremely difficult to coordinate health care policy and economic policy. European countries tend to have health care as a federal responsibility, and they tend to have a much better performance of their health care systems than the Canadian systems.

Well I'm very greatful for not living in your fascist country. Now if only Canada could leave nato or kick Turkey out of NATO so we don't have treaty obligations to protect ISIS supporting Turkey from Russia when Turkey shoots down Russian airplanes in retaliation for Russia fighting ISIS and destroying oil tankers headed from ISIS to Turkey.

Not sure if this counts as off-topic, but with respect to decentralization of power, our current system which gives provinces lots of power results in duplication of costs, which makes government overall more expensive, and makes it difficult to coordinate economic, environmental, health and immigration policies. It might make sense to move in the direction of Australia where sub-national divisions have far less power.

Obama killed people with drones strikes. I guess Obama is in the same category as Castro as well then.

Maybe in protest of your authoritarianism, I'll burn the Turkish flag. See gregory allen eliot trial. Also see some of the resent comments by the Trudeau government regarding that trial.

Well that's a nice bait and switch tactic. I was responding to the claim that Canada does have an equivalent to the first amendment, we do not. I never claimed that flag burning was illegal. Flag burning is fine, just don't disagree with feminists on twitter or depict the prophet mohammed.

All the people going on and on about 2 C being the threshold for dangerous climate change. Looks like 3 C is the new 2 C. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-100-2016.pdf&site=24

Section 2 is restricted by section 1 of the charter. 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That's why we have hate speech laws, and you get cases like the gregory allen eliot trial. Or you have human rights tribunals go after people that publish cartoons of the charter of rights and freedoms. Section 1 of the charter should be abolished. The preamble as well as section 15 subsection 2 should also be abolished.

Lots of things suck about our constitution. As an example, there is no equivalent to the first amendment in the USA. Burning the constitution or the flag to protest things wrong with our country can be completely justified.

Because someone made a claim that I believe is false, so I wanted them to prove their claim. Bill Gates is also a billionaire. Does that mean Bill Gates is as bad as Castro?

Yes, absolutely. The more flag burning the better!

Well, the CBC is trying to take advantage of the recent complaints about it unfairly competing with the private sector. Ultimately, market conditions for the market for information have changed a lot. If you go back 70 years, the costs of entering the market were extremely high and the market more closely resembled a natural monopoly, so intervention in the form of the CBC made sense. But in today's society, where there is easy access to the internet, where there are tens of thousands of news sources to choose from, the market is highly competitive and the economic justification for publicly funding both the CBC and the BBC no longer make sense.

I wanted proof for the claim that Putin has killed more people than Castro. I'm not denying that he has killed people. But it doesn't come close to the number killed by Castro.

I will point out that there is a bit of irony in using a Quebec flag avatar, a flag which is a combination of the Christian cross and a symbol of the French monarchy, while preaching republican values. I thought a fair amount of anglophone Quebecers voted for the CAQ last election. Am I mistaken?