-1=e^ipi

With respect to a male privilege tax, it is well known that the labour supply elasticity of women (0.5) is higher than that of men (0.1). So one could make an interesting economic argument that it is social welfare maximizing to have men have a higher tax rate than women.

1. I stumbled upon the video randomly. 2. The guy's opinions on other issues doesn't somehow demerit the content (which is primarily seeing if other people would sign the petition). The majority of people shown chose to sign the petition. Should there be a white privilege tax? Should there be a tax on male privilege? How is this different from say a university choosing applications based on race or the government of Canada and its employment equity policy? There is plenty to discuss.

No see, the best way to combat racism/sexism/etc. isn't to treat people equally under the law and as individuals, as people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Morgan Freeman would argue. The best way to combat racism is to treat people differently based on race/sex/etc. and define them based on this group identity, rather than treat them as individuals. So this means have institutionalized racism/sexism to combat racism/sexism and to have politicians and the media perpetuate identity politics. That's how progressivism works.

I don't really know the guy's videos. Looking at his channel, he seems to be some sort of Illuminati conspiracy theorist or something.

It has been suggested that in order to help fight racism, reduce white privilege and help oppressed 'visible minorities' that white people should pay an additional 1% of there income in taxes. What do you think, should such a tax be implemented? Should we also have a male privilege tax or a straight privilege tax in order to fight the heteronormative patriarchy?

You just need to get creative. Threaten to punish non-compliant provinces with policies specifically design to harm them. Another option is to convince western Canada to separate and form a republic of Canada with a completely new legal foundation; the other provinces can join the republic if they want.

... I'm critical of the precautionary principle and was highlighting reasons to be critical. How is that cherrypicking? Wow. Look, a wikipedia article saying X is some times applied to Y doesn't mean wikipedia is somehow endorsing that X should be applied to Y.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle Internal inconsistency - applying strong PP risks causing harm Strong formulations of the precautionary principle, without regard to its most basic provisions that it is to be applied only where risks are potentially high AND not easily calculable, applied to the principle itself as a policy decision, may rule out its own use.[14]:26ff The reason suggested is that preventing innovation from coming to market means that only current technology may be used, and current technology itself may cause harm or leave needs unmet; there is a risk of causing harm by blocking innovation.[22][23] As Michael Crichton wrote in his novel, State of Fear: "The 'precautionary principle', properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle."[24] For example, forbidding nuclear power plants based on concerns about risk means continuing to rely on power plants that burn fossil fuels, which continue to release greenhouse gases.[14]:27 In another example, the Hazardous Air Pollutant provisions in the 1990 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act are an example of the Precautionary Principle where the onus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless. Under this rule no distinction is made between those air Pollutants that provide a higher or lower risk, so operators tend to choose less-examined agents that are not on the existing list.[25] Blocking innovation and progress generally Because applications of strong formulations of the PP can be used to block innovation, a technology which brings advantages may be banned by PP because of its potential for negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealized.[26][27]:201 The precautionary principle has been ethically questioned on the basis that its application could block progress in developing countries.[28] Vagueness and plausibility The PP calls for inaction in the face of scientific uncertainty, but some formulations do not specify the minimal threshold of plausibility of risk that acts as a “triggering” condition, so that any indication that a proposed product or activity might harm health or the environment is sufficient to invoke the principle.[29][30]

Ignoring contrary information is a good way to ensure that you keep believing in absurd beliefs.

The precautionary principle is the position of infinite risk aversion and leads to absurd policy recommendations, such as requiring that all cattle wear snowshoes. So you support policies that significantly reduce the incentive for people to develop new technologies?

Very true.

You clearly don't. Do you know what confirmation bias is? True. But when many studies use a definition of 'extreme weather' that violates the transitive property of ordering climate states by the amount of extreme weather, then it's pretty easy to get more extreme weather.

Sarcasm?

Green party is anti-science; they hate nuclear energy and GMOs. Oppose the cheapest reliable source of non CO2 emitting energy and oppose technology that could be used to help people (example: golden rice and how it could prevent half a million children going blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency) and produce more food with fewer resources.

Please provide a physical mechanism for this crazy claim. Why do you think tornado alley is located where there is a large temperature gradient between cold polar air to the north and warm tropical air to the south? Why do you think tornado season occurs during late winter/early spring when the temperature gradient is the largest? What do you think will occur if that temperature gradient decreases? Too bad you can't build a dam to mitigate that problem. Glaciers also don't hold infinite water.

Saying that in some locations frequency is expected to increase doesn't mean in some locations frequency isn't expected to decrease, nor that the overall trend is to increased frequency. Let's take hurricanes. It's simple physics. A hurricane is a giant heat engine that transfers energy from the surface to the troposphere. Yes a warmer earth will have more moisture, but this is counteracted by the lapse rate feedback (the surface-tropopause temperature gradient is reduced with global warming). What you need in order for hurricanes to occur is adiabatic instability (i.e. the surface must be heated more than the tropopause, the sun can cause this). Increases in CO2 and water vapour make the upper troposphere more opaque, which means that there is less potential for adiabatic instability, thus less hurricanes. With tornadoes, it is more straightforward, since that is highly dependent on the equator-pole temperature gradient, which reduces with global warming. The idea that hurricane frequency decreases with global warming is the mainstream scientific position. AR5 mentioned it. Here is a random paper in support of this position: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2646.epdf?referrer_access_token=4CzuStiPvuKdWA4hukB-v9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mq-qdc-RdDMlXyDToQJxIR3a4Zi-waXHW7Lect3frQKQzXbQSqNXWuqz9MwYK5wWd3LKIUQc931jeqTxe0ihjjeYyy3H2RNkgKVf1Zg4joPU5QfmeVmspoOfdUPRyUVBc7hwXpgEozpKPuvoNszYEZlnWyBUrAM8kCXCV3tNWS5YIYEyvEqeOTWoq6eZaEOlGBNcCKYMDUTzy4dpLFPgVm&tracking_referrer=arstechnica.com Our world is constrained by certain laws. One of them is that mass-energy is conserved. In order for the glacier to be in equilibrium, the amount of runoff it produces must equal the amount of precipitation that feeds into it (ignoring things like sublimation). The existence of a glacier doesn't somehow create more water to be used for hydroelectric power. If the glacier disappears, precipitation will still fall where the glacier was, and that will flow down hill and collect in streams and rivers. You can make a hydroelectric damn at that river and obtain hydropower. I don't think you understand how dams work. They allow you to control the flow of water and can be used to store water. People can do studies and make educated guesses.

It definitely isn't. Temperature and precipitation change affects dominate the impacts of sea level rise or ocean acidification. I don't think your claim agrees with empirical data or theoretical models, though that is difficult to determine given the vagueness of your claim. For example, the frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes is expected to decrease with climate change. I don't think this logically follows. Water flowing downhill is what gives you energy for hydroelectricity, the existence of frozen glaciers does not change that. What does occur when global temperatures increase is that air can hold more water (clausius-clapeyron relation). As a result, there is greater moisture transfer between oceans and continents. This means that there is on average more precipitation over continents due to global warming, which means there is more water traveling downhill, thus potentially more hydroelectricity. Why would it? Some species benefit, others don't. It depends. Ocean acidification (on the magnitude we are talking, say a decrease in pH from 8.1 to 7.8 over the next century) is not good for mollusks, but vertebrate fish are for the most part unaffected, and some seaweeds benefit. Sure.

1. I never claimed that CO2 emissions shouldn't be drastically reduced. But perhaps it makes sense to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis to determine to optimal level of CO2 emission taxation. 2. I don't own a car.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. One would have to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Also, this isn't the only option. It might make more sense to only protect major cities where population density is high, and flood the rest of the area. Another option is for people to gradually relocate elsewhere (there is plenty of time to do this for a sea level rise of half a meter per century). Same thing applies to them. It might be cheaper to either build some levees or to slowly relocate elsewhere overtime. As for your concern over assets, the rate of depreciation of physical capital is faster than the rate of sea level rise, so that's basically a non issue. As for tens of millions of people affected, there are 7 billion people on earth, and there will be roughly 10-11 billion in half a century. Again, it's about costs and benefits.

Holland is below sea level. Why is it not under water? Maybe it's cheaper for Miami Beach to become like Holland, instead of reducing global emissions to zero.

... Yeah they do. Look, just take either the CPI or the GDP deflator (preferably the latter) to take inflation into account. It isn't that hard.

1. Economies of scale. 2. Harper hasn't made it easier to get good data. 3. Bilingualism makes statistics Canada inefficient.

A lot of scientists say god exists. That doesn't mean god exists. Some scientists think the earth is 6000 years old.

IPCC AR5 excludes sea level rise over the next century above 1 m per century at the 95% confidence level even under insane emission scenarios such as RCP 8.5. Sea level rise will be ~half a meter over the next century, give or take a quarter of a meter.

What if we mine He3 from the moon?