So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[PIK]

Canada could disappear and it wont change anything. But still the left is still swallowing the garbage coming from our competitors. The left is being played like a fiddle. Cut our throats while the rest of the world keeps doing what it is doing.

[WIP]

We'll see what Suzanne Legault's investigation reveals. If you ask scientist's at the PIPSC they will tell you you're wrong.

Yeah, I'll take the scientists' word on it rather than lying, tarsands-dependent politicians!

[WIP]

Canada could disappear and it wont change anything. But still the left is still swallowing the garbage coming from our competitors. The left is being played like a fiddle. Cut our throats while the rest of the world keeps doing what it is doing.

Could it be the right playing the fear card again? Too bad these base emotional appeals work so effectively on conservatives, and sideline logic and reason. They keep coming back to the same lying bad arguments regardless of how many times they've been lied to in the past!

[WIP]

More American cartoons and political debate remarks won't help Canada unscrew itself. Good luck...

The cartoon has a universal message, troll.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nope. That's why us spending billions to cut CO2 emissions by 50,000 tons while India alone increases theirs by 500,000 tons is such a stupid and pointless effort.

So your much more well thought out approach is for nobody to do anything. Gotcha.

[WIP]

Except they are not forced at all. The whole premise of your argument is that the alternative is better. What you don't understand or refuse to understand is that it is not. They choose these jobs because they are better than the alternative. Removing those factories or those industries does not mean things get better for the poor there, it means they get worse.

The 'sweat shop' like jobs that we love to criticize in the west, are so prized that workers will bribe local bosses with months worth of wages just to get them. On average, they pay double the local earnings for a similar person.

The problem is that we are completely sucked into a void of evidence where stories of sadness determine what we think about international commerce. Before that commerce, lives of the poor were far more brutal and shorter than they are today. Yes they look bad. And yes the alternative is worse. Forcing companies to pay x amount does not mean workers will get x amount. It just means the factories and the jobs leave. This is what you don't compute when making your judgements.

Thanks for ignoring the history and the strategy of invoking enclosure laws and regulations that make your contention of the poor flocking to the cities to escape rural drudgery and thankful for sweatshop jobs a complete fabrication!

First, people have to be forced off the land, and then they move to dirty, overcrowded cities and take jobs that put them at a state of virtual slavery. It's the same as a somewhat related issue that infuriates me: all of the vitriol surrounding illegal immigrants moving to Europe and America, which never asks the WHY question, so that nobody in respectable media looks at root causes of why so many people feel forced to uproot their families and live a precarious existence in refugee camps and risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean or the militarized US border with Mexico. In both cases, the reader, viewer or listener is led to believe that these people are acting on volition rather than coercion!

The reason peasants get forced off their land, is because they do not have robust property rights. That is a completely separate issue which was always a problem there, and did not start just because a factory started up.

Before capitalism, they didn't need those written property rights! It wasn't until the arrival of capitalists seeing their land for its export potential, that property laws became paramount....and the lack of legal title has been used time and time again wherever wealthy interests backed by guns, wants their land!

[Smallc]

The Conservatives sticking to their hard line on drugs is almost enough of a reason for me to change my vote.

[On Guard for Thee]

CO2 doesn't not cause smog. CH4 does not cause smog. N2O, as far as I am aware, does not cause smog (though NO and NO2 do). Those 3 gases account for over 99% of the change in GHG radiative forcing over the past 2 centuries.

Tropospheric O3 is a short lived GHG and decays rapidly. So while it causes smog, it doesn't cause long run global warming.

Are you now trying to say vehicles don't produce smog?

[waldo]

CO2 doesn't not cause smog. CH4 does not cause smog. N2O, as far as I am aware, does not cause smog (though NO and NO2 do). Those 3 gases account for over 99% of the change in GHG radiative forcing over the past 2 centuries.

Tropospheric O3 is a short lived GHG and decays rapidly. So while it causes smog, it doesn't cause long run global warming.

never said anything about CO2 and smog... or global warming... you did! I simply pointed out the error you made; that, technically, referring to smog and ghg is not incorrect, particularly as, again, a principle component of smog is ground-level ozone (O3)... and its 2 principle source components are indirect GHGs, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)... with both related to (more so NOx) human burning of fossil-fuels. You really should know when to just go quiet and accept you made a false/incorrect statement.

I trust you won't continue to derail this thread.

[overthere]

I spent the weekend with a 6 week old baby.

She had the same blissful lack of self awareness as some posters.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Argus]

So your much more well thought out approach is for nobody to do anything. Gotcha.

And yours is that we do something, regardless of how expensive, whether it helps global warming or not.

[Argus]

Could it be the right playing the fear card again?

Is there some way in which you can construe a tax on energy to be _good_ for the economy?

And let's say Canada cuts its emissions by 10% a year, which would be such a huge undertaking it would be incredibly expensive, but nevermind that.

We manage to cut our emissions by 50,000 tons! Yay.

But in the same year India alone increases its emissions by 500,000. uh oh.

So what exactly was all our expensive sacrificing for?

And btw, the above presumes that our cut actually is a cut, as opposed to many of those industries simply closing down and setting up shop in other jurisdictions.

[On Guard for Thee]

And yours is that we do something, regardless of how expensive, whether it helps global warming or not.

We are not alone in the knowledge that GW needs attention, Europe, the US, China all have it on their agendas. So no, your premise falls apart.

[Argus]

We are not alone in the knowledge that GW needs attention, Europe, the US, China all have it on their agendas. So no, your premise falls apart.

My premise would only fall apart if places like India and China were actually cutting their emissions instead of raising them by very, very large amounts.

[-1=e^ipi]

Are you now trying to say vehicles don't produce smog?

No, I'm saying don't confuse GHGs with smog.

never said anything about CO2 and smog... or global warming... you did! I simply pointed out the error you made; that, technically, referring to smog and ghg is not incorrect, particularly as, again, a principle component of smog is ground-level ozone (O3)... and its 2 principle source components are indirect GHGs, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)... with both related to (more so NOx) human burning of fossil-fuels. You really should know when to just go quiet and accept you made a false/incorrect statement.

I trust you won't continue to derail this thread.

Only long-lived GHGs are relevant in the context of global warming. Don't purposely mislead people.

[Bryan]

The Conservatives sticking to their hard line on drugs is almost enough of a reason for me to change my vote.

Yeah. I'm not sure what the objective is with this blanket policy. Even most of their base have a much more nuanced stance than what they're advocating.

[Bryan]

Only long-lived GHGs are relevant in the context of global warming. Don't purposely mislead people.

Absolutely. If the anti-CO2 crowd were instead going after NOx, their cause would have significantly more credibility.

[drummindiver]

No, I'm saying don't confuse GHGs with smog.

Only long-lived GHGs are relevant in the context of global warming. Don't purposely mislead people.

That is false. CH4 is relatively short lived but captures radiation far more efficiently. The EPA states pound for pound methane is 25 times worse over a hundred year period than CO2.

number one source of methane? Industrial farming. Easy to legislate a reduction by legislating industrial farming, but clearly no political will for that.

[drummindiver]

Yeah. I'm not sure what the objective is with this blanket policy. Even most of their base have a much more nuanced stance than what they're advocating.

all political parties cannot be all things to all people. This is one of my pet peeves of the PCs, along with harm reduction.

[-1=e^ipi]

That is false. CH4 is relatively short lived but captures radiation far more efficiently.

It has a decay time of like 12 years. I wouldn't exactly call that short-lived.

It's not like it's a giant mystery of which are the most relevant human emitted greenhouse gases when it comes to global warming. CO2 is by far the most important, followed by CH4 and N2O. These 3 contribute to the vast majority of the change in GHG radiative forcing. Then you have a small amount of radiative forcing from other gases such as CFC-12 and CFC-11.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

[Smallc]

Yeah. I'm not sure what the objective is with this blanket policy. Even most of their base have a much more nuanced stance than what they're advocating.

I was almost certain that marijuana decriminilization was on the way.

[Argus]

I was almost certain that marijuana decriminilization was on the way.

Isn't it already, I mean, effectively? Does anyone go to jail for small amounts of marijuana unless they're repeat criminals the cops just want to screw over?

Edited August 11, 2015 by Argus

[Smallc]

Isn't it already, I mean, effectively? Does anyone go to jail for small amounts of marijuana unless they're repeat criminals the cops just want to screw over?

Shouldn't we then, make that the law, with actual limits that are simple to understand? Also, true decriminalization, with fines issued, could yield a great deal of money for governments.

[Argus]

Shouldn't we then, make that the law, with actual limits that are simple to understand? Also, true decriminalization, with fines issued, could yield a great deal of money for governments.

I dunno. You're arguing with the converted on that one. I think banning it is about as workable as banning alcohol was a hundred years ago. That's been pretty obvious for years now. But Harper isn't going to change it because that would mean going back on what he's said before, and he'll never do that. Maybe his successor will.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Argus

[Bryan]

I was almost certain that marijuana decriminilization was on the way.

In further reading the policy announcement, it doesn't look like marijuana is even the issue. They're specifically wanting to protect children from hard drugs and addiction. That's what I mean about nuance -- while I am essentially a libertarian when it comes to what adults want to put into their own bodies, I also absolutely believe that we have to do whatever it takes to keep hard street drugs away from kids. That's a very tough middle ground to balance.