Leaders debate Aug 6

[-1=e^ipi]

The symbolism of Canada meeting it's target commitments is profound within the community of world nations... notwithstanding the direct correlation that Canadian emission reduction should associate to more sustainable energy development/policy

So you are saying that we should ignore the free-rider problem with respect to CO2 emissions?

[Freddy]

of course this would dovetail quite nicely with the Harper Conservative strategy/intent to ignore any past emission reduction commitments made

Good, I believe those who made those commitments were wrong to do so in the first place.

[bush_cheney2004]

GHG emissions reductions were so important to Canada that Liberal party leadership (Chretien & Martin) had a complete FAIL for Kyoto protocols (treaty). That sure impressed the world...yessuh !!

[Argus]

Harper was his old stodgy self. Nothing exciting, but no gaffes either. I wasn't terribly inspired by his response to attacks on his budget deficits.

I think Mulcair accidentally gave him a terrific opening, and he ignored it. When Mulcair delivered the obviously pre-practiced sneer that Harper is the only prime minister to govern through two deficits, Harper should have thanked him for noticing. He should have said "I'd like to thank the leader of the NDP for pointing this out. All of the opposition party leaders have acted so far as if the economy operates in a vacuum not affected by the rest of the world. But yes, we had a terrible world wide recession for much of my time in power. A number of countries almost wound up in bankruptcy because of it, and many still have double digit unemployment as they continue to try to recover. Fortunately, because of good fiscal policy, which included a very expensive economic stimulus program, and the oil industry which the other three parties want to destroy, Canada sailed through this terrible recession relatively unscathed. Now the oil industry faces its own international challenges, but Canada is again well-positioned to handle this, and we expect any economic setback to be quite minor and short term."

[Shady]

standard denier talking point! Well done. Again, the comparable level of Canada's emission reduction (relative to China, the U.S.) isn't the salient point. The symbolism of Canada meeting it's target commitments is profound within the community of world nations... notwithstanding the direct correlation that Canadian emission reduction should associate to more sustainable energy development/policy - the principal offering that Canada can provide to the world as distinct from Harper Conservatives approach to unfettered mega-developments intended to delay developing countries from reducing their dependencies on fossil-fuels... intended to delay developing countries from increasing their reliance on alternate energy pursuits.

I'm not interested in symbolism.

[Argus]

Yeah, that's true. So many examples of it in society.

"Raising the minimum wage will have 0 effect on employment and only hurts the super rich millionaires!"

"Significant CO2 mitigation policy will have no negative economic effects because it will create all these green jobs."

etc.

What they never talk about when they mention C02 mitigation or cap and trade, is that what they're planning is to make energy, both power, heating oil, natural gas and gasoline, more expensive. That's the essence of their policies, to make it all more expensive in the hope people use less of it. I bet there's lots of people earnestly nodding their heads at the thought of cap and trade or carbon taxing who have no idea it's going to raise the price of a tank of gas, raise the cost of heating their homes, raise the cost of electricity, and generally raise all the costs of goods for businesses which can pass those costs along.

[-1=e^ipi]

The liberals, NDP and greens kept claiming that we need a 'national' plan to tackle climate change, or we need a 'North American wide' plan to tackle climate change. But climate change is a global problem, so it needs to be tackled globally and there needs to be a global plan.

[Argus]

The liberals, NDP and greens kept claiming that we need a 'national' plan to tackle climate change, or we need a 'North American wide' plan to tackle climate change. But climate change is a global problem, so it needs to be tackled globally and there needs to be a global plan.

So far the 'global plan' is for the west to go into bankruptcy both taxing its industry to death while countries like China and India continue to pour ever more emissions into the atmosphere.

[waldo]

So far the 'global plan' is for the west to go into bankruptcy both taxing its industry to death while countries like China and India continue to pour ever more emissions into the atmosphere.

I'll keep asking for as long as you keep nattering on with this same ole, same ole talking point of yours. You keep mentioning India yet somehow refuse to step-up to the repeated request for you to support your statements. Whether India... or China... what foundation do you have to presume either country... or any country... will be given any special considerations in regards to the upcoming Paris COP meetings?

[waldo]

The liberals, NDP and greens kept claiming that we need a 'national' plan to tackle climate change, or we need a 'North American wide' plan to tackle climate change. But climate change is a global problem, so it needs to be tackled globally and there needs to be a global plan.

the National plan context is always... should always be with respect to a national energy strategy; a strategy that fits within the broader context of global emission reductions, a lessening of dependency on fossil-fuels, an increasing reliance on alternative energy options, etc. Of course, Harper doesn't do national energy policy when it requires cooperation and discussion with the collective provinces!

[waldo]

What they never talk about when they mention C02 mitigation or cap and trade, is that what they're planning is to make energy, both power, heating oil, natural gas and gasoline, more expensive. That's the essence of their policies, to make it all more expensive in the hope people use less of it. I bet there's lots of people earnestly nodding their heads at the thought of cap and trade or carbon taxing who have no idea it's going to raise the price of a tank of gas, raise the cost of heating their homes, raise the cost of electricity, and generally raise all the costs of goods for businesses which can pass those costs along.

***yawn***

see the most successful BC carbon tax!

[CITIZEN_2015]

I don't think that the opposition did a good job in the debate.

Edited August 24, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[waldo]

So you are saying that we should ignore the free-rider problem with respect to CO2 emissions?

qualify your "free rider" labeling... which countries and to what degree? Care to offer your solution on the presumed 'free rider' problem... and just how far back do you presume to measure given the ever year-upon-year accumulating nature of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere?

[waldo]

GHG emissions reductions were so important to Canada that Liberal party leadership (Chretien & Martin) had a complete FAIL for Kyoto protocols (treaty). That sure impressed the world...yessuh !!

each and every time you keep nattering on about Kyoto and Liberals I will keep enlightening you that the Liberal party had significant success in action and planned intent... it was Harper Conservatives that pulled the plug on Canada's participation right from Day1 when Harper chose to ignore the Liberal actions and plans and instead trumpeted forward with his own declared "made in Canada" solution. You know... just the first in the ongoing string of commitments that Harper failed at. And, as always, the real failure of Kyoto was the U.S participation in significantly tailoring/crafting the Kyoto agreement and making promises to signatory nations... promises that other nations moved to align with only to have the U.S. back out of its signatory pledges and participation in the accord.

[waldo]

I'm not interested in symbolism.

of course you are! The denier kind.

[Argus]

I'll keep asking for as long as you keep nattering on with this same ole, same ole talking point of yours. You keep mentioning India yet somehow refuse to step-up to the repeated request for you to support your statements. Whether India... or China... what foundation do you have to presume either country... or any country... will be given any special considerations in regards to the upcoming Paris COP meetings?

Special considerations? You act like they'll be ordered to cut emissions or something. Both are focused on the economy first, much as Canadians are.

[Argus]

each and every time you keep nattering on about Kyoto and Liberals I will keep enlightening you that the Liberal party had significant success in action and planned intent...

Uh... they had success in "planned intent"? Does that mean they had a successful plan to intend to do something that might cut emissions some day?

[Argus]

***yawn***

see the most successful BC carbon tax!

Mulcair and Trudeau are not talking about a carbon TAX, but of a cap and trade scheme which would wind up being a complicated sort of tax.

Regardless, the point behind all of them is to increase the cost of fuel and power. Ontario has already seen its power costs skyrocket under that kind of mentality. We don't need any more increases.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

I think for all intents and purposes of debate Elizabeth May was the clear winner last night.

I don't deny she did better than expected, and perhaps that will translate into some gains, but I don't think any of the four were clear winners.....or even losers.

[Smallc]

I don't know, to me it seems like trudeaus answer to everything was a group hug.

[Argus]

I don't know, to me it seems like trudeaus answer to everything was a group hug.

What makes you think a lot of people wouldn't be perfectly happy with that?

[Shady]

of course you are! The denier kind.

Nope, but I realize symbolism is very important to people like you. Unfortunely symbolism doesn't pay the bills. It doesn't provide good jobs or a strong economy. It doesn't put food on the table and savings in the bank. It's just meaningless tripe.

[Smallc]

What makes you think a lot of people wouldn't be perfectly happy with that?

I really hope not, but there's a good chance you're right.

[Vancouver King]

What makes you think a lot of people wouldn't be perfectly happy with that?

Let's see if I have this right:

Conservatives have in heavy rotation an attack ad that says Trudeau just isn't ready, yet he shows up at the first debate with a reasonable command of the issues, albeit with a bit too much exuberance.

At the same debate the PM inadvertently confirms the country is in recession - the second under his watch - and it raises the obvious question - why wasn't Harper ready?

[Smallc]

Let's see if I have this right:

Conservatives have in heavy rotation an attack ad that says Trudeau just isn't ready, yet he shows up at the first debate with a reasonable command of the issues, albeit with a bit too much exuberance.

He didn't offer anything. Were people even watching the same debate?

At the same debate the PM inadvertently confirms the country is in recession - the second under his watch - and it raises the obvious question - why wasn't Harper ready?

Actually, no one knows that for sure, especially considering the June trade numbers.

Also, ready how? What should he have done? What do you even mean?