Evening Star Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Like, this was not a comedy sketch?: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 And people call Harper a robot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Mr. Harper and I differ on policy...but I'm not going to say a thing about that. Policy doesn't really matter at all to me actually. Would you like a hug? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 qualify your "free rider" labeling... which countries and to what degree? Care to offer your solution on the presumed 'free rider' problem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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? I don't understand your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 I find it interesting that Trudeau kept bringing up his 3 children when talking about climate change. Isn't population growth one of the reasons fossil fuel emissions are going to increase over the coming decades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 I was a strong supporter of Trudeau. His closing statement last night made me vomit. I may decline my vote this year. This will be nothing more than the same old same old. Anyone who thought Trudeau's closing statement was sincere should have his/her head examined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Like, this was not a comedy sketch?: It needs to run through your veins and you need to feel it in your bones! That's the most cringe inducing political commentary I've heard in a long time. Are his speech writers 16 year olds or something? That tripe was as juvenile and meaningless as it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 While Rubio and Bush were both perceived as winners, there was a big gap in perceptions about their respective performances. Those who characterized Rubio as the winner tended to offer glowing assessments; those who picked Bush thought he won simply by not losing. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/politico-caucus-republican-debate-donald-trump-biggest-loser-121146.html#ixzz3iBmVS2Wp This is from an article about the GOP debates and I think relates to how we are viewing our own debates. Those who favour Harper or Mulcair offer glowing assessments of how they handled the debate. Which probably reflects the way we plan on voting more than whether they actually did any good. I think this more reflects the fact that neither of them lost any ground. Those who favour Trudeau in the debate think he did good simply because he didn't get pummeled. Which I think is more Harpers fault as painting him not ready, now he uses his perceived inexperience to actually gain followers who think he really didn't seem that bad. It was worth a shot from the Concamp but now they may have to move on to a new attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Anyone who thought Trudeau's closing statement was sincere should have his/her head examined. But he looked me in the eyes and made all the correct facial expressions. Surely it is sincere! It needs to run through your veins and you need to feel it in your bones! Not to mention one could argue that he is implying that being Prime Minister is his birthright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Gee, i havent heard that before I'm hearing a number of my younger co-workers talking about voting, my 'kids' too. I'm chagrined to say I'll probably even give it the old college try even if I'm still of the opinion that voting all to often just inspires the bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) I'm hearing a number of my younger co-workers talking about voting, my 'kids' too. I'm chagrined to say I'll probably even give it the old college try even if I'm still of the opinion that voting all to often just inspires the bastards. I don't recall hearing this kind of chatter in the last 3 elections. I haven't heard people under 25 talking about how the debates went before. Today at work was weird. I can actually have intelligent conversations with young people about the debates. It's actually kind of odd how engaged they are this time around. Frankly, I personally think that more people are engaged for this election than any of the recent elections we've had. A large portion of that can no doubt be attributed to the steady rise of social media. Edited August 8, 2015 by PrimeNumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 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. you've already been apprised of the voluntary initiatives taken by both China and India... you've already been apprised of the agreements made between the U.S. and China/India, as precursors to the Paris COP... whether or not an outcome of that directly results in... or ultimately leads to a legally binding emission reduction agreement. You have nothing concrete to offer to support any of the repeat (unsubstantiated) statements you continue to make! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 If you can argue that a 3% yearly increase in health spending is a cut, aka a reduction, then I suppose someone could argue our C02 emissions are also being reduced, even if they aren't, but they actually are. Math is really not your forte apparently. 3% is less than 6%. If you think our emissions are reducing, you must be buying a Harper graph. But keep trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Have emissions gone up, or down so far? UP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 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? you clearly know nothing about what the Liberal party did in moving to meet Canada's Kyoto obligations... I've documented it in previous MLW threads, principally as a result of the continual nattering from the U.S. interloper who continues to bleat on about "Canada's Kyoto failure"... a presumed failure that he purposely frames as a "Liberal failure" for no other reason than to 'stir the pot'. It's quite telling that he/any persons that raise Kyoto conveniently fail to mention just what Harper did... conveniently fail to mention the real Kyoto failure, as in the U.S. abandonment of the treaty done after influencing the treaty makeup and other nations actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 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. citation request Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 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. yes - that's exactly what your platitudes are... that's exactly what your denier talking points are - meaningless tripe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Actually, no one knows that for sure, especially considering the June trade numbers. even Harper? C'mon... he finally admitted it! After being pummeled by Mulcair, the scrambling Harper uttered the "Canada is in a recession" phrase that will be repeated a brazillion times going forward! That's the zinger outcome of this debate! but, once again, we have all these Harper apologists reaching for the 'first recession' as a ready go-to to explain the failed Harper economic plans. And here I thought we had a pretty decent discussion on just what a meager impact that recession actually had on Canada... and here I thought you finally conceded that point! You clearly have a short memory... or a rather selective one! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Like, this was not a comedy sketch?: apparently, many were taken with presumed sincerity in that closing statement - many outside of die-hard Harper supporters - go figure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Mr. Harper and I differ on policy...but I'm not going to say a thing about that. Policy doesn't really matter at all to me actually. Would you like a hug? spoken like the uber-partisan you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem I don't understand your question. why feign ignorance? I certainly don't need you presuming to tell me what "free-rider problem" means. I asked you very pointed questions that are very clear and very precise... again: - 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? (if you're going to posture with "free-rider", step-up and speak to just how you'd deal with it, particularly if your premise is to account for inequities in the magnitude of fossil-fuel use and accompanying emissions related to that use... again, just how far back do you go... how many years back?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 I find it interesting that Trudeau kept bringing up his 3 children when talking about climate change. Isn't population growth one of the reasons fossil fuel emissions are going to increase over the coming decades? what's your number? How many children would you allow? Are you leaning to a "Canadian one-child policy"? Oh my! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 I was a strong supporter of Trudeau. His closing statement last night made me vomit. I may decline my vote this year. This will be nothing more than the same old same old. Anyone who thought Trudeau's closing statement was sincere should have his/her head examined. say what? I thought you were against the "Neo-Cons"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 I don't recall hearing this kind of chatter in the last 3 elections. I haven't heard people under 25 talking about how the debates went before. Today at work was weird. I can actually have intelligent conversations with young people about the debates. It's actually kind of odd how engaged they are this time around. Frankly, I personally think that more people are engaged for this election than any of the recent elections we've had. A large portion of that can no doubt be attributed to the steady rise of social media. some of that is concerted efforts to go after the Harper "Unfair Elections Act". Notwithstanding the promises of First Nations chiefs/spokespersons to mobilize a voting force/block never seen before... if that actually transpires, some analysts predict a significant number of close seats being impacted. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 - qualify your "free rider" labeling... which countries and to what degree? All countries suffer from the free-rider problem. The fact that CO2 emissions have global impacts, yet we have ~200 countries all acting in their own national best interest means that countries will have an incentive to cheat international agreements since the impact of their own emissions are not fully internalized within their own country. Care to offer your solution on the presumed 'free rider' problem... If there were an easy solution to the free rider problem, it wouldn't be such a problem. I can't give a solution that will solve everything, but I can point out things that will help: 1. Acknowledge the free-rider problem and its magnitude. This is something that the vast majority of politicians in all countries are not doing. The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging its existence. 2. Slowly narrow the space of possible negotiated solutions to climate change. The set of solutions is infinitely dimensional, and having each country negotiate an arbitrary target decreases the chances of obtaining a solution. It is known that the less parameters there are to argue over, the higher the chance of obtaining a negotiated solution. Not to mention that you don't want all your gains that could be made from mitigation policy to be eaten up by endless negotiations and rent seeking. This means that the way these climate change negotiations are approached needs to be completely rethought. Rather than each country pledging arbitrary targets, we should first try to get agreements on basic axioms or statements that will reduce the space of solutions. For example, getting countries to agree on a range of values of ECS, getting countries to agree on acceptable levels of risk aversion, agree to an acceptable discount rate, etc. 3. The primary mitigation policy needs to be a global pigouvian tax with equal rate for everyone, no exceptions. Not only does this result in the largest emission reduction for a given cost to your economy, but it reduces the space of mitigation options to 1 parameter which varies over time, thus it greatly increases the chances of obtaining a global solution. Not to mention, determining the optimal level calculating the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions becomes arguably an empirical question. 4. Take a more tit-for-tat approach. Rather than perform mitigation policy regardless of what other countries do (or worse, do mitigation policy to offset what other countries do), threaten to do 0 mitigation policy if other countries do not also do mitigation policy. This increases the incentive for other countries to perform mitigation policy and come to the negotiating table. Not to mention that given that Canada is a relatively cold country, we can play the game of 'chicken' longer than other countries, so eventually they will cave. 5. Realize that some countries are so irrational that they will never agree to a globally optimal solution. Some countries that Saudi Arabia believe that women shouldn't drive, evolution is a lie, oil is their gift from Allah, gays and apostates should be killed and are more interesting in spreading Wahabbism. Other countries like North Korea are more interested in maintaining power and will view any international agreement as a foreign imperialist threat from the capitalists meant to destroy their national identity. So no matter what there will be non-compliant countries that will try to free-ride or try to get absurd concessions. 6. Be willing to use economic sanctions or even military force on non-compliant countries. At best, it might be possible to get an agreement which contains the world's main economic and military powers (i.e. NATO, Japan, Australia and the BRICS). If you do get this type of agreement, then it might be possible to impose the agreed upon solution on non-compliant countries through threats of economic sanctions and military action. This is a far more realistic solution since now you only need an agreement by ~20 countries rather than ~200 and you get rid of the problem of having to negotiate with irrational actors. and just how far back do you presume to measure given the ever year-upon-year accumulating nature of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere? I still don't understand your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.