[Hydrogen]

Yeah, but that debate isn't relevant. You accused Dion of not practicing what he preaches. He preaches carbon taxes, he's paying 'carbon taxes'. Your feigned indignation doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, a denier yourself.

Dion is paying to emit carbon dioxide, not reduce it. Somehow that's just not clear to you. Put another way: he's not reducing the emissions of what he believes to be at the centre of a crisis he imagines to be happening; he is paying to emit more of the stuff he thinks is causing it.

So he is buying an indulgence. He's trying to buy his way out of sin.

afransen, in so many posts you imagine to know what I am thinking. Allow me to assure you that you don't. I think Dion is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who believes in buying the right to do what he believes is wrong. The fact that you accept that action as a means to weasel out of actually reducing emissions when it is believed that these emissions are at of heart of a supposed crisis suggests that you are not so committed to the cause you promote.

The use of the word "denier" is nothing more than an attempt to draw a connection to Holocaust denial, and that's rather sad on your part.

 

[adma]

The use of the word "denier" is nothing more than an attempt to draw a connection to Holocaust denial, and that's rather sad on your part.

Well, it ain't got nothing to do with the textile density of hosiery...

 

[Dichotomy]

I understand what Dion and others are trying to do: you burn a lot of fossil fuels, so let's tax those fuels and use the tax to invest in benign projects like wind power or offset those carbon emissions by planting trees (or paying someone to plant trees) in Costa Rica. Sounds great on paper.

I have 3 problems with this:

1) How much of that money will actually be used to 'offset' the feared emissions, as opposed to how much money will simply get swallowed up into the bureaucracy, whether the bureaucracy is government or corporate.
2) Again (yes, beating a dead horse) until we get the BRIC countries on board, what we do is just pissing into the wind.
3) I am unconvinced that global warming has been proven, or if it is proven, that it is a bad thing, or if it is a bad thing, that we (humans) are even responsible.

There is too much shouting from the side lines and not enough data. I had one colleague tell me that they saw more icebergs in Newfoundland this year than ever before and that his father never remembers icebergs this late in the season.
Hey, I love anecdotal evidence as much as the next guy, but even if the ice caps are having a particularly bad melt, is that a trend or an event? We know the sun is 6% cooler than a few hundred million years ago. What if we find out Mars used to have life and is now dead and lifeless because of the sun cooling down? Then maybe greenhouse gases are all that is preventing another ice age. Recent studies have proven that the earth was frozen solid (like a snow ball) 3 times in our history. What triggered that?
What affects do the ocean currents have on our weather? Scientists are only scraping the surface (no pun intended) of those models.

It makes sense to me that 6 1/2 billion people must be having some sort of an environmental impact, but is global warming our fault? There was a time when scientists thought all the pollutants (and volcanic activity, etc) were going to cause a global cooling.Maybe the greenhouse gases are counter-acting that?
It can't hurt to invest in windmills and solar, but before we start moving back into caves, I would need a lot more evidence, other than the propoganda that Al Gore preaches.

 

[afransen]

Dion is paying to emit carbon dioxide, not reduce it. Somehow that's just not clear to you. Put another way: he's not reducing the emissions of what he believes to be at the centre of a crisis he imagines to be happening; he is paying to emit more of the stuff he thinks is causing it.

He's doing exactly what he preaches as far as paying a price for emitting carbon. That is the policy he is proposing. It really is that simple. You can try to argue whether the offset does or does not do anything, but that is pure supposition on your part. The money, in case you're curious, was used to renovate a seniors' home in Montreal to increase its energy efficiency. I didn't make any claim that whatever money he spent would actually reduce emissions. The carbon tax (that is, the proceeds from it) do not need to be used to reduce emissions for the tax to have its desired effect of decreasing consumption relative to the business as usual case.

Now, to extend your argument to its logical extreme, Dion could not avoid being hypocritical unless he became a hermit living off the land, thereby not inducing any emissions directly or indirectly. That makes it rather difficult to actually effect change, much less be prime minister. So you can call him a hypocrite (though I don't see the hypocrisy wrt the carbon tax), but it's relative.

So he is buying an indulgence. He's trying to buy his way out of sin.

Ok, if you're going to criticise me for using the word 'denier', perhaps you can try to avoid the overt religious references.

afransen, in so many posts you imagine to know what I am thinking. Allow me to assure you that you don't. I think Dion is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who believes in buying the right to do what he believes is wrong. The fact that you accept that action as a means to weasel out of actually reducing emissions when it is believed that these emissions are at of heart of a supposed crisis suggests that you are not so committed to the cause you promote.

I think this is a rather ideological point of view. You're suggesting that, to avoid hypocrisy, any individual that thinks CO2 emissions should be reduced must immediately cease burning any and all fossil fuels. That isn't very pragmatic. In this case, anyone who claims to believes in environmental protection is essentially a hypocrite by continuing to live. So, in other words, in order to live without hypocrisy, one must live without regard for the health of the ecosystem. I don't agree with this reasoning as it is essentially useless. Interesting to muse about but not immediately relevant to politics, certainly.

The use of the word "denier" is nothing more than an attempt to draw a connection to Holocaust denial, and that's rather sad on your part.

"you imagine to know what I am thinking. Allow me to assure you that you don't."

One who denies is a denier. If you want to take it to have some unrelated connotation, I suppose that is your right. However, I did not intend any such meaning--I think the Holocaust is trotted out far too often as it is and is incredibly boring. When was the last time we had an election without someone invoking Hitler, Nazism or the Holocaust? The days of Borden Buggies, I suppose.

--------------

Dichotomy, to correct your perception of Dion's proposal, Dion does not intend to use the carbon tax to pay for 'windmills'. The proceeds would be primarily used to reduce income taxes and increase transfers to individuals who would be disproportionately affected by the increase in energy prices.

The interesting thing about the carbon tax is that it doesn't really matter whether you think AGW is valid or not: there are very good fiscal reasons to embrace the shift in taxation. For those fiscal advantages, it also doesn't matter whether the rest of the world reduces emissions or not.

 

[tkip]

Overpopulation, resources dwindling, overconsumtion... Endgame?

All this talk regarding overpopulation and resources reminds me of a few talks I've had with people over the years with some background in these areas.

My brother went to University of Guelph and studied biology and zoologly. They had numerous lectures on peak oil, resources, weather changes, pollution and so on. Can't go into details(over my head) but my brother pretty much said that the tone of the lectures was suggesting a not too pleasant future.

A future coming at us fast.

One of my other friends went to his doctor a couple of years ago and got the lecture from his physician about how another major global pandemic is coming.

His opinion was that it was going to be huge. He comically told my friend that it was time for a culling of the herd anyway, so to speak. I believe this conversation happened because my friend went in for a flu shot.

I'm of the opinion that things come in cycles. Societys have declined or collapsed throughout history and nature has a way of knocking life backwards when it gets out of wack. We're not immune to these forces.

Personally, I cannot think of how this planet's resources, stretched as they are now can sustain us as a species with 6 billion of us and counting. The resources are just going to be exhausted. We're heading for collapse.

It's going to be a mess.

I'm not optimistic at all we're going to change our ways and avoid this future now. As someone already pointed out, there are too many powerful forces with their own self interests entrenched in the currnet system continuing as is for this to occur.

Maybe this whole peak oil scenerio might do the trick though. If it happens.

 

[Hydrogen]

afransen, you say that:

He's doing exactly what he preaches as far as paying a price for emitting carbon.

He is emitting carbon, which according to him, is bad - regardless of the indulgence he is paying.

You can try to argue whether the offset does or does not do anything, but that is pure supposition on your part.

It's pure supposition on your part whether the indulgence is doing anything. The point is he is pumping out carbon dioxide, bucks or no bucks.

I didn't make any claim that whatever money he spent would actually reduce emissions.

I pointed out to you that he was emitting lots of what he says is bad.

Now, to extend your argument to its logical extreme, Dion could not avoid being hypocritical unless he became a hermit living off the land, thereby not inducing any emissions directly or indirectly.

He wants to see massive reductions he promises, and will require that others do so, he should practice what he preaches.

Ok, if you're going to criticise me for using the word 'denier', perhaps you can try to avoid the overt religious references.

I'm not religious and never was. You went to Catholic school. Maybe you are reading things that are not there on the basis of your religious beliefs.

I think this is a rather ideological point of view. You're suggesting that, to avoid hypocrisy, any individual that thinks CO2 emissions should be reduced must immediately cease burning any and all fossil fuels. That isn't very pragmatic

If a person is demanding that everyone must meet benchmarks for reductions in CO2 emissions, and if that person wants to lead the country, he should lead by example. I find that to be quite pragmatic. Clearly you don't. That suggests your own ideology at work.

In this case, anyone who claims to believes in environmental protection is essentially a hypocrite by continuing to live. So, in other words, in order to live without hypocrisy, one must live without regard for the health of the ecosystem. I don't agree with this reasoning as it is essentially useless. Interesting to muse about but not immediately relevant to politics, certainly.

I think Dion could live without his airplane. As to the rest of this, that is your confusion. The gas in question - atmospheric carbon dioxide - is a natural and essential part of the ecosystem. Concentrations of this gas have been much higher in the past, and the ecosystem thrived. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last thirty million years has dropped, and is now quite low when compared to the past.

One who denies is a denier.

I'm a skeptic. It's you who is in the role of the true believer here.

Invoking the word "denier" is done so as a ploy to draw a relationship to Holocaust deniers.

I think the Holocaust is trotted out far too often as it is and is incredibly boring.

It's people who draw false parallels with the Holocaust who make it banal. This is exactly what invoking the loaded term of "denier" does.

 

[Hydrogen]

It's going to be a mess.

I'm not optimistic at all we're going to change our ways and avoid this future now.

That's the spirit!

 

[afransen]

afransen, you say that:



He is emitting carbon, which according to him, is bad - regardless of the indulgence he is paying.

We are throwing true statements at each other. Both are true. Shall we continue to do so?

I think it isn't fair to say that he believes any level of carbon emissions is bad. As with most things, moderation is key.

It's pure supposition on your part whether the indulgence is doing anything. The point is he is pumping out carbon dioxide, bucks or no bucks.

It's supposition on your part that it won't. Yet another impasse; let's move on.

I pointed out to you that he was emitting lots of what he says is bad.

Boring....

He wants to see massive reductions he promises, and will require that others do so, he should practice what he preaches.

He doesn't promise any particular level of reductions. He does practice what he preaches, by paying a carbon tax. I think we're not going to agree on this point either...

I'm not religious and never was. You went to Catholic school. Maybe you are reading things that are not there on the basis of your religious beliefs.

I don't think you need to be religious to make religious references. I'd argue that accusing Dion of being a 'sinful' purchaser of indulgences is more inflammatory than the use of the word 'denier'.

Beyond that, I don't understand this comment. For someone who isn't religious, it's interesting that you invoke the idea of sin, which has no meaning outside of religion.

If a person is demanding that everyone must meet benchmarks for reductions in CO2 emissions, and if that person wants to lead the country, he should lead by example.

Good point, please tell Harper and Layton this. Dion doesn't set benchmarks in his policy.

I find that to be quite pragmatic. Clearly you don't. That suggests your own ideology at work.

Immediately ceasing the consumption of fossil fuels, sparking the collapse of the economy and modern civilization is many things, but I don't think it could be called pragmatic. As a reminder:

pragmatism: a practical approach to problems and affairs

Maybe you should petition Merriam-Websters to add your definition...

The gas in question - atmospheric carbon dioxide - is a natural and essential part of the ecosystem. Concentrations of this gas have been much higher in the past, and the ecosystem thrived. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last thirty million years has dropped, and is now quite low when compared to the past.

Yes, yes. We've all heard the spin. There is no moderation with you. Is any level of CO2 concentration too high, in your estimation?

Invoking the word "denier" is done so as a ploy to draw a relationship to Holocaust deniers.

Is that so? I suppose it'd be for the best if we struck it from the lexicon. Probably should get rid of any variation on the root, as well. And rename the Nile, just to be safe...

 

[Hipster Duck]

Um, back to immigration...

Cities like Calgary and Edmonton are already fairly diverse measured by anything other than Toronto's superlative standards.

One question is whether this will change the political landscape in the west. Immigrants traditionally vote Liberal, but is that more a result of the fact that immigrants have traditionally settled in Liberal strongholds, such as the GTA or Vancouver and sort of follow the herd?

 

[Hydrogen]

Yes, yes. We've all heard the spin. There is no moderation with you. Is any level of CO2 concentration too high, in your estimation?

Ah yes, the we. The illusion of unanimity. You never actually responded to what I wrote, though. Clearly any CO2 is a threat to you, and your solution is a tax.

Boring...

Um, back to immigration...

I agree, there is already another thread on the above topic.

 

[Disparishun]

Um, back to immigration...

Cities like Calgary and Edmonton are already fairly diverse measured by anything other than Toronto's superlative standards.

One of the real advantages, I think, will be the opportunity to see how different jurisdictions address diversity, and maybe learn from one another.

Every province west of Ontario (and one east of it, Quebec) funds the public curriculum portion of minority religious and cultural schools. But Alberta goes further by allowing charter and bilingual schools. The result has been full K-12 bilingual schools in ASL, German, Mandarin, and Ukrainian, with others to come, and still more at the primary level only -- all this in addition to French -- as well as school orientations ranging from Muslim to Suzuki music.

Obviously, this means a bit more money going to administer more types of school, inspect their curricula, etc. But they're clearly operating under the assumption that it will pay off somehow, whether by trying to get multilingualism to flourish rather than fossilize, increase diversity of viewpoints and cultures, or just attract more residents who are interested in alternative school choices for their kids.

I imagine that there are other areas where different diversity policies will emerge, too. That's more about social policy than political affiliations, but I think it is an important aspect of provinces like Alberta attracting more immigrants -- more a result than a cause, mind you (surely the booming economy there is the cause).

 

[afransen]

Hydrogen, I never said that any amount of CO2 emissions was bad. That logic was all yours.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen, I never said that any amount of CO2 emissions was bad. That logic was all yours.

Let's take it to the other thread.

 

[theowne]

Interesting article. I've read through it, and this is the basic point of the paper:

Overall, workers of colour are much more highly educated than all other workers, with similarly small proportions who have less than a high school education, and a significantly higher proportion (32.5% vs. 20.0%, or one in three vs. one in five) having a university degree or higher. Canadian-born workers of colour are much less likely to have not completed high school than other workers of colour (9.3% vs. 18.4%) and more likely to have a university degree or higher (37.5% vs. 31.5%). Canadian-born workers of colour in this age group are also much more highly educated than other Canadian-born persons. These findings are true for both women and men. In general then, workers of colour have a much higher education level, but more likely to be unemployed, and earn lower wages than other Canadians. With many employers requiring Canadian work experience and the lack of recognition of foreign credentials, a gap between the qualifications of
immigrant workers of colour, and the types of occupations that they find work in, could be expected. However, Canadian-born workers of colour have higher educational outcomes, and still suffer from higher unemployment and lower earnings than other Canadian-born workers or immigrant workers of colour.

I think the term 'People of color' is confusing, though. At some point in time, it even referred to Greeks/Italians. Sometimes it seems to mean only black people. In this article it refers to any non-"white".