[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I guess the negative aspects like ocean acidification, species extinction, extreme weather events, drought, ocean level rise and the risk the planet will be made uninhabitable tends to be more important.

[Monoriu]

I guess the negative aspects like ocean acidification, species extinction, extreme weather events, drought, ocean level rise and the risk the planet will be made uninhabitable tends to be more important.

Canada is too small to make a difference. 

[viper37]

I have always been profoundly puzzled by Canada's position on global warming.  If global temperature rises, large areas in Canada will become livable, arable lands.  Canada and Russia are probably the two greatest beneficiaries of global warming.  So Canada should encourage more CO2 emissions.  Yet they seem to be doing the opposite. 

large inhabited areas will become inhabitable (coastal areas), roads&people will have to be moved, historical monuments demolished and rebuilt further inland, mass species extinction will mean drastic changes in our food consumption - not necessarly for the better -, some areas will dry out, like the prairies, wich is our grain basket; some other areas, like Quebec, will become a giant swamp; with the opening of the north west passage we will need several billion$ worth of military navy investments to watch over the traffic, submarines, surface warfare ships, coast guard units, ground troops to patrol the shores (more than the actual rangers and few RCMP officers); invasive species from the south will move north, insects that usually did not survive our harsh winters will now survive and proliferate and cause tremendous damage to our flaura and in extreme cases, our health.

All in all, it's a question of costs: it costs less to tackle the problem head on when you can rather than wait for the consequences and react to it, totally caught off guard.

[viper37]

I guess the negative aspects like ocean acidification, species extinction, extreme weather events, drought, ocean level rise and the risk the planet will be made uninhabitable tends to be more important.

Canada is too small to make a difference. 

You're too small to make a difference.  It's not because you are honest that the level of crime will diminish.  Yet, you probably don't rob your neighbours and you don't seem the type to be a serial killer or organized crime hitman.

[viper37]

All these fights with Kathleen Wynne, are they hurting Helper more than helping him?  Ontario wants to play the Quebec game, the one we played in the 50s and 60s (never too late, I guess ), gaining more autonomy from Ottawa, and Ottawa does not want to move one iota. 

Harper is betting that Ontarians have exacly zero nationalism in them and will prefer 100 time out of 100 the canadian way with one big central government deciding for everything.

Wynne is betting that a Liberal government will be more amenable to her demands to create an Ontarian RRQ.  Doubtful.  Extremely doubtful.  They'll shower Ontario with money, though, that's a given.

[Monoriu]

I guess the negative aspects like ocean acidification, species extinction, extreme weather events, drought, ocean level rise and the risk the planet will be made uninhabitable tends to be more important.

Canada is too small to make a difference. 

You're too small to make a difference.  It's not because you are honest that the level of crime will diminish.  Yet, you probably don't rob your neighbours and you don't seem the type to be a serial killer or organized crime hitman.

I don't rob someone because the act will be directly attributable to me, and I'll go to jail.  It is personal.  But if I reduce my own use of carbons or whatever you want to call it, the effect on global warming is not material.  Global warming is impersonal. 

[viper37]

I don't rob someone because the act will be directly attributable to me, and I'll go to jail.  It is personal.  But if I reduce my own use of carbons or whatever you want to call it, the effect on global warming is not material.  Global warming is impersonal. 

lots of people do this without getting caught.  Global warming is as impersonal as just about anything.  You don't put your thrash in the street or anywhere you want.

[Monoriu]

I don't rob someone because the act will be directly attributable to me, and I'll go to jail.  It is personal.  But if I reduce my own use of carbons or whatever you want to call it, the effect on global warming is not material.  Global warming is impersonal. 

lots of people do this without getting caught.  Global warming is as impersonal as just about anything.  You don't put your thrash in the street or anywhere you want.

The difference is if there is any linkage between my actions and the consequences. 

If I commit a crime, I may or may not be caught.  There is, however, a very real possibility that I maybe caught.  If I don't want to face jail and other horrible consequences, I can easily fix that by not committing crimes.  Therefore, I will not commit crimes.

The key difference with global warming is that my individual actions have negligible chance of changing the outcome.  Even if I don't drive, don't use air-conditioning etc, the horrible outcomes will remain the same.  I cannot fix that.  Therefore, it doesn't make sense to pay the cost of attempting to fix something that is not fixable. 

[crazy canuck]

The difference is if there is any linkage between my actions and the consequences. 

That is only a question of the weaknesses in the law.

[Monoriu]

The difference is if there is any linkage between my actions and the consequences. 

That is only a question of the weaknesses in the law.

Are you suggesting that carbon emissions should be outlawed, or those who release carbon into the atmosphere should pay a fee?  That only works if everybody in the world enacts and enforces these laws, and I don't think that is going to happen.

[viper37]

The key difference with global warming is that my individual actions have negligible chance of changing the outcome.  Even if I don't drive, don't use air-conditioning etc, the horrible outcomes will remain the same.  I cannot fix that.  Therefore, it doesn't make sense to pay the cost of attempting to fix something that is not fixable. 

It is fixable at a lower cost than doing nothing.

[Monoriu]

The key difference with global warming is that my individual actions have negligible chance of changing the outcome.  Even if I don't drive, don't use air-conditioning etc, the horrible outcomes will remain the same.  I cannot fix that.  Therefore, it doesn't make sense to pay the cost of attempting to fix something that is not fixable. 

It is fixable at a lower cost than doing nothing.

It is a prisoner's dilemma on a global scale, and I assume that everybody will betray me. 

[Neil]

The key difference with global warming is that my individual actions have negligible chance of changing the outcome.  Even if I don't drive, don't use air-conditioning etc, the horrible outcomes will remain the same.  I cannot fix that.  Therefore, it doesn't make sense to pay the cost of attempting to fix something that is not fixable. 

It is fixable at a lower cost than doing nothing.

The only way to fix it is to use hydrogen bombs to destroy China and India.  The dust in the atmosphere will help counteract the CO2.

[viper37]

The key difference with global warming is that my individual actions have negligible chance of changing the outcome.  Even if I don't drive, don't use air-conditioning etc, the horrible outcomes will remain the same.  I cannot fix that.  Therefore, it doesn't make sense to pay the cost of attempting to fix something that is not fixable. 

It is fixable at a lower cost than doing nothing.

It is a prisoner's dilemma on a global scale, and I assume that everybody will betray me. 

ultimately, your government will levy taxes/trade tariffs to finance the costs and you will pay it, or your descendants will, wich means they'll screw you over to your pension funds.

[crazy canuck]

The difference is if there is any linkage between my actions and the consequences. 

That is only a question of the weaknesses in the law.

Are you suggesting that carbon emissions should be outlawed, or those who release carbon into the atmosphere should pay a fee?  That only works if everybody in the world enacts and enforces these laws, and I don't think that is going to happen.

I am suggesting that your argument that your individual actions lack consequences is specious.   You created a very narrow definition of consequence.