can you run a follow-up to this in a month, please?

i'm curious to see the reaction when absolutely nothing happens.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-sewage-dump-city-will-announce-details-today-1.3311931

there are four people with indian ethnic backgrounds, and they are all clearly people of colour.

i'd like to be terse, but i think it's actually an opportunity to remind people that canada is not the united states. that applies both to the history of the country and to it's existing demographics. as others have pointed out, there are very few people of african background in canada and most have emigrated here since 1970. there's no asians in the cabinet, either; in canada, in 2015, that is a far more conspicuous omission. the legacy of slavery that underlies american structural racism is really absent here. it's disingenuous to bring in language meant for alabama or south africa. and, explicitly rejecting it is a question of being clear-thinking.

sometimes when things are invisible it's because they've been erased. but, sometimes when things are invisible it's because they really simply aren't there.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-blacks-still-waiting-for-their-moment-of-real-change/article27175310

obama has made the united states "energy independent" by pushing through massive amounts of fracking, which releases large amounts of the worst greenhouse gas - methane. if he had any interest in the climate, he'd have stopped that rather than encouraged it.

he didn't stop the pipeline on an epa review. he stopped it on a state department review. the state department determines strategic military goals - which includes controlling the supply of canadian oil.

the decision is meant to block exports to china, not to reduce emissions.

you're never going to win this argument the way you're articulating it. we rely massively on oil. you're telling people to freeze in the dark; don't be surprised when they ignore you.

the first thing that is necessary to transition from fossil fuels is investment in alternatives so that consumers have a realistic choice to reduce consumption. investment is also necessary to convert waste facilities and convert electricity generation. together, waste & electricity & heating add up to 30% of emissions - this is very low lying fruit and can get us a good way to our targets. it's done by investing in the proper technologies, in building the proper infrastructure and in modifying regulations and providing incentives (which includes lowering the price of clean electricity). the government is open in moving in this direction to the point that it was a big part of their platform.

it's a necessary condition before further action is feasible, and they want to do it. if you want to be taken seriously, you should be pushing for them to hold up to what they campaigned on first, and moving on to more stringent steps later.

another 25% comes from transportation - mostly fueled by imported oil, and increasingly from the united states. canada actually imports more fracked oil than it exports tar sands oil at this point. you should think about that. incentives can be made to get people to convert to electric cars or use public transportation, but you have to understand that people view their vehicles as investments and status symbols. this has to happen slowly. but, the alternatives have to exist first. so, we need to invest in cleaner cars first (preferably electric ones), then get people to buy them. so long as the grid gets converted, this is all good.

what's left is tar sands & industry - 35% of emissions - and the only serious way to get after this is through regulation. the big push back is how reliant our economy is on it. but, guess what? if you focus on the previous things first, the economy will shift and it will be a lot easier to get tough on regulations. so long as we're stuck with the oil industry for revenue (which is what happens when you tax them heavily), you're fighting a battle you can't win.

again: you're lucky. the government has made these choices for you. this is the order in which they will act. you just need to make sure they do it.

but, you're more likely to find success if you get with the program than fight against the current. please realize this and get with it.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/cameron-fenton/justin-trudeaus-sunny-way_b_8507460.html

Tom Robinson
And the Earth is not flat.

Terry Swidinsky
But it used to be the consensus that it was, until a few deniers started to cast dought on the whole issue.

jessica amber murray
this is a myth. flat earthers were always an extreme minority; the argument may have been biblical, but it was an interpretation created by a third party. the church actually accepted the science on this, which has been known since about 500 years before the common era. the cultures in greece & carthage were very maritime driven, and it is very hard to sail towards the horizon without realizing there is a curvature in front of you. you would have be wilfully blind to the evidence around you to think that the world is flat.

we did think the universe revolved around the earth, though.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/09/climate-science-indisputable-environment-minister-catherine-mckenna_n_8508708.html

--

Alice Scott Budden
I am not disputing climate change, however, I do have one question for the experts - How is raising taxes going to prevent climate change?

jessica amber murray
you're actually right, alice: taxation is not a social policy, and a carbon tax will not reduce emissions. it will just increase prices.

these people are throwing around a lot of right-wing economic theory and pretending it's progressive. the reality is that humans are not homo economicus, and pigovian taxes don't work. if we want a real solution, we need to drop the neo-liberal nonsense.

the right way to start off with this is through direct government investment: by studying the actual sources of emissions and replacing them with alternatives. once alternatives are in place, we can create incentives to switch to them.

despite fear-mongering by the media, and empty rhetoric from the ivory tower, the truth is that the liberals currently have no plans for a carbon tax. they do have plans for direct investment.

awwww.

the monarchist league of canada is worried...

awwwww.

there's no future for the queen of england in canada. so, let's get on with it and get rid of her altogether.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/09/trudeau-queen-portrait-foreign-affairs_n_8513004.html

this is indeed absolutely remarkable.

"people are going to think this is what yale is like."

it may be the most unintentionally ironic statement i've ever seen.

"it's not about creating an intellectual space, it's about creating a home."

what this really suggests is entitlement. you get this from students that have never received a B, consider themselves a part of an intellectual elite and look at a school as a kind of a club. they fail to realize that they coasted through school less on their intelligence and more on the mediocrity of the curriculum. what's lacking is actually a concept of work.

stated otherwise, that's a spoiled brat.

polymath7
+jessica "it may be the most unintentionally ironic statement i've ever seen. "

Pardon me, but "may be"? Can you name three others that even come close? This is not a rhetorical question. 

jessica
+polymath7 i think it's asking me a little much to be able to definitely state that anything is the most anything that i've ever experienced.

i'm not going to sit here for hours and rack my brain. but, i had a 12 year-old little sister at one point. i'm sure i could come up with something.

polymath7
+jessica That's kind of the point though, you'd have to rack your brain. I racked mine for several minutes, and came up with nothing. Nothing...

edit: I  had a cousin who once belligerently said, "I don't give a fuck what 'apathy' means" -but he was nine years old, and that's still not as egregious as this.

09-11-2015: cleaning & keystone