The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Wezil]

I left out the references for a reason. I already stated much earlier I suspect more of this goes on than we know and I'm not trying to "pin" one on Harper. Hell, it was probably the same speechwriter that already fell on his sword.

I asked if it was plagiarism. There are differences in the two. Are they significant enough?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
I left out the references for a reason. I already stated much earlier I suspect more of this goes on than we know and I'm not trying to "pin" one on Harper. Hell, it was probably the same speechwriter that already fell on his sword.

I asked if it was plagiarism. There are differences in the two. Are they significant enough?

To be honest, they're completely vacuous comments and they're both by non-competing conservative politicians from the same country. My "give a ****" is so broke on this it's not even funny.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
NYE and you have both adopted an ambiguous stance - in suggesting that Dion's plan is to appeal to his base in Ontario and Quebec by shafting Alberta.

The issue is obviously a bit more complex than this. Taxing pollution is unfortunately the only efficient, market-approved way of reducing CO2 emissions.

What's ambiguous about what I have said?

I understand federal efforts to gain revenue out of the oil bonanza. I am concerned about how they do it.

None of the pin heads who spout that blather about how to reduce CO2 emmissions take into account that virtually none of the energy exporting nations have targets for reductions.

Before you point out Norway, check on their compliance with Kyoto targets.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
I left out the references for a reason. I already stated much earlier I suspect more of this goes on than we know and I'm not trying to "pin" one on Harper. Hell, it was probably the same speechwriter that already fell on his sword.

I asked if it was plagiarism. There are differences in the two. Are they significant enough?

No. It is plagerism.

[Wezil]

That to me is the futility of the whole effort. We are arguing about how to go about doing something that at the end of it all won't make a spec of difference so long as some nations won't (and will never) join in.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No. It is plagerism.

I wonder how many candidates out there are wondering about what they've said in speeches along the way...?

[Asher]

The power of Google...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
That to me is the futility of the whole effort. We are arguing about how to go about doing something that at the end of it all won't make a spec of difference so long as some nations won't (and will never) join in.

The entire effort isn't futile.

The energy industry is reducing CO2 output in real numbers even as they produce more.

The $2 billion that the GoA is spending on developing carbon capture technology will yield some results. If they are significant and economical, they could have far reaching impacts.

If consciousness of a problem had never grown, the efforts would never have been made.

I have no problem with making significant efforts to change our impact on the environment. I am all for it.

I have no problem with finding a way for the federal government to get a larger slice of the windfalls from sky high energy prices.

I have a significant problem with antagonistic pronouncements from deindustrialized basket cases about sacrifices for other people being necessary.

[Wezil]

Significant impacts to change our environment will be insignificant on the global level. The world's largest emitters need to sign on and I don't see that happening. I don't see consciousness raising working on some of these nations and economic pressure is something we won't use.

Asher - I can imagine every party hack/geek with a computer doing nothing but for the next few days.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher - I can imagine every party hack/geek with a computer doing nothing but for the next few days.

/me searches for the minicam.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Significant impacts to change our environment will be insignificant on the global level. The world's largest emitters need to sign on and I don't see that happening. I don't see consciousness raising working on some of these nations and economic pressure is something we won't use.

Asher - I can imagine every party hack/geek with a computer doing nothing but for the next few days.

It wouldn't be too difficult to throw together a script to tokenize a speech's text by sentences, google each one for exact matches, and flag the sentences which exist word-for-word in google.

But that's sad.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Wezil
That to me is the futility of the whole effort. We are arguing about how to go about doing something that at the end of it all won't make a spec of difference so long as some nations won't (and will never) join in.

To be honest, it may even be counter-productive for Canada to fight global warming. If spill-over effects from other countries aren't too big and we ignore the impacts that don't directly affect Canada, a warmer world is generally good for Canada.

That being said, if no one does anything, and worst case predictions come true, the world might go down in flames.

t wouldn't be too difficult to throw together a script to tokenize a speech's text by sentences, google each one for exact matches, and flag the sentences which exist word-for-word in google.

But that's sad.

Well, but that would make a wonderful way of catching plagiarism at the student level. You could probably make some money selling services to schools and universities.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Mighty nice of you to offer sacrifices on behalf of other people.

May I ask why we should threaten prosperity in a region of the country when there are other places in the world that are doing nothing whatsoever to reduce emmissions?

It's gradually happening. Why not lead the fanfare?

And Alberta's prosperity isn't really threatened. The cost of the Green Shift to Alberta would be roughly equivalent to its current surplus - on its fourth year. This would leave you with 4 years to adapt.

Again - incredibly low taxes, no debt, and a balanced budget. Even with the Green Shift, you'd be by far the richest province in the federation.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil
Meh. The counter argument is obvious but I'm not into it tonight.

Well - you're probably thinking that Ontario benefits more because it ships its manufactured goods to Alberta, and thus that subsidizing truckers is also indirect help to the Ontarian manufacturing base.

Bear in mind though that:
a) this would also mean cheaper goods for Albertan consumers
b) that construction and farming (two trucking-heavy industries) are much bigger in Alberta than Ontario.

That's why I believe the quoted numbers to be an accurate reflection of reality.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I have a significant problem with antagonistic pronouncements from deindustrialized basket cases about sacrifices for other people being necessary.

Everyone will be sacrificing something. Some more than others.

In a way, it's also Quebec getting shafted... because the market, and Harper's policies (driven by the oil lobby) won't recognize the true value of green energy.