5 ms·

This is not some kind of race where anyone has to get ahead of each other. These complex issues have two sides and we need to examine the both.

• a-priori 10y ago
  People have examined the issue. They concluded that carbon emissions are causing increased global temperatures, and that the solution is to reduce carbon emissions. The best way we know of to do so on a national scale is by adding a cost on the polluter for emitting carbon. Now we're moving on from examining the issue to implementing solutions, and the Paris Agreement -- which came into effect earlier this month -- is the international community declaring that this is the case. Canada is implementing its part of the Agreement as promised.
  • blackflame7000 10y ago
    This sounds like the opinion of someone who has never had to deal with business crushing regulation. The fact is that there needs to be a balance. It is foolish to impose economy killing policies when other countries openly pollute vast quantities on the other side of the planet. Additionally, many of these policies assume Man is only capable of causing climate change and not capable of fixing it. However, early experimental evidence supports the notion that we might be able to solve the carbon problem scientifically. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co... Obviously this is not a call to abandon environmental protections, but rather a call to be more pragmatic in our solutions. If this last month has taught me anything its that projections are not fortunes and it is dangerous to assume the equivalence.
    • zbyte64 10y ago
      According to the article Canada will actually be reducing the amount of regulation: "He proposes therefore to cut existing regulations on carbon, such as vehicle efficiency standards and carbon dioxide standards that mandate carbon capture for new coal-fired power plants."
    • brandon272 10y ago
      What would you like to see happen? Which carbon-reduction policies do you support?
      • blackflame7000 10y ago
        If I had the choice between an unproven-policy or nothing I would choose nothing. The reason is simple: failed policies cause intangible but very real harm. The fact that the harm is intangible means you will never have the anecdotal evidence of its harm and are instead left with the unquantifiable number of all the businesses that could have been if only they weren't regulated out of existence. Clearly you can see the danger in this because it harms a party that cannot defend itself: the economy. Make no mistake, both nature and the economy are very sophisticated ecosystems and we need both to thrive.
    • sdm 10y ago
      But Carbon taxes are proven policy that benefit the economy. See the FA's reference to BC's carbon tax which has been an enormous success. We are long past the point where people can claim carbon taxes as potentially negative for the economy or unproven.
      • blackflame7000 10y ago
        The simple fact is that carbon taxes are only effective if all countries are participating but India, China, and large portions of Africa, the middle east, and south america are not. It will not be effective until we solve 3rd world problems first.
  • tn13 10y ago
    There are large number of people who have seen faults with the examinations as well as conclusions and most certainly the implementations. > is the international community declaring that this is the case. Politicians not the people themselves.
• erikpukinskis 10y ago
  It is a race. People are dying every day due to climate change and it is accelerating. Many will die, possibly billions, in the next 100 years. We are racing to try to bring that number down, but we have already lost the game.