apparently the people of Quebec would agree that 18-22 year old university students are perfectly capable to represent their country in parliament and be part of the decision making process seeing as how they voted in like 4 of them in the last election. pretty nice pay raise for them too (i would like to go from making $3,000 a summer to over $100k/year that an Mp makes)

Originally Posted by BlakeM

You can't be serious.

That's what a democracy is about. This is what has been happening for the last 100 years in the Western world.

Originally Posted by fffw

apparently the people of Quebec would agree that 18-22 year old university students are perfectly capable to represent their country in parliament and be part of the decision making process seeing as how they voted in like 4 of them in the last election. pretty nice pay raise for them too (i would like to go from making $3,000 a summer to over $100k/year that an Mp makes)

People in Quebec/Canada RARELY vote for the individual candidates, they vote for the party. This is because Canada has one of the strictest party disciplines of any modern democracy, i.e. the MP's are forced to vote on legislation based on how the party wants them too, rather than what is best for their individual riding.

In Quebec these individuals getting elected was part of an overarching movement in Quebec away from the traditional Bloc Quebecois and towards the NDP.

Climate change for some reason reminds me of studying..

Right now, we're kinda sorta skimming the material, puttering around, doing the pre-labs 1 hour before the lab, and just generally not really giving a shit. We've far below average compared to the rest of the class on our mid term marks, but we keep thinking we'll make up for it in the final (massive surge research to new energy source later on).

Once the exam comes around, we'll certainly be cramming the shit out of global climate change 1a03, but lets be serious... we're going to fail this course so hard. And failure doesn't give you an F, get gives you ****ing death, death for our children, and death of post-modern civilization.

:(

Originally Posted by RyanC

Climate change for some reason reminds me of studying..

Right now, we're kinda sorta skimming the material, puttering around, doing the pre-labs 1 hour before the lab, and just generally not really giving a shit. We've far below average compared to the rest of the class on our mid term marks, but we keep thinking we'll make up for it in the final (massive surge research to new energy source later on).

Once the exam comes around, we'll certainly be cramming the shit out of global climate change 1a03, but lets be serious... we're going to fail this course so hard. And failure doesn't give you an F, get gives you ****ing death, death for our children, and death of post-modern civilization.

:(

which is why we need to act NOW. loafting/leaving until the end will be the death of us.

Originally Posted by EngStud

It is unpatriotic to vote agaisnt oil sands project. My party, the NDP, has completly Failed when it comes to that issue.

Wait, what?

The first bit is dead on US-style hyper-polarized republican, and then your party is NDP. Interesting pair of viewpoints coming for the same post.

It's unpatriotic not to vote. Having an opinion and voicing it (even if its "wrong"), is about as patriotic as you can get in a democracy.


Anyway, back to the OP. It's about time, its not like Canada was following the thing anyway. Besides, if were are going to try and fix CO2 (whether its the root cause, just making it worse, or unrelated...), we should go after China (25% of total), the US (18%), the EU (14%), India (6%) and Russia (6%).* Canada only contributes 2% of the total, so even if you made Canada totally stop all emission, it would not have much of an impact.

*wiki, lol

heres a bit more on the issue, http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...kyoto-protocol

Originally Posted by britb

Wait, what?

The first bit is dead on US-style hyper-polarized republican, and then your party is NDP. Interesting pair of viewpoints coming for the same post.

I'm a centrist, and if I was an American, I would definitely be an Independant.

Canada needs Jobs Jobs Jobs. Oil industry offers good jobs and it is also good for shareholders.

Patriotic and democratic are different. Patriotic is doing what is in Canada's best interest(even if that includes going to war to steal a small nation's resources). I didn't say voting against it would be un-democratic. Quite the contrary, especially in a country where the Prime Minister has the ability to dissolve parliement (but that's another issue). You can be patriotic and undemocratic. You can also be both, neither or just democratic.

It is not patriotic (voting agaisnt tar sands project) because it doesn't help Canadians. Again, unemployment is not a good thing. NDP voted agaisnt it for political purposes. They need to get majority next time, so they have to vote agaisnt Torries and blame it on them since the blues are the majority. Purely a political move.

Although I do think we should be trying to fulfill the commitment we made at the Kyoto accords, it's really unreasonable to expect that we'd fulfill them at this point. Still, we should try and make a difference, and do something to make up for our failure to fulfill the Kyoto accords.
That being said, it's important to note that Canada hasn't exactly gotten that much worse. Although our total national emissions are up since 1997, our per capita emissions have decreased.
Yes, we need to make use of the Alberta oil sands and other Canadian oil sources to whether the rough economy, but we should attempt to improve our nation, and we should invest more in green technologies.

CBCnews.ca Interactive Timeline: Canada and Kyoto

"Green" technology is a very touchy sector when it comes to financing. As an investor or a bank, why would I invest in Green if there has been numerous failures of Green technology in the past ?

I think people should focus on nuclear fusion. A cup of water could supply energy to a house for a year.

Originally Posted by EngStud

"Green" technology is a very touchy sector when it comes to financing. As an investor or a bank, why would I invest in Green if there has been numerous failures of Green technology in the past ?

I think people should focus on nuclear fusion. A cup of water could supply energy to a house for a year.

People have been working on Fusion for over 50 years and have yielded nothing. Although I agree with you with green technology, on the same note would you invest in something that people have failed to do for over 50 years? That's why it has died down, and I see minimal chance in it being depended on in the future