[PublicAnimalNo9]

Lemmy Lemmy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I did read the page. It was VERY specific when it said Ontario's per capita income has steadily DECREASED SINCE THE 80s, and we ARE BELOW the national average! I'm sorry you think that you know more than the Conference Board of Canada.

Uhh, no it doesn't say that. The numbers I posted were directly from the page you cited!

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/economy/income-per-capita.aspx

On the region tab (on right) select Ontario. 1982 = $23,853; 2013 = $36,445, all adjusted to 2005 US$. So how is that "steadily decreasing"? The graph is positively sloped. How is that "steadily decreasing"? Maybe leave the economics to economists.

Or not read shit when I'm tired. Ontario's GRADE for PCI has steadily decreased since the 80's. Which still means we are losing ground compared to where we were in the 80s.
And you pointing out how it's adjusted for parity and spending power in 2005 dollars is hilarious considering the increase in the cost of living just in the last decade. Gasoline, up around 50% from 2005. Hydro, don't know the exact percentage increase without invoking exponents. But I'm sure all those people with decent jobs and electric heat in their homes who can't afford their hydro bills anymore will be tickled to know that hey, at least they earn more money than they would have 35 years ago, even if it doesn't go nearly as far as it did 35 years ago. Good thing food prices have remained stagnant over the last decade...oops no they haven't.


To put it another way. My buddy's older brother was hired by Chrysler in the early '80s. At that time they were earning somewhere around $20/hr. With his first paycheque he paid first and last on an apartment, furnished it, bought food for the week and still had some spending cash. Try doing that with what an autoworker makes today, even though he/she is making about $20,000/yr more than their 1980s counterparts.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

It didn't. The tax was revenue neutral. Just shifted it to carbon - you want to save money, you use less carbon. Much better deal that working more and paying more tax on it.

Again, what are your deep thoughts about reducing ghgs?

We're probably way beyond nd the tipping point,anyway. Being a stubborn species, we will charge headlong into oblivion, no matter what they do in BC.

[andyt]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

andyt andyt:

It didn't. The tax was revenue neutral. Just shifted it to carbon - you want to save money, you use less carbon. Much better deal that working more and paying more tax on it.

Again, what are your deep thoughts about reducing ghgs?

We're probably way beyond nd the tipping point,anyway. Being a stubborn species, we will charge headlong into oblivion, no matter what they do in BC.

Ah. Just throw up our hands without even trying. Good one.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

andyt andyt:

It didn't. The tax was revenue neutral. Just shifted it to carbon - you want to save money, you use less carbon. Much better deal that working more and paying more tax on it.

Again, what are your deep thoughts about reducing ghgs?

We're probably way beyond nd the tipping point,anyway. Being a stubborn species, we will charge headlong into oblivion, no matter what they do in BC.

Ah. Just throw up our hands without even trying. Good one.

It already happened about thirty years ago. You are chasing a horse that long since left the barn and is galloping away out of sight. We haven't yet reached consensus that atmospheric carbon even has an effect on our climate and among the doubters are rich and powerful who are actually preventing us from fixing the problem ... which would require an immediate and drastic reduction of the burning of all types of hydrocarbons all over the planet. This simply will not happen, ever. For one thing, it would deny the Third World the ability to develop and it is arguable that you have no right to do that so that we can drive automobiles.

The solution? Nature will take its course and BC lifting money out of people's wallets won't make one iota of difference. I suppose it makes the people of BC feel pretty good about themselves, in a smug sort of way but you are really just pissing into the gale.

[andyt]

Maybe. Alberta industry is asking for carbon taxes because they recognize that they will face limited markets for their product if things remain the same. Things are moving forward, at some point there will be a tipping point where there is a rush to reduce carbon.

Whether that tipping point comes soon enough remains to be seen. I admit I don't see much hope with the size of the world population. But there are other reasons to reduce carbon. Reduced pollution, better health (people who drive less are healthier), more cohesive, less car based societies and so on.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

Maybe. Alberta industry is asking for carbon taxes because they recognize that they will face limited markets for their product if things remain the same. Things are moving forward, at some point there will be a tipping point where there is a rush to reduce carbon.

Whether that tipping point comes soon enough remains to be seen. I admit I don't see much hope with the size of the world population. But there are other reasons to reduce carbon. Reduced pollution, better health (people who drive less are healthier), more cohesive, less car based societies and so on.

Maybe, they are grabbing revenue.

The root of all environmental problems is human fecundity. I don't know how old you are but if you are close to me, the human population has nearly tripled in our lifetime. Carbon tax or not, all it will take is a mega volcano eruption (it happens fairly frequently in history) to block sunlight for a growing season and the net result will be the death of one or two billion people, literally in a year. Shoreline inundation will do something similar but more slowly ( and bloodily. Imagine the territorial wars ahead of us). Our huge population already exists by artificial means (massive use of petroleum based agrochemicals, for one) and it is becoming extremely vulnerable. Our species will follow the same sort of population graph as any other with a steep rise, sudden fall and leveling off at a sustainable stasis (if we don't nuke ourselves out of existence). This WILL happen and atmospheric carbon is both symptom/side effect and possibly the mechanism by which our species finds sustainable numbers. It will be nasty. Something like this will happen. We are already likely double a sustainable population.

[andyt]

I'm probably older than you and have studied ecology. I've always thought that humans should have quit breeding right around the mid '50's. I know that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet unless we come up with some real fancy ways of living on much less, willingly. Doubtful, that. Basically the whole planet is Greece, trying to delay the inevitable.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

I'm probably older than you and have studied ecology. I've always thought that humans should have quit breeding right around the mid '50's. I know that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet unless we come up with some real fancy ways of living on much less, willingly. Doubtful, that. Basically the whole planet is Greece, trying to delay the inevitable.

Mankind is a teenager with a brand new muscle car and an attitude. Our species probably has about a 25% chance of surviving the next century and evolving into something better. I won't be around but I feel for what my children and grand children are going to live through. We are alive at the best time ever to be alive, probably in the best place.

[Thanos]

Caught the tail-end of Soylent Green last night. The part about that degree of out-of-control population growth was pretty much just a farce. The part about environmental and habitat destruction though, when Thatcher saw on the videos during Saul's death all the things that had been carelessly and indifferently destroyed forever? That's the shit that's unfortunately all too real, and it's just gathering steam and getting worse year by year. Give it a hundred years and the only wild animals left will be in zoos and aquariums. Give it another two hundred years and the only animals people will ever see will be the ones we keep as pets or use for food. That's how bad it's going to be in the near future, the near-total extermination of the wild in favour of the tamed, domesticated, and profitable. Dammit, Pentti Linkola was right.

[andyt]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Mankind is a teenager with a brand new muscle car and an attitude. Our species probably has about a 25% chance of surviving the next century and evolving into something better. I won't be around but I feel for what my children and grand children are going to live through. We are alive at the best time ever to be alive, probably in the best place.

Nah, the 60's were better. The muscle cars were new, the attitude was one of hope: things would only get better. We didn't know much about pollution and figured what the world needs now is love, sweet love, with no AIDS. As long as you were a white male, things were very very good. The music was better too.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

I'm probably older than you and have studied ecology. I've always thought that humans should have quit breeding right around the mid '50's. I know that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet unless we come up with some real fancy ways of living on much less, willingly. Doubtful, that. Basically the whole planet is Greece, trying to delay the inevitable.

Reading Wikipedia doesn't mean you studied ecology.

[andyt]

No, no it doesn't. Having a degree in biology does.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

No, no it doesn't. Having a degree in biology does.

Sure ya do, gramps.

[Alta_redneck]

Can't wait to pay into this bs and then still have days like today when as soon as you go outside the forest fire smoke burns your eyes. But with a few less dollars in my pocket I'll know that we're really accomplishing something.

[DrCaleb]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Can't wait to pay into this bs and then still have days like today when as soon as you go outside the forest fire smoke burns your eyes. But with a few less dollars in my pocket I'll know that we're really accomplishing something.

Carbon levies like this are just one small step to help us clean up the environment we've been polluting for decades. Now it's time to pay the tab, or we can wait a little while and the tab grows larger.

And forest fires are bad because we keep putting them out. The fuel piles up if we don't let it burn once in a while.